Rome in the early Church (long)

[StMarkEofE]

I wonder then why the Council of Florence was rejected? I mean, it was accepted by all the higher clergy of the East except for Mark of Ephesus. It seems to me that it was the laity who rejected the Council of Florence, not the Eastern Episcopate.

Thus my adopted forum namesake.

Yes, sometimes the hierarchy are mesmorized by the treats of the west rather than the truths as these so called clergy met their match when they returned to their homes. The laity knew more about the truth of the faith than these pathetic priests. A wise choice indeed for St Mark for he knew the deceptive devices invited upon these weak men of the east and recognized a flaw in doctrine and he stood fast and rejected the heresy that was met upon the eastern clerics.

 

[Atreyu]

Thus my adopted forum namesake.

Yes, sometimes the hierarchy are mesmorized by the treats of the west rather than the truths as these so called clergy met their match when they returned to their homes. The laity knew more about the truth of the faith than these pathetic priests. A wise choice indeed for St Mark for he knew the deceptive devices invited upon these weak men of the east and recognized a flaw in doctrine and he stood fast and rejected the heresy that was met upon the eastern clerics.

That’s begging the question, is it not? The faithful laity probably knew better in the case of Arianism then, right? Oh no, they didn’t… Again I’m assuming that Arianism constituted a majority of the Eastern laity sometime after the Council of Nicaea. That’s right, isn’t it?

 

[StMarkEofE]

That’s begging the question, is it not? The faithful laity probably knew better in the case of Arianism then, right? Oh no, they didn’t… Again I’m assuming that Arianism constituted a majority of the Eastern laity sometime after the Council of Nicaea. That’s right, isn’t it?

No I disagree, it dosnt conger up Arianism as you suggest. It does however conger up the belief that these clergy were so worn out at Farerra and Florence that they were weak enough to agree to anything just to get back to the east with an agreement flawed though it may be. Yes, Arianism was rampant in the east but as you already know we consigned that heresy to council who condemned it thoroughly and without exception. So, we have weak clergy, not news to us, but when they start accepting beliefs that are foreign to Orthodoxy then we a laity have to take a stand and understandably so.

 

[Atreyu]

No I disagree, it dosnt conger up Arianism as you suggest. It does however conger up the belief that these clergy were so worn out at Farerra and Florence that they were weak enough to agree to anything just to get back to the east with an agreement flawed though it may be. Yes, Arianism was rampant in the east but as you already know we consigned that heresy to council who condemned it thoroughly and without exception. So, we have weak clergy, not news to us, but when they start accepting beliefs that are foreign to Orthodoxy then we a laity have to take a stand and understandably so.

Without exception - was it really without exception? And you’re telling me that the Holy Spirit abandons the clergy when they are worn out and weak (in body I assume)?

 

[Atreyu]

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.

From the Acts of Session I of the Council of Chalcedon:
Paschasinus, the most reverend bishop and legate of the Apostolic See, stood up in the midst with his most reverend colleagues and said: We received directions at the hands of the most blessed and apostolic bishop of the Roman city, which is the head of all the churches, which directions say that Dioscorus is not to be allowed a seat in this assembly, but that if he should attempt to take his seat he is to be cast out. This instruction we must carry out; if now your holiness so commands let him be expelled or else we leave.

The most glorious judges and the full senate said: What special charge do you prefer against the most reverend bishop Dioscorus?

Paschasinus, the most reverend bishop and legate of the Apostolic See, said: Since he has come, it is necessary that objection be made to him.

The most glorious judges and the whole senate said: In accordance with what has been said, let the charge under which he lies, be specifically made.

Lucentius, the most reverend bishop having the place of the Apostolic See, said: Let him give a reason for his judgment. For he undertook to give sentence against one over whom he had no jurisdiction. And he dared to hold a synod without the authority of the Apostolic See, a thing which had never taken place nor can take place.

Paschasinus the most reverend bishop, holding the place of the Apostolic See, said: We cannot go counter to the decrees of the most blessed and apostolic bishop “Pope” for “bishop” in the Latin], who governs the Apostolic See, nor against the ecclesiastical canons nor the patristic traditions.

The most glorious judges and the full senate, said: It is proper that you should set forth specifically in what he hath gone astray.

Lucentius, the venerable bishop and holding the place of the Apostolic See, said: We will not suffer so great a wrong to be done us and you, as that he who is come to be judged should sit down [as one to give judgment].

The glorious judges and the whole senate said: If you hold the office of judge, you ought not to defend yourself as if you were to be judged.

And when Dioscorus the most religious bishop of Alexandria at the bidding of the most glorious judges and of the sacred assembly (tes hieras sygkletou) had sat down in the midst, and the most reverend Roman bishops also had sat down in their proper places, and kept silence, Eusebius, the most reverend bishop of the city of Dorylaeum, stepping into the midst, said: [He then presented a petition, and the Acts of the Latrocinium were read. Also the Acts of the council of Constantinople under Flavian against Eutyches.]

And when they were read, the most glorious judges and immense assembly (hyperphyes sygkletos) said: What do the most reverend bishops of the present holy synod say? When he thus expounded the faith did Flavian, of holy memory, preserve, the orthodox and catholic religion, or did he in any respect err concerning it?

Paschasinus the most reverend bishop, representing the Apostolic See, said; Flavian of blessed memory hath most holily and perfectly expounded the faith. His faith and exposition agrees with the epistle of the most blessed and apostolic man, the bishop of Rome.

Anatolius the most reverend archbishop of Constantinople said; The blessed Flavian hath beautifully and orthodoxly set forth the faith of our fathers.

Lucentius, the most reverend bishop, and legate of the Apostolic See, said; Since the faith of Flavian of blessed memory agrees with the Apostolic See and the tradition of the fathers it is just that the sentence by which he was condemned by the heretics should be turned back upon them by this most holy synod.
Now I took this from the Catholic Encyclopedia, thus I am open to the suggestion that it is not entirely impartial. If this claim is made however, it would need to be backed up.

Doesn’t the above just scream Papal Supremacy? It also implicitly announces the standard by which Councils are held to be Ecumenical. More precisely it announces the standard by which Councils are held to not be Ecumenical: if they are held outside of the authority of the Apostolic See.

 

[StMarkEofE]

Without exception - was it really without exception? And you’re telling me that the Holy Spirit abandons the clergy when they are worn out and weak (in body I assume)?

No that is not what I intended, but it does say that men worn and weak are human and may on occassion give up reason for the sake of accomodation and peace which may be the bane of their original intent. Wear down someone long enough and eventually they will deny there own identity. These men were broke, malnutrients, and home sick. The Vatican held all the cards and they knew it. How do we get home with some form of respect: Accept what the Romans have put forth and we will sort it out when we get home attitude was the rule.

 

[Atreyu]

No that is not what I intended, but it does say that men worn and weak are human and may on occassion give up reason for the sake of accomodation and peace which may be the bane of their original intent. Wear down someone long enough and eventually they will deny there own identity. These men were broke, malnutrients, and home sick. The Vatican held all the cards and they knew it. How do we get home with some form of respect: Accept what the Romans have put forth and we will sort it out when we get home attitude was the rule.

Well that is quite a charge. And how did Mark of Ephesus escape these unholy Romans?

 

[StMarkEofE]

Well that is quite a charge. And how did Mark of Ephesus escape these unholy Romans?

I believe that St.Mark had a healthy scepticism while at Florence which enable him to decern what the east believed to be the truth in doctrine and hold to it. We can not measure the faith of those prelates who caved into Vatican demands but we do know that some eastern prelates became bishops and cardinals in the west which gives credence to premise that some were very weak in their faith to begin with and would have agreed to Rome on any account. St. Mark who instinctively questioned doctrines that were foriegn to the east and rejected out of hand the Filioque as heresy and Rome plans at reunion was dashed by this single stroke of rejection.

 

[Atreyu]

I believe that St.Mark had a healthy scepticism while at Florence which enable him to decern what the east believed to be the truth in doctrine and hold to it. We can not measure the faith of those prelates who caved into Vatican demands but we do know that some eastern prelates became bishops and cardinals in the west which gives credence to premise that some were very weak in their faith to begin with and would have agreed to Rome on any account. St. Mark who instinctively questioned doctrines that were foriegn to the east and rejected out of hand the Filioque as heresy and Rome plans at reunion was dashed by this single stroke of rejection.

That didn’t really answer my question. I thought you were contending that the other Eastern bishops caved in to Rome under some form of duress. I was just wondering why Rome let Mark be when they were putting the other bishops under so much pressure?

 

[Mystophilus]

Now I took this from the Catholic Encyclopedia, thus I am open to the suggestion that it is not entirely impartial. If this claim is made however, it would need to be backed up.

Doesn’t the above just scream Papal Supremacy? It also implicitly announces the standard by which Councils are held to be Ecumenical. More precisely it announces the standard by which Councils are held to not be Ecumenical: if they are held outside of the authority of the Apostolic See.

First, we should note that all of the references to the significance of Rome here are in the words of the Roman legates. Council members said what they thought, and do not forget that some of these people were later declared to be heretics, and then the Council made decisions, and it was only those decisions which the Greeks understood to be binding upon the Church.

As regards the rule for determining whether a council was ecumenical, you have that mostly correct, but a critical factor is missing. The οικουμενη, whence Latin and then English derive ‘ecumenical’, means ‘the inhabited world’: ‘ecumenical’ meant something very similar to καθολικος, ‘universal’. If Rome did not agree with the decisions of a council, then not everyone agreed, which meant that it was not ecumenical. Similarly, if Alexandria did not, then it was not ecumenical, and likewise Jerusalem, Antioch, or Constantinople.

There is a difference here in that Rome’s hierarchy was far more rigid, and so the bishop of Rome not agreeing equalled Rome not agreeing, but the others were capable of disagreeing with, and overruling, their patriarchs: they were determinedly democratic. This, I suspect, was part of the problem: the Romans had such a hierarchical view of their own system that they were unable to comprehend the much more egalitarian Greek one, and imagined that their hierarchy held sway in the rest of the Church.

What gave these councils was not adherence to any separate authority, but their demonstration of the unity of the Church.

For this reason, when the others saw Rome as breaking unity over the filioque, they did not bow to Rome’s will, as they would have were Rome their master, but instead demanded that Rome had to come back into unity with them, the majority.

 

[Atreyu]

First, we should note that all of the references to the significance of Rome here are in the words of the Roman legates. Council members said what they thought, and do not forget that some of these people were later declared to be heretics, and then the Council made decisions, and it was only those decisions which the Greeks understood to be binding upon the Church.

As regards the rule for determining whether a council was ecumenical, you have that mostly correct, but a critical factor is missing. The οικουμενη, whence Latin and then English derive ‘ecumenical’, means ‘the inhabited world’: ‘ecumenical’ meant something very similar to καθολικος, ‘universal’. If Rome did not agree with the decisions of a council, then not everyone agreed, which meant that it was not ecumenical. Similarly, if Alexandria did not, then it was not ecumenical, and likewise Jerusalem, Antioch, or Constantinople.

There is a difference here in that Rome’s hierarchy was far more rigid, and so the bishop of Rome not agreeing equalled Rome not agreeing, but the others were capable of disagreeing with, and overruling, their patriarchs: they were determinedly democratic. This, I suspect, was part of the problem: the Romans had such a hierarchical view of their own system that they were unable to comprehend the much more egalitarian Greek one, and imagined that their hierarchy held sway in the rest of the Church.

What gave these councils was not adherence to any separate authority, but their demonstration of the unity of the Church.

For this reason, when the others saw Rome as breaking unity over the filioque, they did not bow to Rome’s will, as they would have were Rome their master, but instead demanded that Rome had to come back into unity with them, the majority.

But what if the Roman Supremacy was assumed to be true by all? If this is true, then the Roman legates’ comments fit in perfectly well. Similarly, the lack of a definitive council proclamation on the Supremacy makes sense because there was no dispute amongst orthodox Christians.

But if the Supremacy was not assumed to be true by all orthodox Christians, then wouldn’t the Eastern Christians have been a little bit upset over the Roman legate’s comment that the Roman bishop is the head of all the churches? I mean here we have, in a council, an explicit reference to the Supremacy of Rome, that goes unchallenged. Why should we not believe that it was believed then by all without dispute? It makes sense.

As for an Eastern father on the Supremacy of Rome, try John Chrysostom:
“In speaking of Peter, the recollection of another Peter has come to me” (viz. St. Flavian, his bishop) “our common father and teacher, who has succeeded to the virtue of Peter, and also to his chair. For this is the one great prerogative of our city, that it received the coryphaeus of the apostles as its teacher in the beginning. For it was right that she who first was adorned with the name of Christians [cf. Acts 11:26] before the whole world, should receive the first of the apostles as her pastor. But though we received him as teacher, we did not retain him to the end, but gave him up to Royal Rome. Nay, but we did retain him till the end; for we do not retain the body of Peter but we retain the faith of Peter as though it were Peter himself; and while we retain the faith of Peter, we have Peter himself.” (Hom in inscr Act II, 6, vol III, 86[70])
Here is my source for this quote, at which you can read a fairly long essay on how the golden-mouthed preacher viewed Peter.

 

[StMarkEofE]

That didn’t really answer my question. I thought you were contending that the other Eastern bishops caved in to Rome under some form of duress. I was just wondering why Rome let Mark be when they were putting the other bishops under so much pressure?

Some men are stronger that others I guess.

 

[Mystophilus]

But what if the Roman Supremacy was assumed to be true by all?

If they felt that the resurrection of Jesus required actual expression (in the Nicene Creed), I do not think that we can reasonably assume that they believed other things which they felt lacked the need for actual expression, particularly when such a belief would contradict all of the Council decrees which localised the powers of patriarchs.

But if the Supremacy was not assumed to be true by all orthodox Christians, then wouldn’t the Eastern Christians have been a little bit upset over the Roman legate’s comment that the Roman bishop is the head of all the churches? I mean here we have, in a council, an explicit reference to the Supremacy of Rome, that goes unchallenged. Why should we not believe that it was believed then by all without dispute? It makes sense.

You are forgetting the purpose of these councils: they existed in order to define what was believed by all. If a council did not define it, then it was not required belief for membership in the Church.

As mentioned in the original posts in this thread, the Councils imposed plenty of limitations on the powers of the patriarchates, which included Rome. They did not need to say, “And Rome does not have authority over the churches outside of its See”, because they had already said that no patriarchate had any such authority.

Here is my source for this quote, at which you can read a fairly long essay on how the golden-mouthed preacher viewed Peter.

Rome was royal: it was the imperial capital. This comment of Chrysostom’s, however, is not a Council decision, which made it non-binding as far as the Greek churches were concerned, nor is it the only thing which Chrysostom said, as Father Ambrose and Montalban have both been demonstrating in the thread on Mt 16:18, nor does it claim any extra-territorial authority for Rome.

 

[Atreyu]

If they felt that the resurrection of Jesus required actual expression (in the Nicene Creed), I do not think that we can reasonably assume that they believed other things which they felt lacked the need for actual expression, particularly when such a belief would contradict all of the Council decrees which localised the powers of patriarchs.

I think we can indeed assume that they believed other things that lacked the need for actual expression, such as the teaching on the two wills of Christ prior to the Sixth Ecumenical Council. It is only when a dispute arises that such a belief needs to be so defined. And I reiterate that I do not see any Council decrees that have contradicted Papal Supremacy.

You are forgetting the purpose of these councils: they existed in order to define what was believed by all. If a council did not define it, then it was not required belief for membership in the Church.

Doesn’t this contradict what you said above? I thought councils existed in order to correct beliefs in matters of dispute; such that the faithful could look to these councils and discover the orthodox belief.

As mentioned in the original posts in this thread, the Councils imposed plenty of limitations on the powers of the patriarchates, which included Rome. They did not need to say, “And Rome does not have authority over the churches outside of its See”, because they had already said that no patriarchate had any such authority.

Well this is the crux. With regard to the appointment of Matthias as an apostle, St John Chrysostom comments:
Here is forethought for providing a teacher; here was the first who was ordained a teacher. He did not say: ‘We are sufficient.’ So far was he beyond all vain glory, and he looked to one thing alone. And yet he had the same power to ordain as they all collectively. (Library of the Fathers, Homilies of St. J. Chrys on the Acts, Oxford 1852, hom 3, page 37; Migne, vol IX, 33[23])
The sentence I have bolded shows the Roman teaching on the powers of the Pope. If this Petrine office is continued on through history with the bishops of Rome, then it follows that the current bishop of Rome has this same power.

I disagree with your comments that no patriarchate had this authority, as defined by the general councils. But then again, it has been a while since I read your first posts. Perhaps you could reiterate and concentrate on one or two points?

Rome was royal: it was the imperial capital. This comment of Chrysostom’s, however, is not a Council decision, which made it non-binding as far as the Greek churches were concerned, nor is it the only thing which Chrysostom said, as Father Ambrose and Montalban have both been demonstrating in the thread on Mt 16:18, nor does it claim any extra-territorial authority for Rome.

Yes it is non-binding. However, here we see one of the greatest doctors of the Eastern Church proclaiming that the office of Peter is in Rome. Together with my quote of Chrysostom’s in this post, that means that Chrysostom believed in Papal Supremacy!

By the way, Augustine also taught some strange things about Matthew 16:18, but we never claim that he did not believe in Papal Supremacy, do we not? Perhaps Chrysostom’s teachings on the passage are not mutually exclusive with the Catholic teaching on the office of the bishop of Rome.

 

[Mystophilus]

I think we can indeed assume that they believed other things that lacked the need for actual expression, such as the teaching on the two wills of Christ prior to the Sixth Ecumenical Council. It is only when a dispute arises that such a belief needs to be so defined.

Let me put that another way: individuals indubitably believed things which were not defined by the Councils, as they always do. The Councils defined what everyone had to believe, in much the same way that the Magesterium does now for the Roman Catholic Church. Since the Councils defined what the Church believed, we know what constituted universal, i.e., καθολικη, belief amongst them. As regards other beliefs, we lack evidence to claim that the whole Church believed Proposition X.

And I reiterate that I do not see any Council decrees that have contradicted Papal Supremacy.

Nicaea 325: Canons 4 and 5 restrict the power of bishops, Rome not excluded, to their own see; Canon 6 defines Alexandria’s role in Greek North Africa as the same as Rome’s in the Latin west, which localises and equates the two.
Contantinople 381: Canon 2 again localises the power of bishops, Rome still not exempt; the Councils’ letter to Damasus states, “according to the word of the apostle, we should reign along with you”, etc., stating the absence of any superiority of the bishop of Rome.
Ephesus 431: the Councils, not any one bishop, are the voice of the Holy Spirit; “Peter and John were equal in honour to each other”; again localises the power of bishops, Rome still not exempt.
Chalcedon 451: “no one should disagree with his neighbour regarding religious doctrines” (=unity, not hierarchy); canons 4, 5, 10, and 12 localise the power of bishops, Rome still not exempt; canon 17 gives primacy of jurisdiction to Constantinople, not Rome; canon 30 validates Alexandrian bishops refusal to obey Pope’s demand to sign his letter as the patriarch of Alexandria was the only one who could require them to do so.
Constantinople 553: “when the disputed question is set out by each side in communal discussions, the light of truth drives out the shadows of lying. The truth cannot be made clear in any other way when there are debates about questions of faith, since everyone requires the assistance of his neighbour”, stating that only the Councils are finally authoritative.
Constantinople 681: anathematises four of five patriarchs for heresy, including Rome, demonstrating the Council’s authority over the bishop of Rome, because one cannot be judged by an inferior.
Nicaea 787: canon 11 reaffirms primacy of jurisdiction given to Constantinople, not Rome.

In summary, Rome is limited along with all of the others, is never granted power outside of its See, is never granted the ability to independently determine truth, and the only provision of any primacy of power is given to Constantinople, twice. The Councils grant determinant power exclusively to themselves. There is no Roman Supremacy possible here, only a primacy of honour, which the Councils did explicitly affirm. If you would argue that they could accept something without needing to state it, why did they bother to state and re-state that?

I am sorry, my friend, but the fact remains that the Greeks never accorded Rome power over them.

And yet he had the same power to ordain as they all collectively. (Library of the Fathers, Homilies of St. J. Chrys on the Acts, Oxford 1852, hom 3, page 37; Migne, vol IX, 33[23]).
The sentence I have bolded shows the Roman teaching on the powers of the Pope. If this Petrine office is continued on through history with the bishops of Rome, then it follows that the current bishop of Rome has this same power.

Actually, this says that Peter had the same power to ordain as all of the disciples collectively; while this opinion of Chrysostom’s is a hierarchical view, he is claiming extraordinary power for Peter, not for ‘the bishop of Rome’, let alone his successors: there is no dynasty being established in this text.

Thanks for providing the Migne number: they make it much easier to find things in the original.

 

[Fr_Ambrose]

we see one of the greatest doctors of the Eastern Church proclaiming that the office of Peter is in Rome. Together with my quote of Chrysostom’s in this post, that means that Chrysostom believed in Papal Supremacy! .

Obviously he did believe in it in the sense you are claiming.

Here is what Montalban wrote earlier:

This Orthodox saint (and doctor of the western church) was ordained a lector by St. Meletius, Patriarch of Antioch (370), and then to the diaconate (381). Later to the priesthood by Meletius’ successor St. Flavian (386).

“Under Patriarchs Meletius and Flavian, Antioch and Rome were not in communion with each other. It must be emphasized that by receiving ordination at the hands of St. Flavian and St. Meletius, St. John unreservedly recognised them as genuine successors to the see of Antioch. By the very act of receiving ordination from these prelates, he was knowingly placing himself outside communion with Rome.”

Whelton, M., (2006), “Popes and Patriarchs: An Orthodox Perspective on Roman Catholic Claims”, (Concillar Press; Ben Lomond, CA), p110

He wrote most of his works whilst not in communion with Rome.

Whelton then goes on to detail the reason for the schism; based on the loyalty towards St Meletius. Who interestingly enough was still elected president of a council of 150 bishops convened by the Emperor (The Second Ecumenical Council).

“Obviously not being in communion with Rome in the fourth century was no barrier to sainthood or important church leadership”

(Ibid. p111).

This champion of yours, writing as you think on the primacy of Peter didn’t even bother to be in union with Rome when he wrote most his writings!

 

[Mickey]

“Under Patriarchs Meletius and Flavian, Antioch and Rome were not in communion with each other. It must be emphasized that by receiving ordination at the hands of St. Flavian and St. Meletius, St. John unreservedly recognised them as genuine successors to the see of Antioch. By the very act of receiving ordination from these prelates, he was knowingly placing himself outside communion with Rome.”

He wrote most of his works whilst not in communion with Rome.This champion of yours, writing as you think on the primacy of Peter didn’t even bother to be in union with Rome when he wrote most his writings!

Your argument is meaningless. St John Chrysostom writes in favor of St Peter as the leader of the choir of Apostles. You cannot deny this.
The schism you speak of ocurred in large part because the Eustathians opposed St Meletius for his “apparent” Arian sponsorship–and secured his exile.

Meletius died while presiding at the First Council of Constantinople, which sought to end the schism by electing Flavian of Antioch successor to his see.

 

[Fr_Ambrose]

Your argument is meaningless.

Meletius died while presiding at the First Council of Constantinople, which sought to end the schism by electing Flavian of Antioch successor to his see.

Meletius presided over the Ecumenical Council when he was NOT IN COMMUNION WITH THE POPE. This speaks volumes about the position of the Pope in the Church of that period…

In Roman Catholic understanding, how is it possible for a bishop to preside at an Ecumenical Council when he is in schism from the Pope??!!

 

[Atreyu]

Let me put that another way: individuals indubitably believed things which were not defined by the Councils, as they always do. The Councils defined what everyone had to believe, in much the same way that the Magesterium does now for the Roman Catholic Church. Since the Councils defined what the Church believed, we know what constituted universal, i.e., καθολικη, belief amongst them. As regards other beliefs, we lack evidence to claim that the whole Church believed Proposition X.

So things defined at Councils became articles of faith, that’s what you’re saying, right? As for a belief in Proposition X, isn’t that what we’re trying to discover? I mean, we could say that the whole Church believed in the two wills of Christ, as evidenced in the unanimous writings of the earlier Church fathers. Or do you disagree and say there is not enough evidence to support such a notion? If you do agree with me and say that there is enough evidence for this, then it is up to us to see if there is enough evidence to support a unanimous belief in Papal Supremacy. I believe there is. By “unanimous” I mean, “believed by those that mattered” - ie those in the know - bishops and such.

In summary, Rome is limited along with all of the others, is never granted power outside of its See, is never granted the ability to independently determine truth, and the only provision of any primacy of power is given to Constantinople, twice. The Councils grant determinant power exclusively to themselves. There is no Roman Supremacy possible here, only a primacy of honour, which the Councils did explicitly affirm. If you would argue that they could accept something without needing to state it, why did they bother to state and re-state that?

Isn’t it possible that the canons referring to the primacy of power of the bishop of Constantinople are granted in the same way that primacy of power was given to the bishop of Alexandria at Nicaea? In one of my previous posts, I argued that this primacy of power was not given over the whole Church, but over the bishops in his Metropolis. Either way, it is clear that the members at this Council found no contradiction in granting this power to the bishop of Constantinople. Therefore, if the bishop of Constantinople is to be exempted from the canons you mention at Nicaea and such that limit the power of bishops, it stands to reason that the bishop of Rome (as well as the other Patriarchs) should also be exempted. I think I really need you to be a bit more explicit in making a case from these canons you mention. By the way, the statement that Peter and John were equal in honour was in reference to christology. It was saying that even though Peter and John were equal in honour, they were two persons. Therefore a statement that the divinity of Christ was equal in honour to the humanity of Christ is really useless. “Equality of honour by itself is unable to unite natures”. I don’t think this statement has anything to do with Peter’s primacy.

I am sorry, my friend, but the fact remains that the Greeks never accorded Rome power over them.

Possibly. But possibly Rome had power over them from the start, and so there was never any need to accord Rome any more power. What I do see is a distinct lack of any rebuttal of the power of the bishop of Rome, in the face of a lot of evidence that the bishop of Rome did have such power.

Actually, this says that Peter had the same power to ordain as all of the disciples collectively; while this opinion of Chrysostom’s is a hierarchical view, he is claiming extraordinary power for Peter, not for ‘the bishop of Rome’, let alone his successors: there is no dynasty being established in this text.

Like I said, Chrysostom also stated that Antioch lost Peter to Rome. Is it such a big gap to think that Chrysostom thought that the bishops of Rome were therefore Peter’s successors? Perhaps you think it is, but I disagree.

 

[Mystophilus]

So things defined at Councils became articles of faith, that’s what you’re saying, right? As for a belief in Proposition X, isn’t that what we’re trying to discover? I mean, we could say that the whole Church believed in the two wills of Christ, as evidenced in the unanimous writings of the earlier Church fathers… then it is up to us to see if there is enough evidence to support a unanimous belief in Papal Supremacy. I believe there is. By “unanimous” I mean, “believed by those that mattered” - ie those in the know - bishops and such.

First, the things defined at the Councils became articles of faith because they were defined by the Councils. Only they were believed to be able to demonstrate the unanimity of the Church. Because of that, if there were a unanimity on Papal Supremacy, it would have to have been demonstrated by the Councils to have been an article of faith. Instead, we have Councils specifically delineating the realms of different patriarchates.

Isn’t it possible that the canons referring to the primacy of power of the bishop of Constantinople are granted in the same way that primacy of power was given to the bishop of Alexandria at Nicaea? In one of my previous posts, I argued that this primacy of power was not given over the whole Church, but over the bishops in his Metropolis.

That is not stated in the text, and so neither they nor we have a reason to believe it. I am sorry, but there is no evidence.

if the bishop of Constantinople is to be exempted from the canons you mention at Nicaea and such that limit the power of bishops, it stands to reason that the bishop of Rome (as well as the other Patriarchs) should also be exempted.

This is only true if the grant to Constantinople were an exemption, i.e., if it conflicted with the restrictions. It did not do this: it stated that Constantinople was to be the highest court of appeal for bishops who felt wronged by their superiors, and also had the power to appoint administrators over a bishopric which failed to do so itself. Neither of these conflicted with any other rule, and so neither constitutes an exemption from the rules.

I don’t think this statement has anything to do with Peter’s primacy.

I do not see how anyone at the time could not have thought of the Latin insistence upon Petrine primacy as soon as it was mentioned, but that is conjecture.

What I do see is a distinct lack of any rebuttal of the power of the bishop of Rome, in the face of a lot of evidence that the bishop of Rome did have such power.

Where is this evidence? Thus far, all I have seen are Roman opinions that Rome ought to have the power, and a couple of Greek ones likewise, weighed against ultimately-authoritative Council delineations of patriarchal authority which specifically and repeatedly forbade any patriarch to have power over another’s patriarchate.

Let me reiterate that the entire point and purpose of this thread is to see what the Greek church thought about the role of Rome, as demonstrated through the Ecumenical Councils which the Greek church held as singularly and ultimately authoritative, and that they place limits on all bishops.

As an addendum, I looked up that homily by John Chrysostom in Migne, but it differs quite noticeably from the translation at newadvent.org, which is usually an indication that there are multiple versions of the manuscript because some scribe altered one at some point. Identifying the earlier is a heroic task even for expert.