Sola Concilium and the Eastern Orthodox

[spina1953]

I was reading from Peter to John Paul II and the author states that ‘Constantine was inclined to to rule over everything, Church included, in the Roman world. This precedent of governmental control over Church affairs extended on into the 5th century, resulting in the following contrdiction While the primacy of the Bishop of the Rome diocese was fully recognized and defended by the hierarchy, the clergy, the laity, and civil authorities, the emperor reserved the right to overrule the Pontiff.’ The author is Frank Korn. I can see why the Popes in Rome did not attend the Councils but insead thought to send legates. It seems to go with the history I have read in the past.

 

[frjohnmorris]

Why do you assume that Rome’s universal jurisdiction is within the confines of canon law and/or ecumenical councils, i.e., Catholics have been forever stating that the premise of universal supremacy lies in the words of Christ to Peter? Pope Damasus (382 A.D.) explained this very well when he said:

I view all of Church history through the eyes of Sacred Tradition and Scripture as they compose the whole of our faith, and if not through the eyes of Sacred Tradition and Scripture than what? Also, I find it interesting that in your replies you have never mentioned the canons of Sardica/Trullo?

newadvent.org/fathers/3815.htm

What was written in the canons of Sardica/Trullo was not something novel but rather what had already been customary since the time of the apostles (think of St. Paul going to St. Peter to determine whether his doctrine was sound), and it very much implies universal jurisdiction.

I have never denied that the Bishop of Rome had a primacy of honor like that exercised today by the Ecumenical Patriarch. I have also discussed the canons of Sardica elsewhere. All these canons do is establish a right to appeal to Rome which give a Bishop who feels falsely deposed to ask Rome to ask Bishops from a “neighboring” province to investigate the matter and render a decision. It also gives Rome the right to send a legate to decide on the matter. However, this right of appeal is the extent of the authority of Rome. Rome does not have the authority to appoint local Bishops or Metropolitans or to interfere in the internal affairs of areas not under the direct authority of Rome. Today in the Eastern Orthodox Church there is also a limited right to appeal to Constantinople, a right given to Constantinople by canon 28 of Chalcedon.
This particular council was held during the conflict over Arianism.Ironically, it was only given ecumenical authority by the Council in Trullo, which Rome does not recognize. Some historians argue that its canons only had temporary authority during this particular crisis. It is a far cry from this limited right to appeal to Rome to giving Rome universal jurisdiction or the authority to make unilateral pronouncements on the doctrine of the Church.

Archpriest John W. Morris

 

[josie_L]

Why do you assume that Rome’s universal jurisdiction is within the confines of canon law and/or ecumenical councils, i.e., Catholics have been forever stating that the premise for **universal supremacy **lies in the words of Christ to Peter? Pope Damasus (382 A.D.) explained this very well when he said:

Supremacy should be replaced by jurisdiction.

 

[frjohnmorris]

I think you’re right for the most part…maybe completely. However, I’m trying to get at the grounds upon which the EO reject the authority of the pope in matters of doctrine. For example, they would say that of the first seven ecumenical councils do not support the idea of papal infallibility and since these are the only councils they accept as valid, papal infallibility is unacceptable purely because it is not conciliar by their reckoning.

My OP simply asks: Where has any Council declared that Councils are the source of this authority; conversely, where do any of the first seven councils deny the authority of the papacy?

Of course, in the absence of a positive proclamation, they will probably argue that this is proof that Papal claims are not apostolic.

That is right. Where is there any evidence that the ancient Church recognized papal infallibility? It was not until 1870 that the 1st Vatican Council proclaimed the doctrine of papal infallibility. Look at the actual texts from the 7 Ecumenical Councils. There is no indication in them that the ancient Church recognized the Bishop of Rome as having anything more than a primacy of honor. The 7 Councils mandate local self government of the Churches by councils presided over by the local primate. There is no universal papal jurisdiction in the canons and acts of the 7 Ecumenical Councils.

Archpriest John W. Morris

 

[frjohnmorris]

Catholic apologists argue that sola scriptura, the Protestant idea that the Bible Alone is the sole rule of faith for the believer, is not found in scripture and is, therefore, self-refuting. Many adherents of this theological novelty have wasted long hours searching the scriptures in vain for an answer to the simple, but haunting question:

Where does the Bible teach sola scriptura?

Does a similar knock-down argument exist with regard to Eastern Orthodoxy?

Vladimir Soloviev, a Russian Orthodox who spent decades arguing for re-unification with the Catholic Church, suggests there is, and he makes the following demand of Eastern apologists who reject Catholic claims regarding the papacy: offer some alternative, positive principle of authority. He notes that Eastern apologists insist on conciliarism as the appropriate form of church structure. For them, ecumenical councils constitute the ultimate authority in matters of doctrine. But Soloviev scoffs at this. The East has never convoked and still cannot convoke an ecumenical council. So, the haunting question for our EO friends to answer is this:

Where has an ecumenical council decreed that ecumenical councils alone are the final authority for the Church?

The 7 Ecumenical Councils did not have to make such a decree because they acted as the ultimate authority over the Church. They certainly did not give such authority to Rome. Eastern Orthodox have kept the principle of making decisions through councils. Today we reserve the title “Ecumenical Council,” to the original 7 Councils, but throughout our history have held numerous Pan-Orthodox Councils to deal with various issues.

Archpriest John W. Morris

 

[josie_L]

I have never denied that the Bishop of Rome had a primacy of honor like that exercised today by the Ecumenical Patriarch. I have also discussed the canons of Sardica elsewhere. All these canons do is establish a right to appeal to Rome which give a Bishop who feels falsely deposed to ask Rome to ask Bishops from a “neighboring” province to investigate the matter and render a decision. It also gives Rome the right to send a legate to decide on the matter. However, this right of appeal is the extent of the authority of Rome. Rome does not have the authority to appoint local Bishops or Metropolitans or to interfere in the internal affairs of areas not under the direct authority of Rome. Today in the Eastern Orthodox Church there is also a limited right to appeal to Constantinople, a right given to Constantinople by canon 28 of Chalcedon.
This particular council was held during the conflict over Arianism.Ironically, it was only given ecumenical authority by the Council in Trullo, which Rome does not recognize. Some historians argue that its canons only had temporary authority during this particular crisis. It is a far cry from this limited right to appeal to Rome to giving Rome universal jurisdiction or the authority to make unilateral pronouncements on the doctrine of the Church.

Archpriest John W. Morris

As I said before, Rome’s primacy is not a result of conciliar decisions (I injected Sardica/Trullo into the picture because I had not heard you mention it), and what you call primacy of honour is nothing like what is expressed and insinuated in Scripture and Sacred Tradition. So while you view Peter as having primacy, it is only an honourary title, one in which could be likened to an honourary PH.D. But going back to what I said, Church history can only be viewed in light of a proper understanding of Sacred Tradition and Scripture, and as such, when I mentioned Isaiah 22:22 and Matthew 16:19 it was to delineate the role of Peter as key-bearing steward. The chief steward (prime minister) was considered second-in-command within the kingdom, and when Isaiah mentions that no one can shut what he opens or opens what he shuts, this power is associated with Peter as key-bearer. I gave a few examples from Sacred Tradition confirming this in my previous post, I guess I’ll give a few more:

Pope St. Innocent I

“These, then, are the things which it behooves every Catholic Bishop, having before his eyes the judgment of God, hence-forward to observe…. That if any causes, or contentions, arise between clergy of the higher, or even of an inferior order, the dispute be settled agreeably to the Synod of Nicaea, by an assembly of the Bishops of that same province; and that it be not lawful for any one… to leave these priests (bishops), who by the will of God govern the Church of God, and to have recourse to other provinces. If any greater causes shall have been brought forward (or discussed), let them, after episcopal judgment, be referred to the Apostolic See [Rome], as the synod (of Nicaea) resolved,and a blessed custom requires.” -Ep. ii. ad Victric. n.1 (410 A.D.)

Theodoret, Bishop of Cyrus in Syria

“I therefore beseech your holiness to persuade the most holy and blessed bishop (Pope Leo) to use his Apostolic power, and to order me to hasten to your Council. For that most holy throne (Rome) has the sovereignty over the churches throughout the universe on many grounds.” -(Tom. iv. Epist. cxvi. Renato, p. 1197, 450 A.D.)

“If Paul, the herald of the truth, the trumpet of the Holy Spirit, hastened to the great Peter, to convey from him the solution to those in Antioch, who were at issue about living under the law, how much more do we, poor and humble, run to the Apostolic Throne (Rome) to receive from you (Pope Leo) healing for wounds of the Churches. For it pertains to you to have primacy in all things; for your throne is adorned with many prerogatives.” -(ibid, Epistle Leoni, 450 A.D.)

St. Nicephorus, Patriarch of Constantinople (758-828)

Without whom (the Romans presiding in the seventh Council) a doctrine brought forward in the Church could not, even though confirmed by canonical decrees and by ecclesiastical usuage, ever obtain full approval or currency. For it is they (the Popes of Rome) who have had assigned to them the rule in sacred things, and who have received into their hands the dignity of headship among the Apostles. (Nicephorus, Niceph. Cpl. pro. s. imag. c 25 [Mai N. Bibl. pp. ii. 30]).

The quotes I posted signify/imply that the Pope was appealed to throughout the world by various bishops in matters of faith and morals, therefore, signifying a primacy that is a lot more than honourary. And as for the canons of Sardica, they do in a manner attest to the Pope’s privileges/primacy as head of the Church (whether we accept Trullo as ecumenical is irrelevant because all that matters is that you accept the canons of Sardica).

P.S. I respect Trullo to the extent that it recognized the canons of Sardica as being ecumenical (initially Sardica was meant to be ecumenical but many Eastern bishops bailed out of being a part of it).

to be continued. . . .

 

[frjohnmorris]

As I said before, Rome’s primacy is not a result of conciliar decisions (I injected Sardica/Trullo into the picture because I had not heard you mention it), and what you call primacy of honour is nothing like what is expressed and insinuated in Scripture and Sacred Tradition. So while you view Peter as having primacy, it is only an honourary title, one in which could be likened to an honourary PH.D. But going back to what I said, Church history can only be viewed in light of a proper understanding of Sacred Tradition and Scripture, and as such, when I mentioned Isaiah 22:22 and Matthew 16:19 it was to delineate the role of Peter as key-bearing steward. The chief steward (prime minister) was considered second-in-command within the kingdom, and when Isaiah mentions that no one can shut what he opens or opens what he shuts, this power is associated with Peter as key-bearer. I gave a few examples from Sacred Tradition confirming this in my previous post, I guess I’ll give a few more:

The quotes I posted signify/imply that the Pope was appealed to throughout the world by various bishops in matters of faith and morals, therefore, signifying a primacy that is a lot more than honourary. And as for the canons of Sardica, they do in a manner attest to the Pope’s privileges/primacy as head of the Church (whether we accept Trullo as ecumenical is irrelevant because all that matters is that you accept the canons of Sardica).

P.S. I respect Trullo to the extent that it recognized the canons of Sardica as being ecumenical (initially Sardica was meant to be ecumenical but many Eastern bishops bailed out of being a part of it).

to be continued. . . .

The problem with your argument is that it cannot withstand the test of historical investigation on how the ancient Church understood the role or Rome. If Holy Tradition taught that the Bishop of Rome had universal jurisdiction, one would find examples of this in the acts of the 7 Ecumenical Councils and examples of a Pope exercising universal jurisdiction in the history of the pre-1054 Church. There are none. Every major decision was made by an Ecumenical Council. The canons of the Ecumenical Councils also mandated local self-rule by a Patriarch subject to a council (synod) of the Bishops under him. The canons also mandated the independence of the regional Church. If papal universal jurisdiction it would have been part of the Holy Tradition of the entire ancient Church not just the Western Church. We know that the Eastern Patriarchs never recognized the authority of Rome to exercise jurisdiction over them. Therefore the papal claims cannot be a manifestation of the Holy Tradition of the ancient undivided Church. You are reading Vatican I attitudes back into history.
The fact that the Eastern Bishops did not participate in Sardica shows that the Eastern Bishops did not recognize papal authority. In seminary, I was taught that the Council of Sardica was held in territory under direct Roman rule at that time. Therefore, it was a local council that only had limited authority. Even the council if Sardica only gave the Pope a limited right to consider appeals brought to him. It did not give the Pope universal jurisdiction or authority over the other Patriarchs. It certainly did not place the Pope above the authority of an Ecumenical Council or give him unilateral authority to make declarations on the doctrine of the Church.

Archpriest John W. Morris

 

[frjohnmorris]

If the chief steward’s decisions could not be shut when opened or opened when shut (terms signifying loosing and binding) with regard to the whole of the kingdom, how is this different from the pope’s power of loosing and binding as confirmed by Catholics through Sacred Tradition?

catholicity.elcore.net/PrimacyOfTheRomanChurch.html

catholicity.elcore.net/PrimacyOfTheRomanChurch.html

catholicity.elcore.net/PrimacyOfTheRomanChurch.html

catholicity.elcore.net/PrimacyOfTheRomanChurch.html

catholicity.elcore.net/PrimacyOfTheRomanChurch.html

catholicity.elcore.net/PrimacyOfTheRomanChurch.html

The understanding is that the bishop of Rome who also acts as steward does have universal jurisdiction, and that his judgment when given cannot be reversed.

The quotes that you use are all Western, except for St. Maximus the Confessor. You have to put his quote in its proper hisHtorical context. The Emperor and Patriarch of Constantinople had accepted the heresy of Monothelitism at that time Pope Martin I had rejected it. Therefore St. Maximus naturally appealed to Rome for support against this heresy. However it is important to remember that Pope Honorius I who died in 638 supported the heresy and was condemned for heresy at the 6th Ecumenical Council in 680.
I have done some additional research on the Council of Sardicia. The Rudder, the official collection of Orthodox canon law states, concerning the canon allowing appeals to Rome, “Note that this Canon refers not to provinces that are not subject to the Pope, but only to those that are subject to him, according to Zonaras.’” (A recognized expert in Orthodox canon law.)

Archpriest John W. Morris

 

[josie_L]

The problem with your argument is that it cannot withstand the test of historical investigation on how the ancient Church understood the role or Rome. If Holy Tradition taught that the Bishop of Rome had universal jurisdiction, one would find examples of this in the acts of the 7 Ecumenical Councils and examples of a Pope exercising universal jurisdiction in the history of the pre-1054 Church. There are none. Every major decision was made by an Ecumenical Council. The canons of the Ecumenical Councils also mandated local self-rule by a Patriarch subject to a council (synod) of the Bishops under him. The canons also mandated the independence of the regional Church. If papal universal jurisdiction it would have been part of the Holy Tradition of the entire ancient Church not just the Western Church. We know that the Eastern Patriarchs never recognized the authority of Rome to exercise jurisdiction over them. Therefore the papal claims cannot be a manifestation of the Holy Tradition of the ancient undivided Church. You are reading Vatican I attitudes back into history.
The fact that the Eastern Bishops did not participate in Sardica shows that the Eastern Bishops did not recognize papal authority. In seminary, I was taught that the Council of Sardica was held in territory under direct Roman rule at that time. Therefore, it was a local council that only had limited authority. Even the council if Sardica only gave the Pope a limited right to consider appeals brought to him. It did not give the Pope universal jurisdiction or authority over the other Patriarchs. It certainly did not place the Pope above the authority of an Ecumenical Council or give him unilateral authority to make declarations on the doctrine of the Church.

Archpriest John W. Morris

You have an improper misunderstanding of what universal jurisdiction (and other papal prerogatives) entails or is, which at the moment I cannot get into. You will have to wait for my reply tomorrow, I apologize for the delay. But in the meantime, let me say that the Eastern bishops who did not participate in the council of Sardica were Eusebians or rather heretics.

P.S. Papal primacy is in evidence throughout Church history, the reason you cannot find it is because of your understanding of what papal primacy is.

 

[frjohnmorris]

You have an improper misunderstanding of what universal jurisdiction (and other papal prerogatives) entails or is, which at the moment I cannot get into. You will have to wait for my reply tomorrow, I apologize for the delay. But in the meantime, let me say that the Eastern bishops who did not participate in the council of Sardica were Eusebians or rather heretics.

P.S. Papal primacy is in evidence throughout Church history, the reason you cannot find it is because of your understanding of what papal primacy is.

I really doubt that I do not understand the power claimed by the Popes. I have studied Church history. I understand enough to know that I believe that it is wrong to give one man so much power. In the Orthodox Church no one not even a Patriarch is not answerable to the some higher authority. A Patriarch must abide by the will of the Holy Synod of his Patriarchate. A Bishop must abide by the decisions of his primate as well as the Holy Synod of the Patriarchate, and the decisions of the Archdiocesan Convention and Board of Trustees on financial and other temporal matters. In a parish the Pastor must obey his Bishop, but must also abide by the decisions of the Parish Council and meeting of the members of the parish concerning the financial and temporal matters of the parish. I believe that this is a much better system than the top down administration of the Roman Catholic Church. I spoke yesterday with a Catholic Priest. His Parish Council is only advisory. He writes the checks and controls the finances of the parish. I do not agree with that. For one thing, I have enough trouble managing my own finances without messing up the finances of my parish. For another, not having to worry about finances and maintaining the building frees me for purely pastoral duties. I also believe that a married Priest can better relate to his people.

Archpriest John W. Morris

 

[josie_L]

The quotes that you use are all Western, except for St. Maximus the Confessor.

And what bias is this against western Fathers, were they not orthodox and as such, saints of both our churches. moreover, I could provide a plethora of evidence from the Eastern fathers (since most of the appeals issued to the pope came from Eastern bishops dealing with heresies from the East).

You have to put his quote in its proper historical context. The Emperor and Patriarch of Constantinople had accepted the heresy of Monothelitism at that time Pope Martin I had rejected it. Therefore St. Maximus naturally appealed to Rome for support against this heresy. However it is important to remember that Pope Honorius I who died in 638 supported the heresy and was condemned for heresy at the 6th Ecumenical in 680

.
I was well aware of St. Maximus’s situation (he being tortured and imprisoned/exiled for orthodoxy), however, how does that change the meaning of his word which are rather explicit, i.e., there are no conditional qualifications enumerated.

If the Roman See recognizes Pyrrhus to be not only a reprobate but a heretic, it is certainly plain that everyone who anathematizes those who have rejected Pyrrhus also anathematizes the See of Rome, that is, he anathematizes the Catholic Church. I need hardly add that he excommunicates himself also, if indeed he is in communion with the Roman See and the Catholic Church of God …Let him hasten before all things to satisfy the Roman See, for if it is satisfied, all will agree in calling him pious and orthodox. For he only speaks in vain who thinks he ought to persuade or entrap persons like myself, and does not satisfy and implore the blessed Pope of the most holy Catholic Church of the Romans, that is, the Apostolic See, which is from the incarnate of the Son of God Himself, and also all the holy synods, according to the holy canons and definitions has received universal and surpreme dominion, authority, and power of binding and loosing over all the holy churches of God throughout the whole world. (Maximus, Letter to Peter, in Mansi x, 692).

Are you seriously going to contend that he is only saying this because yet again another Patriarch of Constantinople in collusion with the emperor embraced heresy? He is stating in the most vociferous manner possible the primacy that we Catholics believe the Pope to possess, no if, and or buts about it. Moreover, St. Maximus defended Honorius (who was unable to defend himself as he was dead by the time the 6th council resumed).

When in 641 John IV wrote his defence of Pope Honorius, it was re-echoed by St. Maximus in a letter to Marinus, a priest of Cyprus. He declares that Honorius, when he confessed one will of our Lord, only meant to deny that Christ had a will of the flesh, of concupiscence, since he was conceived and born without stain of sin. Maximus appeals to the witness of Abbot John Symponus, who wrote the letter for Honorius. . . .

Pyrrhus thought he might regain his see by the help of the pope. He came to Africa, and in July, 645, a public disputation took place between him and Maximus, in the presence of the Governor Gregory (called George in the manuscripts of St. Maximus), who was a friend and correspondent of the saint. The minutes are interesting. Pyrrhus argues that two wills must imply two Persons willing; Maximus replies that in that case there must be three wills in the Holy Trinity. He shows that the will belongs to the Nature, and distinguishes between will as a faculty and will as the act of the faculty. Pyrrhus then admits two wills, on account of the two natures, but adds that we should also confess one will on account of the perfect union. Maximus replies that this would lead us to confess one nature on account of the perfect union. He then cites many passages of Scripture for two wills and two operations. Pyrrhus puts forward Honorius and Vigilius. Maximus defends the former from the charge of teaching two wills, and denies that the latter ever received the letter of Mennas, the authenticity of which is assumed. He complains of the changeableness of Sergius. Lastly the famous “new theandric operation” of the Pseudo-Dionysius is discussed, and is explained and defended by St. Maximus. Then Pyrrhus gives in, and consents to go to Rome, where in fact he condemned his former teaching, and was reconciled to the Church by the pope. But the revolt of Gregory, who made himself emperor in Africa, but was defeated in 647, brought Maximus into disfavour at court, and destroyed the hope of restoring Pyrrhus as orthodox patriarch.

newadvent.org/cathen/10078b.htm

I have been told by those more knowledgeable than I that anathemas against persons is not infallible, i.e., the council could have erred with regard to Honorius.

I have done some additional research on the Council of Sardicia. The Rudder, the official collection of Orthodox canon law states, concerning the canon allowing appeals to Rome, “Note that this Canon refers not to provinces that are not subject to the Pope, but only to those that are subject to him, according to Zonaras.’” (A recognized expert in Orthodox canon law.)

First and foremost, I have already stated that it was customary for bishops throughout the world to seek its head on matters of faith and discipline (as Paul did with Peter), thereby Sardica/Trullo only legalized what was already ancient custom. Moreover, if as you say the canons of Sardica was only applicable with respect to the provinces subjected to the Pope, then why would the Orthodox inject these canons at Trullo, i.e., what purpose would they serve if they were only regional at a council regarded as ecumenical, i.e., accepted by the whole Church? Would this not elevate the status of these canons?

 

[josie_L]

I was just wondering how is Trullo regarded as ecumenical by the Orthodox if there was no representation by the West, i.e., acceptance by the Pope who was the only Patriarch of the West?

 

[dzheremi]

There were no representatives of the West at Constantinople I, either, and the Roman Catholic Church still accepts that council as ecumenical, so I don’t see why that would matter with regard to Trullo.

 

[frjohnmorris]

Although St. Maximus the Cofessor appealed to Rome for support, Rome did not have the authority to unilaterally make the decision on the matter of Monothelitism. Only an Ecumenical Council had the authority to make doctrinal decisions binding on the whole Church. If Pope Martin I had the authority that modern Popes have, he could have simply issued a Papal Bull and settled the dispute. But the ancient Popes only had a primacy of honor. Thus, the decision on Monothelitism had to be made by the 6th Ecumenical Council, Constantinople III in 680.
I have never questioned the position of the Bishop of Rome as the senior and most influential Bishop of the Church. Because of that, anyone involved in a dispute would naturally try to win his support. However, no Pope ever issued any decree “ex cathedra” to resolve a doctrinal dispute during the age of the ancient undivided Church. If someone was involved in a doctrinal dispute knew that the Pope agreed with them, it was only natural that they would write that everyone should agree with the Pope. Therefore, your quotes really do not prove anything. Before 1054, every major doctrinal dispute was resolved by an Ecumenical Council. Even Pope Nicholas I who refused to recognize St. Photius as Patriarch of Constantinople lacked the authority to remove him from office. Pope Nicholas I had to appeal to a council, the Council of Constantinople of 869 to have him removed. The first time that a Pope ever issued an “ex cathedra” proclamation on the doctrine of the Church was when Pius IX declared the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception of Mary a dogma of the Catholic Church. If the ancient Popes had the universal and unquestioned authority as they have today in the Catholic Church, all the doctrinal disputes that shook the Church during the first millennium could have been much easier resolved by a papal decree instead of going through all the trouble in that age of slow and uncomfortable transportation to hold an Ecumenical Council. However at that time only an Ecumenical Council had the authority to make doctrinal decisions binding on the whole Church. The Ecumenical Councils also passed canons that established the organization of the Church as a confederation of independent regional Church. No matter how strongly a Pope felt on a doctrinal dispute, it took an Ecuenical Council to make and enforce a decision on the issue. Pope St. Leo I was a strong opponent of Monophysitism, but he lacked the power to force the Church to accept his position on this divisive issue. He had to submit his Tome to the Council of Chalcedon for ratification before it had any authority over the rest of the Church. When Pope Vigilius was reluctant to accept the decrees of the 5th Ecumenical Council, Constantinople II in 553, the council forced him to accept them by threatening to excommunicate him if he did not. This shows beyond the shadow of a doubt that the Ecumenical Councils considered the Pope under their authority.
I suggest that you take the time to read all the decrees of the Council in Trullo. The Holy Fathers of the council were not so convinced of papal authority that they did not hesitate to object to certain Western practices. For example the Council in Trullo criticized the West for forbidding married Priests to have sex with their wives after their ordination. Another canon ratified by Trullo excommunicated anyone who refused to receive Communion from a married Priest, or who became celibate because they “abhorred” marriage.
That the only canon that can be used to support modern papal claims is one canon giving the right of appeal to the Pope to appoint Bishops from a neighboring area to settle a dispute between Bishops of shows how weak the papal claims are. Had the ancient Church recognized the papacy as having the authority claimed by modern Popes, one would find other canons that support your argument. Indeed, if the ancient Church recognized the ancient Popes as having the power they have today in the Catholic Church, it would have been clearly stated by the canons, since the canons regulated everything else in the ancient Church.
Even in the West, the Popes did not gain the authority that they have today without a struggle that took centuries. A few quotes from the Fathers, Eastern or Western, taken out of their historical context cannot change the facts of history. No Pope ever had the authority that modern Popes have even after the schism. It was not until 1870 that papal infallibility became a dogma of the Catholic Church, and that did not take place without controversy and a great deal of pressure from Pope Pius IX, who was anything but a meek man.
Pope Leo IX based his claims of authority over Patriarch Michael I of Constantinople on the Donation of Constantine. As all historians now know, the document was a forgery. It is not known who wrote it. It is quite probable that Pope Leo IX though that the document was genuine. However, the fact remains that the power of the papacy came largely from a forged document. Even if the document were genuine, Constantine had no authority to give the Bishop or Rome authority over the whole Church. However, it presents a rather interesting dilemma for Roman Catholics. If the medieval Popes based their claims to authority over the rest of the Church due to a document that they believed was from the 4th century, does that not show that they recognized that they gained the right to exercise authority over the whole Church only through a grant from Constantine and that they realized that they had no such authority during the first 300 years of the history of the Church?

Archpriest John W. Morris

 

[josie_L]

There were no representatives of the West at Constantinople I, either, and the Roman Catholic Church still accepts that council as ecumenical, so I don’t see why that would matter with regard to Trullo.

Constantinople I was regional in scope until Chalcedon, so yes, there was Western representation, i.e., papal legates and papal ratification.

 

[frjohnmorris]

Constantinople I was regional in scope until Chalcedon, so yes, there was Western representation, i.e., papal legates and papal ratification.

I do not know where you got that idea. The Roman Catholic Church recognizes Constantinople I as an Ecumenical Council. newadvent.org/library/almanac_14388a.htm
Like every other Ecumenical Council, the decree of Chalcedon listed the councils it recognized as Ecumenical. The Eastern Orthodox Church and the Roman Catholic Church agree and both recognize the first 7 Ecumenical Councils.

Archpriest John W. Morris

 

[frjohnmorris]

There were no representatives of the West at Constantinople I, either, and the Roman Catholic Church still accepts that council as ecumenical, so I don’t see why that would matter with regard to Trullo.

The 7th Ecumenical Council, recognized by the Roman Catholic Church recognized the Council in Trullo as a continuation of sixth Ecumenical Council. However, the West did not accept the canons of Trullo. The East has continued to recognize the Council in Trullo. At Trullo we see the beginning of the differences that led to the schism. I am of the opinion that the issue of clerical celibacy played a much more important role in the schism than most historians recognize. The Council in Trullo condemned the Western requirement that married Priests abstain from sex with their wives. The statements against married clergy that Cardinal Humbert made during a public discussion at the imperial palace alienated the people and married clergy in Constantinople. That is one major reason why his reception was so hostile. He told a monk who defended married priest that he sounded more like someone from a brothel than from a monastery. He told the married Priests that their wives were prostitutes and their children illegitimate.

Archpriest John W. Morris

 

[josie_L]

Although St. Maximus the Cofessor appealed to Rome for support, Rome did not have the authority to unilaterally make the decision on the matter of Monothelitism.

That bishops around the world appealed to the head must suggest that he had the power to repeal, reinstate or affirm because he was for those who sought him out a final arbiter (even in matters ecumenical the final arbiter was the pope, i.e., without his ratification a synod could not be considered ecumenical because not only was he the only patriarch of the West, but because he was head of all the Churches). Also, the pope’s cooperation in some shape or form had to be evident during an ecumenical council, usually in the form of papal legates armed with directives and definitions of faith, which were affirmed by an ecumenical council, and that in turn finally ratified by the pope (we come full circle). That being said, you have this odd notion that just because our pope can define a dogma or has universal jurisdiction, which ultimately derives from Christ’s commission to Peter to strengthen the brethren, that he needs must act alone rather than through an ecumenical council. Make no mistake, however, popes had the power to resolve doctrinal issues without issuing a council per se, for example, Pope Leo’s epistle to Flavian which definitively outlined the two natures of Christ was accepted in the East before Chalcedon even took place, i.e., it was not necessary to summon an ecumenical council. in fact before Patriarch Flavian (Constantinople) died, he wrote to the pope concerning the heresy of Eutyches in this manner:

"The whole question needs only your single decision and all will be settled in peace and quietness. Your sacred letter will with God’s help completely suppress the heresy which has arisen and the disturbance which it has caused; and so the convening of a council which is in any case difficult will be rendered superfluous."

Only an Ecumenical Council had the authority to make doctrinal decisions binding on the whole Church.

An ecumenical council has binding authority on the whole Church when the only Patriarch of the West and the head of all Churches ratifies it. Moreover, as mentioned above, an ecumenical council is not always necessary in order to resolve doctrinal issues, the acceptance (signatures) of the Eastern bishops of Pope Leo’s definitive epistle was enough to resolve the issue. That a council was issued anyways was due to a misunderstanding:

The Eastern Church had been disturbed by the teaching of Eutyches since immediately after the Council of Ephesus (431) and the Nestorian troubles. In 448 Eusebius of Dorylæum had accused Eutyches and his formula “one nature after the union” (metà tèn ‘énosin mía phúsis) at Constantinople. Dioscurus of Alexandria had taken up the cause of Eutyches, and had condemned Dyophysism at the Robber Council of Ephesus in 449 (for all this see MONOPHYSITISM). Pope Leo hoped for a time to restore peace without another general council (his letters to Marcian, lxxviii, to Pulcheria, lxxix, and to the Patriarch Anatolius of Constantinople, lxxx). But meanwhile Marcian, acting on Leo’s former proposal, summoned a council on 17 May, 451, by letters addressed to all the metropolitans of the empire. It is clear that he acted on a misunderstanding, and had not yet received the pope’s later letter (Hefele-Leclercq, II, 639). Leo then accepted what had happened, and appointed as his legates Paschasius, Bishop of Lilybæum in Sicily, and a priest Boniface (ep. lxxxix; Mansi, VI, 125).

newadvent.org/cathen/09723c.htm

If Pope Martin I had the authority that modern Popes have, he could have simply issued a Papal Bull and settled the dispute. But the ancient Popes only had a primacy of honor. Thus, the decision on Monothelitism had to be made by the 6th Ecumenical Council, Constantinople III in 680.

In fact, upon becoming Pope, Martin I held a synod in the Lateran (105 bishops were present) to resolve the issue of monothelitism by sending the decrees issued at that council to the bishops and faithful throughout the world, including an encyclical he had written. The machinations, however, of an heretical emperor and patriarch (Constantinople) prevented the pope from resolving this heresy. He was captured and died in captivity (martyred for his orthodox faith) because he would not approve/sign the “typus”.

to be continued . . . . with Vigilius (whom Justinian held in captivity for more than a decade because the pope refused to ratify the decrees of the 5th council).

 

[josie_L]

I do not know where you got that idea. The Roman Catholic Church recognizes Constantinople I as an Ecumenical Council. newadvent.org/library/almanac_14388a.htm
Like every other Ecumenical Council, the decree of Chalcedon listed the councils it recognized as Ecumenical. The Eastern Orthodox Church and the Roman Catholic Church agree and both recognize the first 7 Ecumenical Councils.

Archpriest John W. Morris

I said that Constantinople I was regional at first (in 380), i.e., it was not meant to be ecumenical until it was recognized as such at Chalcedon. Moreover, I never stated that the Catholic Church does not recognize Constantinople I, i.e., I already mentioned it was ecumenical in my post to Dhzeremi.

 

[frjohnmorris]

I said that Constantinople I was regional at first (in 380), i.e., it was not meant to be ecumenical until it was recognized as such at Chalcedon. Moreover, I never stated that the Catholic Church does not recognize Constantinople I, i.e., I already mentioned it was ecumenical in my post to Dhzeremi.

No council becomes an Ecumenical Council until after it is recognize as being an Ecumenical Council by the Church, not just Rome, but the whole Church.

Archpriest John W. Morris