Rome in the early Church (long)

[Mystophilus]

The councils do not go against the Catholic Faith. Thus, I might add that there is never a council that rejected Papal Infallibility.. The Pope is certainly not impeccable, but he is infallible. I believe that the Catholic Church considers the Council of Ephesus is Ecumenical, since it is shown to be, on and official Catholic Website. If you are having trouble with the Papal primacy then you should also check the Council of Nicea II, again. It really shows the primacy.

The problem is not that the councils go against the Catholic faith, but that the Catholic faith, in the view of the Eastern Orthodox, goes against the Councils (q.v. the filioque).

No council ever needed to specifically reject papal infallibility, because the doctrine was never presented to any of them.

Personally, I have no problem with the primacy of the See of Peter in the early Church. The only problem is the ahistorical claim to Roman supremacy.

Where in Nicaea II do you see support for it, anyway?

 

[Mystophilus]

But what about Arianism? After the time of the first Ecumenical Council, Arianism was in the majority, was it not? Besides which in modern days, the majority of the Church subsists in the West; the Catholic Church. So if the Holy Spirit protects the majority, then the Holy Spirit must be on the side of the West.

Alternatively, the Holy Spirit does not protect the majority of the faithful, but there is an alternate system. Indeed, how can the East say that the Robber Council of Ephesus was invalid, whereas the Council of Chalcedon was valid? Catholics can point to which Council was held in Communion with the bishop of Rome. But what can the East point to?

This is the problem with not proofreading: one leaves ambiguities.

First, I should add that the idea was that the majority of the bishops were right. You are right about Arianism: it flourished despite Athanasius’ efforts against it. There was a council after Nicaea (Sardica in 343, if memory serves) which validated Arianism, but it was overturned by Constantinople in 381 on the basis of not having been ecumenical.

Indeed, the same theory of ‘majority demonstrates truth’ would validate the ideas of Roman Catholicism in the eyes of the Orthodox, were it not for the Catholic disagreements with those councils, the most vital of which is the doctrine of Papal Infallibility, placing the bishop of Rome above the councils.

The council of Chalcedon is deemed to be valid on the basis that it was ecumenical; as I understand it, they do not consider Ephesus in 449 to have been so.

 

[Image_of_God]

The problem is not that the councils go against the Catholic faith, but that the Catholic faith, in the view of the Eastern Orthodox, goes against the Councils (q.v. the filioque).

The filoque could not go against the councils, in the fact that it is clearly supported in the Bible.

No council ever needed to specifically reject papal infallibility, because the doctrine was never presented to any of them.

Right! It could not be defined at the time, since it was probably beyond explanation to the early Fathers, like the Assumption.

Personally, I have no problem with the primacy of the See of Peter in the early Church. The only problem is the ahistorical claim to Roman supremacy.

Where in Nicaea II do you see support for it, anyway?

This says it all:

If the ancient orthodoxy be perfected and restored by your means in those regions, and the venerable icons be placed in their original state, you will be partakers with the Lord Constantine, Emperor of old, now in the Divine keeping, and the Empress Helena, who made conspicuous and confirmed the orthodox Faith, and exalted still more your holy mother, the Catholic and Roman and spiritual Church, and with the orthodox Emperors who ruled after them, and so your most pious and heaven-protected name likewise will be set forth as that of another Constantine and another Helena, being renowned and praised through the whole world, by whom the holy Catholic and Apostolic Church is restored. And especially if you follow the tradition of the orthodox Faith of the Church of the holy Peter and Paul, the chief Apostles, and embrace their Vicar, as the Emperors who reigned before you of old both honoured their Vicar, and loved him with all their heart: and if your sacred majesty honour the most holy Roman Church of the chief Apostles, to whom was given power by God the Word himself to loose and to bind sins in heaven and earth.

newadvent.org/fathers/3819.htm

 

[Mystophilus]

Arianism was never the majority at the time of the council of Nicea that is why the vote was 316 to 2.

Atreyu’s question was about the post-Nicaean developments, I believe.

 

[Mystophilus]

The filoque could not go against the councils, in the fact that it is clearly supported in the Bible.

If you read the fourth (I think) post in the original list, you will see the reference to the filioque. The Greek problem was never with the doctrine behind the filioque, as that had been established by the Council of Ephesus in 431. The problem was in the church of Rome’s unilateral alteration of the Creed, which was in violation of the whole Ecumenical Council process, and had been specifically forbidden at Chalcedon in 451.

In other words, it was not the filioque which was the issue: it was the insertion of it.

This says it all:
newadvent.org/fathers/3819.htm

Actually, what you just quoted was Pope Hadrian’s letter to the Council, which shows his view, not the council’s.

Also, remember the difference between primacy and supremacy. The Greek churches, apart from some in Constantinople, never had a problem with Rome being first in honour, but they had no tolerance for Rome telling them what to do.

 

[Image_of_God]

I will have to get more information on the filoque contraversy, before I can say something about it.

Also, I may touch on the fact that in the Council of Constantinople, “honors” are special authorities. We see in this council, that:

The most glorious judges said: From what has been done and brought forward on each side, we perceive that the primacy of all (pro panton ta proteia) and the chief honour (ten exaireton timen) according to the canons, is to be kept for the most God-beloved archbishop of Old Rome, but that the most reverend archbishop of the royal city Constantinople, which is new Rome, is to enjoy the honour of the same primacy, and to have the power to ordain the metropolitans in the Asiatic, Pontic, and Thracian dioceses

newadvent.org/fathers/3811.htm
In fact one of the saints of both Churches, that is Pope Gregory I says:
St. Gregory I:

For as to what they say about the Church of Constantinople, who can doubt that it is subject to the Apostolic See, as both the most pious lord the emperor and our brother the bishop of that city continually acknowledge?

newadvent.org/fathers/360209012.htm

The Constantinoplians may not have liked it very much, but a saint of both Churches says that the all Churches are subject to the Roman Pontiff, even Constantinople.

 

[Atreyu]

I believe that the Catholic Church considers the Council of Ephesus is Ecumenical, since it is shown to be, on and official Catholic Website.

Mystophilus and I were referring to the Robber Council of Ephesus, held in 449. This is definitely not considered to be Ecumenical, nor valid in the slightest. The Ecumenical Council held at Ephesus was held in 431.

 

[Atreyu]

In other words, it was not the filioque which was the issue: it was the insertion of it.

I once considered this issue to be the greatest case against the Catholic Church and in particular, Papal Supremacy. I saw the issue being precisely as you have defined it. However, I think that this issue can easily be explained if we assert that the form of the Creed in each rite is an issue of discipline only. If it is an issue of discipline, then the Roman rite had every rite to change it, adapting to the specific needs of the day (ie combating more arianism). So long as the form of the Universal Creed has not been altered by the Romans - and I believe it has not, as evidenced by the fact that the Eastern Catholic rites do not have the filioque in their Creeds - then there is no confict with the Council of Constantinople. Does that make sense?

 

[Atreyu]

First, I should add that the idea was that the majority of the bishops were right. You are right about Arianism: it flourished despite Athanasius’ efforts against it. There was a council after Nicaea (Sardica in 343, if memory serves) which validated Arianism, but it was overturned by Constantinople in 381 on the basis of not having been ecumenical.

Are you sure you meant Sardica? I don’t see anything at Sardica that validated Arianism. In fact, Sardica is a good witness for Papal Supremacy. From the Catholic Encyclopedia:
CANON III.

(Greek.)

BISHOP HOSIUS said: This also it is necessary to add,–that no bishop pass from his own province to another province in which there are bishops, unless indeed he be called by his brethren, that we seem not to close the gates of charity.

And this case likewise is to be provided for, that if in any province a bishop has some matter against his brother and fellow-bishop, neither of the two should call in as arbiters bishops from another province.

But if perchance sentence be given against a bishop in any matter and he supposes his case to be not unsound but good, in order that the question may be reopened, let us, if it seem good to your charity, honour the memory of Peter the Apostle, and let those who gave judgment write to Julius, the bishop of Rome, so that, if necessary, the case may be retried by the bishops of the neighbouring provinces and let him appoint arbiters; but if it cannot be shown that his case is of such a sort as to need a new trial, let the judgment once given not be annulled, but stand good as before.

CANON IV.

(Greek.)

BISHOP GAUDENTIUS said: If it seems good to you, it is necessary to add to this decision full of sincere charity which thou hast pronounced, that if any bishop be deposed by the sentence of these neighbouring bishops, and assert that he has fresh matter in defence, a new bishop be not settled in his see, unless the bishop of Rome judge and render a decision as to this.

CANON V.

(Greek.)

BISHOP HOSIUS said: Decreed, that if any bishop is accused, and the bishops of the same region assemble and depose him from his office, and he appealing, so to speak, takes refuge with the most blessed bishop of the Roman church, and he be willing to give him a hearing, and think it right to renew the examination of his case, let him be pleased to write to those fellow-bishops who are nearest the province that they may examine the particulars with care and accuracy and give their votes on the matter in accordance with the word of truth. And if any one require that his case be heard yet again, and at his request it seem good to move the bishop of Rome to send presbyters a latere, let it be in the power of that bishop, according as he judges it to be good and decides it to be right–that some be sent to be judges with the bishops and invested with his authority by whom they were sent. And be this also ordained. But if he think that the bishops are sufficient for the examination and decision of the matter let him do what shall seem good in his most prudent judgment.

The bishops answered: What has been said is approved.

Now as for Athanasius, were not the Eastern bishops in majority against him? Was it not the West that continually upheld his orthodoxy, amid much condemnation from the East? I just don’t see how this majority view could possibly hold water, if the majority of bishops were at one stage, Arian. Is that not a fact? I mean, I’m actually asking here - it’s not a rhetorical question.

 

[Mystophilus]

It makes no sense for a council to on the one hand give a greater privilege to the see of Constantinople than has ever been given in a council to the see of Rome, and then on the other hand claim that the see of Constantinople is second in honour to the see of Rome. This can be explained if canons IX and XVII refer only to the exarchs in the narrower sense, as Van Espen explains.

While I understand what you are saying, the missing element of sense is the difference between honour and power. Through the various councils, we see a growing influence on the part of Constantinople, one which finally eclipses Rome so thoroughly that the seventh council, which reiterates this Constantinopolitan primacy of jurisdiction, mentions Rome not at all.

In other words, the Greeks were happy to continue to accord Rome a primacy of honour, but would only pass power into the hands of their own.

Ultimately, it was this rivalry, between Old and New Rome, which destroyed the unity of the Church.

 

[Image_of_God]

While I understand what you are saying, the missing element of sense is the difference between honour and power. Through the various councils, we see a growing influence on the part of Constantinople, one which finally eclipses Rome so thoroughly that the seventh council, which reiterates this Constantinopolitan primacy of jurisdiction, mentions Rome not at all.

In other words, the Greeks were happy to continue to accord Rome a primacy of honour, but would only pass power into the hands of their own.

Ultimately, it was this rivalry, between Old and New Rome, which destroyed the unity of the Church.

Not all the Greeks were disastified with Rome’s authority. In fact many orthodox Easterners, believed in Rome.

I showed this on another post, but I think you would benefit from it. Here is St. Maximus[an orthodox Greek] and his trust in Rome contrary to the belief of just “a primacy of honor.”
ewtn.com/library/MARY/10078B.htm

 

[Mystophilus]

Also, I may touch on the fact that in the Council of Constantinople, “honors” are special authorities. We see in this council, that:

The most glorious judges said: From what has been done and brought forward on each side, we perceive that the primacy of all (pro panton ta proteia) and the chief honour (ten exaireton timen) according to the canons, is to be kept for the most God-beloved archbishop of Old Rome, but that the most reverend archbishop of the royal city Constantinople, which is new Rome, is to enjoy the honour of the same primacy, and to have the power to ordain the metropolitans in the Asiatic, Pontic, and Thracian dioceses

What you have just quoted is the council affirming the primacy of honour of Rome before asserting the power of Constantinople: “Okay, Rome, you are number one, everybody loves you, but Constantinople gets to control this territory.”

Rome is placated before Constantinople is empowered, in other words. Most notably, this empowerment was not unusual, but was merely the standard role of any patriarch, and indeed any metropolitan. This is the delineation of the scope of the see of Constantinople, and the fact that particular reference is made to Rome would suggest a belief that Rome might have been upset about that. The reason for that belief was the fact that the European border between the Greek-speaking and Latin-speaking worlds was the border between Thrace and Illyria, over which there were several ecclesial spats: this council has just placed Thrace squarely on the Greek side.

The Constantinoplians may not have liked it very much, but a saint of both Churches says that the all Churches are subject to the Roman Pontiff, even Constantinople.

He certainly did, but you will note that he said it in a letter to Syracuse, which is within his own see.

This has been one of the reasons for conducting this thread. What matters most is what the Greeks said about Rome, because it is the subject who gives power to the authority, not the authority who takes it. Consider this as an analogy: the People’s Republic of China claims that Taiwan belongs to them. If we take the authority’s word, then Taiwan is merely another province of the PRC. Taiwan, however, has its own government, its own taxation system, and its own army. Taiwan does not belong to the PRC because Taiwan does not want to belong to the PRC, and what the PRC wants does not matter.

 

[Mystophilus]

I once considered this issue to be the greatest case against the Catholic Church and in particular, Papal Supremacy. I saw the issue being precisely as you have defined it. However, I think that this issue can easily be explained if we assert that the form of the Creed in each rite is an issue of discipline only. If it is an issue of discipline, then the Roman rite had every rite to change it, adapting to the specific needs of the day (ie combating more arianism). So long as the form of the Universal Creed has not been altered by the Romans - and I believe it has not, as evidenced by the fact that the Eastern Catholic rites do not have the filioque in their Creeds - then there is no confict with the Council of Constantinople. Does that make sense?

It makes sense from a Roman point of view, but not from a Greek one. This was precisely the problem: the Latins saw no reason why they could not change their version of the Creed, whereas the Greeks were horrified that anyone would even consider the idea. As I have just mentioned to Image of God, this has been the point of this thread: talking about the Greek view of Rome and Rome’s role in the Church. Whatsoever the Latins thought about Rome, it was what the Greeks thought which defined Rome’s power outside of its own see, because it would have been the Greeks over which any such power would have extended. They never accepted it.

 

[Image_of_God]

What you have just quoted is the council affirming the primacy of honour of Rome before asserting the power of Constantinople: “Okay, Rome, you are number one, everybody loves you, but Constantinople gets to control this territory.”

Rome is placated before Constantinople is empowered, in other words. Most notably, this empowerment was not unusual, but was merely the standard role of any patriarch, and indeed any metropolitan. This is the delineation of the scope of the see of Constantinople, and the fact that particular reference is made to Rome would suggest a belief that Rome might have been upset about that. The reason for that belief was the fact that the European border between the Greek-speaking and Latin-speaking worlds was the border between Thrace and Illyria, over which there were several ecclesial spats: this council has just placed Thrace squarely on the Greek side.

He certainly did, but you will note that he said it in a letter to Syracuse, which is within his own see.

This has been one of the reasons for conducting this thread. What matters most is what the Greeks said about Rome, because it is the subject who gives power to the authority, not the authority who takes it. Consider this as an analogy: the People’s Republic of China claims that Taiwan belongs to them. If we take the authority’s word, then Taiwan is merely another province of the PRC. Taiwan, however, has its own government, its own taxation system, and its own army. Taiwan does not belong to the PRC because Taiwan does not want to belong to the PRC, and what the PRC wants does not matter.

Read what St. Maximus, a Greek says.
ewtn.com/library/MARY/10078B.htm

I would agree with you patially. When it comes to Patriachial means, than the other bishops have their own control. But when, it comes to Papal means, it is the Bishop of Rome. Yes it is true that Constantinople had control of its own area. But no one should doubt that the Pope rigthful had some intervention in their affairs.

 

[Mystophilus]

I just posted a reply, and got shut down in mid transmission, so this will be briefer than you deserve because I have to rush out.

‘Sardica’ should have been ‘Sirmium’, relating to the influence of the Semi-arians

The primacy of jurisdiction granted to Rome at Sardica is interesting, but Sardica was never regarded as ecumenical, hence the fact that the later ecumenical councils do not describe it as being so. Notably, the later ecumenical councils, i.e., Chalcedon 451 and Nicaea 787, gave precisely this primacy of jurisdiction to Constantinople. Constantinople’s star rose above Rome’s.

On the Arian majority, the influence of Arianism apparently depends mostly upon the influence of Eusebius of Nicomedia and other Arians upon the imperial court in Constantinople. I think that there may have actually been a majority of Arians in the see of Alexandria, but I cannot find the reference. However, only an ecumenical council, i.e., a council of representatives of the whole
Greek end of the Church, could demonstrate an Arian majority across the whole Greek end of the Church. No such council happened until Constantinople in 381, the council which included no Latins whatsoever, and there the Greeks decided against Arianism once more, passing their decisions across to Rome for her agreement, which would then mean that both sides were in harmony, that the council was ecumenical, and that the Church was whole. At that time, it was.

Are you sure you meant Sardica? I don’t see anything at Sardica that validated Arianism. In fact, Sardica is a good witness for Papal Supremacy. From the Catholic Encyclopedia:
CANON III.

(Greek.)

BISHOP HOSIUS said: This also it is necessary to add,–that no bishop pass from his own province to another province in which there are bishops, unless indeed he be called by his brethren, that we seem not to close the gates of charity.

And this case likewise is to be provided for, that if in any province a bishop has some matter against his brother and fellow-bishop, neither of the two should call in as arbiters bishops from another province.

But if perchance sentence be given against a bishop in any matter and he supposes his case to be not unsound but good, in order that the question may be reopened, let us, if it seem good to your charity, honour the memory of Peter the Apostle, and let those who gave judgment write to Julius, the bishop of Rome, so that, if necessary, the case may be retried by the bishops of the neighbouring provinces and let him appoint arbiters; but if it cannot be shown that his case is of such a sort as to need a new trial, let the judgment once given not be annulled, but stand good as before.

CANON IV.

(Greek.)

BISHOP GAUDENTIUS said: If it seems good to you, it is necessary to add to this decision full of sincere charity which thou hast pronounced, that if any bishop be deposed by the sentence of these neighbouring bishops, and assert that he has fresh matter in defence, a new bishop be not settled in his see, unless the bishop of Rome judge and render a decision as to this.

CANON V.

(Greek.)

BISHOP HOSIUS said: Decreed, that if any bishop is accused, and the bishops of the same region assemble and depose him from his office, and he appealing, so to speak, takes refuge with the most blessed bishop of the Roman church, and he be willing to give him a hearing, and think it right to renew the examination of his case, let him be pleased to write to those fellow-bishops who are nearest the province that they may examine the particulars with care and accuracy and give their votes on the matter in accordance with the word of truth. And if any one require that his case be heard yet again, and at his request it seem good to move the bishop of Rome to send presbyters a latere, let it be in the power of that bishop, according as he judges it to be good and decides it to be right–that some be sent to be judges with the bishops and invested with his authority by whom they were sent. And be this also ordained. But if he think that the bishops are sufficient for the examination and decision of the matter let him do what shall seem good in his most prudent judgment.

The bishops answered: What has been said is approved.

Now as for Athanasius, were not the Eastern bishops in majority against him? Was it not the West that continually upheld his orthodoxy, amid much condemnation from the East? I just don’t see how this majority view could possibly hold water, if the majority of bishops were at one stage, Arian. Is that not a fact? I mean, I’m actually asking here - it’s not a rhetorical question.

 

[Atreyu]

Mystophilus:

Greek end of the Church, could demonstrate an Arian majority across the whole Greek end of the Church. No such council happened until Constantinople in 381, the council which included no Latins whatsoever, and there the Greeks decided against Arianism once more, passing their decisions across to Rome for her agreement, which would then mean that both sides were in harmony, that the council was ecumenical, and that the Church was whole. At that time, it was.

Ok then, so how do the Greeks explain that the Council of Chalcedon was Ecumenical, without the approval of the see of Alexandria?

 

[Mystophilus]

I would agree with you partially. When it comes to Patriarchal means, than the other bishops have their own control. But when, it comes to Papal means, it is the Bishop of Rome. Yes it is true that Constantinople had control of its own area. But no one should doubt that the Pope rightfully had some intervention in their affairs.

From a modern Roman Catholic perspective, no one should.

However, from a Greek pre-schism perspective, they all did. As mentioned in the original posts, numerous limitations were placed upon the powers of bishops, and the bishop of Rome was never exempted from any of these by any of the councils.

I had a look at Maximus the Confessor, both on the EWTN site and on Orthodox Wiki. He is certainly one of the Easterners who held Rome in high favour: I expected that there should be some, but I had not managed to locate any. Thank you for that. Apparently, he once said, “I hold the Latin faith, but I speak the Greek language.” His views regarding the religious authority of Rome, however, were not widespread amongst his co-linguists.

 

[Mystophilus]

Ok then, so how do the Greeks explain that the Council of Chalcedon was Ecumenical, without the approval of the see of Alexandria?

As I understand it, the main issue was representation: with some 630 bishops present, including 4 Latins, the patriarch of Alexandria himself (at least in the first session), and numerous other Alexandrian bishops, some of whom supported Dioscuros, and some of whom condemned him for his role in the Robber Council and for other alleged abuses. I would suggest that it was particularly the latter which were important: while the councils did grant metropolitans and exarchs a number of administrative powers, none ever granted them spiritual authority, because that always and only lay with the councils themselves. As such, the see of Alexandria was represented by the bishops of Egypt and Libya, whether or not the patriarch was present.

 

[Atreyu]

As I understand it, the main issue was representation: with some 630 bishops present, including 4 Latins, the patriarch of Alexandria himself (at least in the first session), and numerous other Alexandrian bishops, some of whom supported Dioscuros, and some of whom condemned him for his role in the Robber Council and for other alleged abuses. I would suggest that it was particularly the latter which were important: while the councils did grant metropolitans and exarchs a number of administrative powers, none ever granted them spiritual authority, because that always and only lay with the councils themselves. As such, the see of Alexandria was represented by the bishops of Egypt and Libya, whether or not the patriarch was present.

Was Alexandria represented at the later Ecumenical Councils in the same way? Again, this isn’t a rhetorical question; I’m actually asking.

 

[Atreyu]

While I understand what you are saying, the missing element of sense is the difference between honour and power. Through the various councils, we see a growing influence on the part of Constantinople, one which finally eclipses Rome so thoroughly that the seventh council, which reiterates this Constantinopolitan primacy of jurisdiction, mentions Rome not at all.

This growth in power would be roughly equivalent to the growth in importance of the size and influence of the city of Constantinople, right? So it remains to be seen whether this is a legitimate development of the Catholic faith and Rome is clutching on to the good ole days, or if Constantinople is being a usurper and Rome still really has supremacy. I believe the answer to this question is provided by Irenaeus, when he says:
“But since it would be too long to enumerate in such a volume as this the succession of all the churches, we shall confound all those who, in whatever manner, whether through self-satisfaction or vainglory, or through blindness and wicked opinion, assemble other than where it is proper, by pointing out here the successions of the bishops of the greatest and most ancient church known to all, founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul, that church which has the tradition and the faith which comes down to us after having been announced to men by the apostles. With that church, because of its superior origin, all the churches must agree, that is, all the faithful in the whole world, and it is in her that the faithful everywhere have maintained the apostolic tradition” (Against Heresies 3:3:2 [A.D. 189]).
The Churches must agree with Rome and the apostolic tradition is maintained in the church of Rome due to her superior origin. This is something that can never change. Or maybe we should give primacy of honour these days to the Archbishop of Westminster - the head bishop as it were of the most influential city in the world (most arguably of course)?

In other words, the Greeks were happy to continue to accord Rome a primacy of honour, but would only pass power into the hands of their own.

I believe this power passed to Rome can be explained as being a local power for the bishop of Constantinople, rather than as being over the whole Catholic Church. Maybe we have a bit more work to do in this thread, but I wonder if you will concede that it is a possible explanation? If you do concede this, then the overwhelming witness of the Church fathers (given for example at the list you linked to and in books such as Upon This Rock by Steve Ray) overwhelms any doubt we may have. In other words, we are faced with a choice:

1. 
   *]Power did pass from Rome to Constantinople, and this power is mutable throughout history. The witness of the fathers in favour of Roman Supremacy can be explained if we say that these are local powers given to the Patriarch of Rome. And Irenaeus was plain wrong (along with say, Jerome for example, in his letter to Damasus).
   *]Power did pass to Constantinople, due to Imperial power passing to Constantinople, but Supremacy remained at Rome due to the origin (something that will never change) of the church at Rome. The witness of the councils that you have mentioned can be explained by saying that these powers were local powers only.
   *]The discrepancy cannot be explained; there is a contradiction.
   

   Ultimately, it was this rivalry, between Old and New Rome, which destroyed the unity of the Church.

   Indeed.