Sola Concilium and the Eastern Orthodox

[spina1953]

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.

Your post and the one above it are spot on! That is how I have understnnd the history of what you are speaking of!

 

[josie_L]

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

Let me explain clearly, for decrees issued at a general council to have the effect of binding the whole Church it needed the final ratification of the pope. I am not implying as your response would suggest that only the pope’s recognition of the decrees of a council matter. I realize that the East, as well as the West, must participate in general councils in some shape or form (and again Trullo does not fit this criteria), but the decisive factor in making the decrees of a council ecumenical, i.e., binding on the whole Church, is the final ratification of the pope, who is the only patriarch of the West, but most importantly is the head of the whole Church. Even at Chalcedon, the bishops who brought forth their decrees (including canon 28) to the attention of the pope, wrote:

Accordingly, we entreat you, honour our decision by your assent, and as we have yielded to the head our agreement on things honourable, so may the head also fulfil for the children what is fitting.. . . . But that you may know that we have done nothing for favour or in hatred, but as being guided by the Divine Will, we have made known to you the whole scope of our proceedings to strengthen our position and to ratify and establish what we have done.

newadvent.org/fathers/3604098.htm

But as you know canon 28 was not accepted by Pope St. Leo because it went against the decrees of Nicea. Moreover, Patriarch Anatolius of Constantinople (who was responding to a letter written to him by Pope St. Leo concerning “canon” 28), wrote:

As for those things which the universal Council of Chalcedon recently ordained in favor of the church of Constantinople, let Your Holiness be sure that there was no fault in me, who from my youth have always loved peace and quiet, keeping myself in humility. It was the most reverend clergy of the church of Constantinople who were eager about it, and they were equally supported by the most reverend priests of those parts, who agreed about it.** Even so, the whole force of confirmation of the acts was reserved for the authority of Your Blessedness.** Therefore, let Your Holiness know for certain that I did nothing to further the matter, knowing always that I held myself bound to avoid the lusts of pride and covetousness. – Patriarch Anatolius of Constantinople to Pope Leo, Ep 132 (on the subject of canon 28 of Chalcedon).

So, again, the Pope’s final ratification of a general council and its decrees is what confirmed it as being ecumenical in scope, i.e., binding on the whole church.

 

[frjohnmorris]

Let me explain clearly, for decrees issued at a general council to have the effect of binding the whole Church it needed the final ratification of the pope. I am not implying as your response would suggest that only the pope’s recognition of the decrees of a council matter. I realize that the East, as well as the West must participate in general councils in some shape or form (and again Trullo does not fit this criteria), but the decisive factor in making the decrees of a council ecumenical, i.e., binding on the whole Church, is the final ratification of the pope, who is the only patriarch of the West, but most importantly is the head of the whole Church. Even at Chalcedon, the bishops who brought forth their decrees (including canon 28) to the attention of the pope, wrote:

But as you know canon 28 was not accepted by Pope St. Leo because it went against the decrees of Nicea. Moreover, Patriarch Anatolius of Constantinople (who was responding to a letter written to him by Pope St. Leo concerning “canon” 28), wrote:

So, again, the Pope’s final ratification of a general council and its decrees is what confirmed it as being ecumenical in scope, i.e., binding on the whole church.

I do not agree. It was the acceptance by the whole Church, not the Pope alone, that made an Ecumenical Council an Ecumenical Council. The ancient Popes had no such authority over the whole Church. The Popes did not even have that authority in the West until the 5th Lateran Council in 1514 long after the schism between East and West. Before that the Popes has no such authority because the Council of Constance 1414 decreed that Popes are subject to the authority of Ecumenical Councils. Ironically the Roman Catholic Church recognizes the Council of Constance as an Ecumenical Council. It was not until 1870 that the Roman Catholic Church adopted the doctrine of papal infallibility.

Archpriest John W. Morris

 

[GaryTaylor]

I do not agree. It was the acceptance by the whole Church, not the Pope alone, that made an Ecumenical Council an Ecumenical Council. The ancient Popes had no such authority over the whole Church. The Popes did not even have that authority in the West until the 5th Lateran Council in 1514 long after the schism between East and West. Before that the Popes has no such authority because the Council of Constance 1414 decreed that Popes are subject to the authority of Ecumenical Councils. Ironically the Roman Catholic Church recognizes the Council of Constance as an Ecumenical Council. It was not until 1870 that the Roman Catholic Church adopted the doctrine of papal infallibility.

Archpriest John W. Morris

I hear, but I disagree. I believe the period between the Council of Nicaea in 325 and the Council of Sardica in 343 clearly shows the authority of Rome especially in regards to Alexandria and St. Athanasius

I’m sure you read this …

“For if really, as you say, they did some wrong, the judgment ought to have been given according to the ecclesiastical canon and not thus. You should have written to all of us, so that justice might have been decreed by all. For it was Bishops who were the sufferers; and it was not obscure Churches which have suffered, but Churches which Apostles in person ruled. With regard to the Church of Alexandria in particular, why were we not consulted? Do you now know that this has been the custom, first to write to us, and thus for what is just to be defined from hence? If, therefore, a suspicion of this sort fell upon the bishop of that place, it was necessary to write to the Church here [Rome]. But now, though you gave us no information, but have done as you pleased, you ask us to give our agreement, though we have not ourselves condemned. These are not the statutes of Paul, these are not the traditions of the Fathers; this is another rule, a new custom. I beseech you to bear willingly what I say, for I write for the common welfare, and what we have received from Blessed Peter the Apostle, that I declare to you.”

Edward Giles has: “And why were we not written to especially about the church of the Alexandrians? Are you ignorant that the custom was first to write to us, and then for justice to be determined from here? If then the bishop there was at all suspect, it should have been reported in writing to the church here. As it is they failed to inform us, but acted as they pleased, and now want to obtain our concurrence, though we have not condemned him. Not so the statutes of Paul [1 Tim 5:19,20], not so have the fathers handed down; this is another model, and a new procedure. I beseech you, readily bear with me: what I write is for the common good. For what we have received from the blessed apostle Peter, that I point out to you; and as I believe these things to be obvious to all, I should not have written if the events had not distracted us…”

philvaz.com/apologetics/num51.htm

I believe its consistent with Scripture also and the early church fathers. If not for these two, then I believe position of honor would be plausible, yet combined I see an authoritative role.

 

[GaryTaylor]

Here’s the Canons from the Council of Sardica

cristoraul.com/readinghall/Western-Civilization-Jewels/HEFELE/Book-4/64-Canons-1-5.html

Sardican canons enforced a previously existing right, acquired by the bishops of Rome as the inheritors of a divinely authorized Petrine primacy.

And in 418 Pope Zosimus taught that the papacy was inherited from the divinely appointed primacy of the Apostle Peter.

Council of Carthage in 418.

“Although the tradition of the fathers has assigned such great authority to the apostolic see that no one would dare dispute its judgment, and has kept this always by the canons and rules of Church order, and in the current of its laws pays the reverence which it owes to the name of Peter, from whom it descends; for canonical antiquity, by the consent of all, has willed such power to this apostle, so that the promise of Christ our God, that he should loose the bound and bind the loosed, is equally given to those who have obtained, with his assent, the inheritance of his see; for he has a care of all the churches, especially for this where he sat, nor does he permit any of its privileges or decisions to be shaken by any blast, since he established it on the firm and immovable foundation of his own name, which no one shall rashly attach, but at his peril. Peter then is the head of so great authority, and has confirmed the devotion of all the fathers who followed him, so that the Roman Church is established by all laws and discipline, whether human or divine. His place we rule, and we inherit the power of his name; you know this dearest brothers, and as priests you ought to know it.”

Cross reference this then with Lambeth. Never was it not believed the Papacy wasn’t divinely instituted by Jesus Christ, which is also consistent not only with the early church fathers but indeed Scripture. There’ s no reason to believe otherwise nor that this wasn’t in fact true from the beginning.

The idea that the ecumenical councils are contingent on agreement as mentioned is true, yet this doesn’t change the reality of Rome. To me this is authority properly implemented and understood in the early church. Obviously this leads to another point with Vatican I

 

[frjohnmorris]

To Gary Taylor

There has never been a doubt that the Bishop of Rome had a primacy of honor. After the Arians drove him from Alexandria, it was only natural that St. Athanasius should appeal to the senior Bishop of the Church. However, if you read the actual texts, not carefully chosen quotes taken out of context to prove papal supremacy you will find that your source has misinterpreted these texts. The quotes from Pope St. Julius are taken from a letter written by the Bishop of to the Eusebians at Antioch, protesting the removal of St. Athanasius from his position as Pope of Alexandria by council dominated by Arians and Semi-Arians in Antioch in 341. As the senior Bishop of the Church, Pope Julius rightly complains that he should have been informed and given an opportunity to participate himself of send legates to such a council. St. Julius also complains that the Eusebians of Antioch refused to attend a council that he called to settle the matter of St. Athanasus. In his letter, Pope Julius nowhere claims special jurisdiction over the Church or the right to make the decision himself but argued that the decision had to be made by a council to which all had been invited, not just a council of Arians or Semi-Arians. His letter contains some other interesting comments that show that the ultimate authority over the Church is a general council to which all have been invited, not just a few Bishops acting on their own authority. He wrote:

Letter of Julius to the Eusebians at Antioch.

The Bishops who assembled in the great Council of Nicæa agreed, not without the will of God, that the decisions of one council should be examined in another, to the end that the judges, having before their eyes that other trial which was to follow, might be led to investigate matters with the utmost caution, and that the parties concerned in their sentence might have assurance that the judgment they received was just, and not dictated by the enmity of their former judges.

Notice that St. Julius states that only another council can judge a council. He does not claim that authority for himself.

Now if you really believe that all Bishops have the same and equal authority, and you do not, as you assert, account of them according to the magnitude of their cities; he that is entrusted with a small city ought to abide in the place committed to him, and not from disdain of his trust to remove to one that has never been put under him; despising that which God has given him, and making much of the vain applause of men. You ought then, dearly beloved, to have come and not declined, that the matter may be brought to a conclusion; for this is what reason demands

Notice that he states that all Bishops have the same and equal authority. Here he is making a reference to St. Cyprian.

Now Sardica. Read the actual canons of the council. The council gave a Bishop who felt that he had wrongly been removed from his see the right to appeal to the Pope to appoint other nearby Bishops to review the situation and make a recommendation to him. If necessary, the Pope had the authority according to the canon to send a legate to deal with the matter. Historians note that this council was held at a time of great conflict between the Arians and the Orthodox and that the object of this canon was to protect St. Athanasius.

However, Sardica was only a local council. It is ironic that you should cite it, since Roman Catholics usually reject the Council in Trullo that ratified the Council of Sardica. You will remember that Pope St. Julius stated that only a council could judge another council. Obviously a canon of an Ecumenical Council would take precedence over a local council like Sardica. In this case Canon IX of the 4th Ecumenical Council, Chalcedon in 451 takes precedence over the canons of Sardica.
…
If any Clergyman have a matter against another clergyman, he shall not forsake his bishop and run to secular courts; but let him first lay open the matter before his own Bishop, or let the matter be submitted to any person whom each of the parties may, with the Bishop’s consent, select. And if any one shall contravene these decrees, let him be subjected to canonical penalties. And if a clergyman have a complaint against his own or any other bishop, let it be decided by the synod of the province. And if a bishop or clergyman should have a difference with the metropolitan of the province, let him have recourse to the Exarch of the Diocese, or to the throne of the Imperial City of Constantinople, and there let it be tried.

Notice that the council gives the authority to make an appeal to the Patriarch of Constantinople not to the Pope. If you need proof that the ancient Church did not recognize universal papal jurisdiction, here it is.

Archpriest John W. Morris

 

[josie_L]

I do not agree. It was the acceptance by the whole Church, not the Pope alone, that made an Ecumenical Council an Ecumenical Council. The ancient Popes had no such authority over the whole Church. The Popes did not even have that authority in the West until the 5th Lateran Council in 1514 long after the schism between East and West. Before that the Popes has no such authority because the Council of Constance 1414 decreed that Popes are subject to the authority of Ecumenical Councils. Ironically the Roman Catholic Church recognizes the Council of Constance as an Ecumenical Council. It was not until 1870 that the Roman Catholic Church adopted the doctrine of papal infallibility.

Archpriest John W. Morris

You’re not quite getting the nuances of my argument, i.e., of course, bishops at an ecumenical council must agree or affirm whatever was being defined (and in most cases it was already defined for them), however, the point I’m trying to make is that once this was established, a final and necessary step to make it binding on all Christians is the ratification of the decrees by the head of the Church, i.e., the pope. Without his ratification a general council (wherein we assume both East and West are present to some degree) could not have the power to bind all churches, a case in point, is Trullo. I am not denying the importance of the other bishops in their role at a general council, i.e., I assume that before a pope can ratify a general council, the other bishops are in accordance with each other, as this would be an essential criteria. But again, the pope’s decision to ratify the decrees issued forth from a general council is what ultimately gives it ecumenical status.

A good example, of what I mean, is Pope Vigilius and the 5th ecumenical council. Here is a case, wherein an emperor holds captive a pope (545 A.D) because he would not condemn “the three chapters.” only to ultimately convene a general council (May to June of 553 A.D.) because the pope refused to give his consent on the matter if he could not act freely. He was held captive for ten years (February of 554), and the only reason he was finally released was because he eventually consented to ratify the acts of the Council of Constantinople II. Now, my question is, if the 5th ecumenical council was sufficient enough to be binding on all Christians without the pope’s ratification, then why would the emperor need to keep the pope in captivity during and after its convening? Could it be that the emperor believed that it was absolutely necessary to attain the pope’s approval of the council for it to have ecumenical force? Despite, Emperor Justinian’s ruthless approach in acquiring the pope’s consent, he is conscious of the fact that as head of the Church a pope’s confirmation is required, in his own words:

Nor do we allow that any of these things, concerning ecclesiastical institution, should fail to be brought before his Holiness, as being the head of all the holy Priests of God… (Emperor Justinian I, AD 520-533, p. 344)

For we do not allow of any point, however manifest and indisputable it be, which relates to the state of the Churches, not being brought to the cognizance of your Holiness, since you are the Head of all holy churches. (Emperor Justinian I, AD 520-533, pp. 344f)

catholicity.elcore.net/PrimacyOfTheRomanChurch.html

 

[farnhamyrl]

I am not sure that a council needs to grant authority to itself when the very appeal

 

[GaryTaylor]

Father John,

2-points

1. Divinely instituted position
2. Defining honor/authority
   
   Well spoken, lets start with your second paragraph as it reminds me of a previous conversation and point.

Letter of Julius

newmanreader.org/works/athanasius/historical/tract2-2.html

Paragraph 9 footnote 20 referenced St Cyprians Unity chapter 4. Which again there are two of the same letters from the Saint in 251 and a rework in 255. The first expanding on the authority of the Bishops and See’s. Both considered original and indeed the Saints. Chapters 4,5.6.

ewtn.com/faith/teachings/churc1.htm

What I contend here is the same as above which I also believe St Cyprian touched on.

1] The Divinely established position of authority ( I concede authority itself is understood as “love” which I also believe becomes clear in reading)

1. The writing coincides with Scripture as an affirmation of both.
2. The consistency of a good deal of the early church fathers in understanding the above.

As to an Ecumenical Council or Sardica etc. I don’t believe we are far off. Though I do believe that viewing the whole instead of the specifics brings a clearer more accurate historical understanding into view.

I don’t think we are that far off in understanding, the idea of honor vs authority is a good argument, I concede this. Though we must admit the wording honor is absent in the early writings though the word authority is frequent as I believe we already see. I contend they are one of the same when correctly understood. Also as to St Cyprian, this I concede is another point which one can draw different conclusions. Anyway I add my previous conversation thus post just for the sake of others readers who may or may not what I’m referring to…

251 and revised by St Cyprian in 255/256. Chapter 4 of the work is extant in two recensions, the one with additions being generally regarded as a interpolated version until in 1902 Dom Chapman established the fact that both are from the hand of St Cyprian. This theory is now very generally accepted, with one important difference. The version with the so-called primacy additions is to be regarded as St Cyprians “original”, while the version without those phrases is regarded as St Cyprians own re-work, while its the longer version he omits the phrases in question of the “original” version and which favor Romes claim of the primacy. The Saint indeed recognized the Bishop of Rome held a special and primatial position, yet the mention of universal jurisdiction isn’t thought of.

Vol 25 of the series Ancient Christian Writers pp 7-8

“At Rome, there were no doubt about its Bishops authority over the whole Church, Cyprians original text could not fail to be read as a recognition of that fact. If in the course of the Baptismal controversy this was, as it were, thrown in his teeth, he will have exclaimed, quite truthfully: “But I never meant that!” and so he “toned it down” in his revised version. He did not, repudiate what he had formerly held. He never held that the Pope possessed universal jurisdiction. But he never denied it either, in truth he had never asked himself the question where the final authority of the Chruch might be…If the foregoing reconstruction is correct, we have in “De ecclesiae catholicae unitate” a good example of what a dogma can look like while still in the early age of development. The reality (in the case of the Primacy) is there all the time: it may be recognized by some; by others in may be denied, and though much of what they say or do unconsciously implies it…St Cyprian is a standing example of what we mean when we speak of the Papal Primacy being “implicit” in the early Church”

Chapman’s work followed Hartel who first thought the work to be interpolated, which appears today to be false.

 

[GaryTaylor]

As to Primacy of Honor/Divinely institued, I refer to Lambeth

therealpresence.org/archives/Papacy/Papacy_006.htm

Again here which elaborates on above and my points.

":Cyril did not reveal the basis of his belief in the pope’s authority. But his action accorded with the directive of the Council of Sardica (342)

Note “that the priests (bishops) of the Lord from all the provinces should report to the head that is to the see of Peter the apostle.” [30]

As can be seen, this council attended by Eastern bishops connected papal authority with St. Peter. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, it would seem that this view was generally held in the East, and consequently by Cyril as well.

Cyril’s belief that Peter was the chosen one of the Apostles, and that the Church was founded and securely fixed upon Peter’s immovable faith is beyond dispute.

The divine Word pronounced Peter, the chosen one of the holy apostles, to be blessed. For when in parts of Caesarea called Philippi, the Saviour asked “Who do men say that the Son of man is” (…) he cried out saying “Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God”, and speedily received the reward of his true conception about him, Christ saying “Blessed art thou (…)”, calling, I imagine, nothing else the rock, in allusion to his name, but the immovable and stable faith of the disciple on which the Church of Christ is founded and fixed without danger of falling. [31]"

 

[GaryTaylor]

Primacy of Authority… again Lambeth.

I think we can conclude St Cyprian indeed believed in the Divine institution?

therealpresence.org/archives/Papacy/Papacy_007.htm

“An examination of the following texts reveals that Cyril held Peter to be leader and the chosen one of the Apostles, thus implying a certain inequality between Peter and the others. “Therefore, passing over the other Apostles, he (Jesus) comes to the leader himself, and he says, ‘Often Satan wished that he might sift you as wheat (…).’”[28] “Peter himself, the elect of the holy disciples (…).”[29] “The divine Word pronounced Peter, the chosen one of the holy Apostles, to be blessed.” [30]”

St Cyril also as to Divinely instituted?

As to the Ecumenical Councils

“If a pope actually sought to define some doctrinal point without the aid of the episcopal college, it could be reasonably expected that the process leading up to a definition would be lengthy indeed. Therefore it is reasonable to suppose that popes would often enlist the aid of general councils in order to expedite matters [33]”

Council of Ephesus

“Cyril, who was to preside at the council, was of course well aware of the decree, and his actions after it took effect and before the council convened indicted that in his mind the bishops of the Church were to defer to papal authority. It was at this time that he wrote to Celestine asking him if Nestorius should be received at the council since he was a heretic. Cyril also wanted to know if the papal sentence against Nestorius was still in force. [42]”

 

[GaryTaylor]

Lambeth summary and conlusion

therealpresence.org/archives/Papacy/Papacy_011.htm

This project, prayerfully undertaken, should yield the following conclusions.

1.A realization that, during more than four centuries of separation from the Church of Rome, a substantial amount of misunderstanding occurred regarding the Roman Catholic doctrine of the papal magisterium and its relationship to the magisterium of the episcopal college.

2.An awareness that Scripture reveals a divinely appointed magisterial primacy over both the Apostles and the whole Church given to Peter as the immovable rock, holder of the keys and strengthener of the brethren.

3.A discovery that Scripture implicitly teaches that as long as the Church militant endures the need exists for a successor of Peter, the constitutional rock upon whom the Church militant was built.

4.A discovery that, in addition to the early Church’s belief that the episcopal college inherited its magisterial authority from the Apostles, it was also held that the Roman pontiff inherited Peter’s magisterial authority.

5.An awareness that, in virtue of the divinely authorized primacy of the papal magisterium, ancient tradition considered the episcopal college to consist solely of the bishops in communion with the See of Peter. Consequently, only the regional or territorial Churches in communion with Rome were regarded as full members of the Catholic Church.

6.A realization that the contemporary Roman Catholic doctrine concerning the magisterial authority of both Peter and his successors in Rome accords with the testimony of Scripture and of ancient tradition.

Also as to date the proposed thinking prior to the dates we are discussing I also add St Irenaeus

Irenaeus wrote of the necessity for every Church to agree doctrinally with the Church of Rome, the greatest, the best known and most ancient of all.

“For to this church on account of her more powerful principality it is necessary that every church should agree (or come together), that is the faithful from everywhere, in which, always, that which is the tradition from the Apostles has been preserved by those who are from everywhere. [84]”

Again Lambeth, I concede this is the Latin translation, the original is Greek which to date is non existent. Nevertheless the Latin with the other existing language translations coincide .

therealpresence.org/archives/Papacy/Papacy_007.htm

 

[frjohnmorris]

I do not understand exactly what point you are trying to make. I already know what the Roman Catholic Church believes about the papacy, and respectfully disagree. Roman Catholics are very good at taking quotes and incidents out of context to prove their case. However, when one studies the whole history of the ancient undivided Church it is clear the Bishop of Rome was the senior Bishop but only held a primacy of honor as a successor to St. Peter. I write “a” successor to St. Peter, because as Pope St. Gregory the Great wrote there were three Petrine sees in the ancient Church not just one, Rome, where St. Peter died and served as Bishop, Antioch, where St. Peter was Bishop before he went to Rome, and Alexandria, because St. Peter commissioned St. Mark to go to Alexandria where he became the first Bishop. As we know eventually Constantinople was raised to the dignity of a Patriarchate at the 2nd Ecumenical Council in 381 and given equality with Rome by the 4th Ecumenical Council. It does not matter whether or not the Pope objected to canon 28 of the council, for its very existence testifies to the fact that the rest of the Church did not accord any special privileges to Rome. Finally Chalcedon also raised Jerusalem to the rank of Patriarch, completing the Pentarchy of 5 Patrirchates that administered the ancient undivided Church. However, like all other Bishops, the Bishop of Rome was subject to the authority of an Ecumenical Council. The decrees of the councils were sent to all 5 Patriarchs for ratification, not just the Bishop of Rome. Each Patriarch presided over the council of Bishops in his Patriarchate and had to follow their decisions. This is clearly outlined in the canons. Many of the people like St. Athanasius or St. John Chrysostom appealed to Rome for support, but they also appealed to other leading Bishops such as the Bishop of Milan, something that Roman Catholic arguments in favor of papal authority fail to mention.

Canon IV of the 1st Ecumenical Council, Nicaea I in 325 states that all Bishops are to be elected locally by all the Bishops in the Province. It gives the Bishop of Rome no authority to appoint Bishops or requires his approval for the consecration of a Bishop.

Canon VI of the 1st Ecumenical Council, Nicaea I in 325 affirms the authority of the Metropolitans of Alexandria and Antioch over the areas traditionally under their authority as the Bishop of the provincial capital and limits the authority of Rome to those areas traditionally under Rome. The canon gives no special rights to Rome but affirms the independence of the Metropolitans of Alexandria and Antioch.

Canon IX of the Council of Antioch of 341 states that the Bishops of each province must “acknowledge the bishop who presides in the metropolis,” (capital of the province, hence the title Metropolitan) Although the canon gives the local Bishop authority over his diocese, it also requires that he “do nothing extraordinary” without the approval of the Metropolitn, but also that the Metropolitan administer his province with the “consent of the others.” Again the canon gives no special rights to Rome.

Canon VIII of the 3rd Ecumenical Council of Ephesus in 431 affirms the historic rights of each Metropolitan to administer his own province with no interference from any other Bishop. Once again, the canon gives no special rights to Rome.

Catholics often bring up Sardica which give the Bishop of Rome a limited right to hear appeals from Bishops who feel they have been dealt with unjustly by their Metropolitans. However, the canon does not give the Pope the authority to adjudicate the case, but only to appoint other bishops from a nearby province to rule on the case, or to appoint an arbitrator to negotiate a settlement. The canon does not give the Pope the authority to make the decision himself.

However, Canon IX of the 4th Ecumenical Council, the Council of Chalcedon which as a canon of an Ecumenical Council takes precedence over Sardica which was only a local council give a clergyman the right to appeal to Constantinople if he has a dispute with his Metropolitan. Again no mention of any special authority of Rome to intervene in the matter.

CONTINUED

 

[frjohnmorris]

CONTINUATION OF THE ABOVE

In his letter calling the Council of Chalcedon to meet and resolve the Monophysite crisis, Emperor Marcian states that the case of Eutyches had been decided by Patriarch Flavian of Constantinople as well as the Pope, “after that declaration follows the examination, inquiry, judgment fo the Fathers or bishops, in a General Council: after the declaration has been approved by the judgment of the Father no place is any longer left for doubt or discussion.” This shows that although the Pope St. Leo I had declared Monophysitism heretical in his famous Tome, the decision of a General or Ecumenical Council was necessary to complete the matter. In other words, the word of the Pope was not enough to finish the because to be binding on the whole Church the decision of Rome must be ratified by an Ecumenical Council.

I could go on citing the decisions of the Ecumenical Councils, but I think that I have made my point which is that Rome had a primacy of honor in the ancient Church, but had neither universal jurisdiction nor the authority to unilaterally and infallibly make declarations on the doctrine of the Church. Only an Ecumenical Council had such authority. The Church as established by the Ecumenical Councils is a confederation of locally self ruled Churches which decided all local matters through the council of the Bishops of the Patriarchate and all international matters by a General Council.

Now the Bible: in St. Matthew 16:15-19, the Rock upon which Christ will build His Church is the faith that Peter professed not the person of Peter himself. At this point, Our Lord promises that he will give the keys of the kingdom to St. Peter. He did not use the present tense but the future tense because he gave all the Apostles the keys to the kingdom in John 20:21-23 when Our Lord gave all the Apostles the authority to pronounce the forgiveness of sins. In Eastern Orthodoxy we still believe that our Bishops have the authority to prounce the forgiveness of sins and to give that authority to certain Priests, for not all Eastern Orthodox Priests have the authority to hear Confessions, but only those given the authority by their Bishop. Thus the power of the keys is the authority to pronounce absolution.

Then we have John 21:15-18 in which Our Lord asks St. Peter three times if he loves him and each time tells him to feed his sheep. This is clearly a restoration to his position as leader of the Apostles following his triple denial of Christ and nothing more.

Unity could easily be achieved if Rome would simply go back to the position it held during the age of the ancient undivided Church and reach doctrinal agreement with Orthodoxy on several other matters. However, there is no way that the Eastern Orthodox Church will give up its conciliar form of administration to submit to one man rule like the Roman Catholic Church. However, I do not think that we would insist that the Western Church adopt our method of administration, although to be perfectly honest, I believe that our conciliar forms are more faithful to the administration of the Church as mandated by the Ecumenical Councils.

Archpriest John W. Morris

 

[spina1953]

I have a question about the post #192. frjohnmorris, you said that “As we know eventually Constantinople was raised to the dignity of a patriarchate at the 2nd Ecumenical Councl in 381 and ‘given equality with Rome’ by the 4th Ecumunical Council.” Why was Constantinople ‘Given equality with Rome?’

 

[frjohnmorris]

I don’t think that you really get Cyprian. Aside from what Fr. John has already said, I think an honest reading of the De Unitate (in both major surviving versions) leaves very open the question as to whether the chair of Peter is that of the Bishop of Rome, or that of the local bishop, or (perhaps) that of the regional metropolitan, i.e. Carthage.

St.Cyprian certainly did not act as if he recognized universal papal jurisdiction when he quarreled with Pope St. Stephen over the Baptism of heretics. It would seem that had St. Cyprian believed that the Pope had the authority, he now claims, he would have yielded to Pope St. Stephen on this issue. Instead, he held a council in Carthage in 257 that clearly and without any ambiguity rejected the position held by Pope St. Stephen. In fact, the council declared, “For no one among us has set himself up as Bishop of Bishops, or attempted with tyrannical dread to force his colleagues to obedience to him, for every Bishop has, for license of liberty and power, his own will, and as he cannot be judged by another, so neither can he judge another.” Nicene and Post Nicene Fathers, vol. XIV, p. 517. The rejection of the title “Bishop of Bishops,” was a direct reference to Pope St. Stephen’s threat to excommunicate St. Cyprian over the issue. This shows why you cannot take quotes out of their historical context to prove anything. It is also necessary to look at what the people being quoted actually did. In this case, St. Cyprian wrote glowing words about the Bishop of Rome until he disagreed with him and then revised his “On the Unity of the Catholic Church” to show that he saw the primacy of Rome as purely honorific. His actions and the Council of Carthage of 257 shows that despite his verbiage in the first edition of his work, he did not really recognize the universal jurisdiction of the Pope of Rome.

Archpriest John W. Morris

 

[frjohnmorris]

I have a question about the post #192. frjohnmorris, you said that “As we know eventually Constantinople was raised to the dignity of a patriarchate at the 2nd Ecumenical Councl in 381 and ‘given equality with Rome’ by the 4th Ecumunical Council.” Why was Constantinople ‘Given equality with Rome?’

Because Constantinople was the New Rome. The 28th Canon of Chalcedon shows that the status of the see city determined the status of its Bishop. There was one major difference between the East and the West. The West had only one Apostolic see, Rome. In the East every village could claim that their Church was founded by an Apostle. Thus Apostolic foundation did not carry the prestige in the East that it did in the West. If foundation by St. Peter determined the rank of a Church, the Church of Antioch would be first, because St. Peter was Bishop of Antioch before he went to Rome. However, Rome was the capital of the Empire, so Rome had higher rank than Antioch. Although Antioch could claim St. Peter as its founder, it was not even given second rank. Alexandria which could only claim a connection to St. Peter because St. Peter sent St. Mark to found the Church of Alexandria, had second rank because it was a more important city than Antioch. When the new city of Constantinople became the capital of the Roman Empire, the status of its Bishop was raised accordingly.

Archpriest John W. Morris

 

[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. . . .

You are reading post Vatican I views of the papacy back into the history of the church, not letting the history of the church speak for itself. If ancient Popes had the authority they now claim, it would have been reflected in the canons of the 7 Ecumenical Councils, which certainly felt competent to pass canons on just about every subject touching the life and doctrine of the Church. There would also be examples of papal decisions being recognized as definitive during all the doctrinal controversies of the age of the Fathers and the 7 Ecumenical Councils, yet there are none. Every issue was resolved through a council. Pope St. Leo wrote his Tome against Monophysitism, but no one in the Church recognized his essay as having the last word on the controversy. For the Tome of Leo to have real ecumenical authority, it had to be ratified by the Council of Chalcedon. Even Pius IX had to secure the approval of a Roman Catholic Ecumenical Council for his claim to have the authority to infallibility issue decrees on matters of faith and morals.

Archpriest John W. Morris

 

[frjohnmorris]

You’re not quite getting the nuances of my argument, i.e., of course, bishops at an ecumenical council must agree or affirm whatever was being defined (and in most cases it was already defined for them), however, the point I’m trying to make is that once this was established, a final and necessary step to make it binding on all Christians is the ratification of the decrees by the head of the Church, i.e., the pope. Without his ratification a general council (wherein we assume both East and West are present to some degree) could not have the power to bind all churches, a case in point, is Trullo. I am not denying the importance of the other bishops in their role at a general council, i.e., I assume that before a pope can ratify a general council, the other bishops are in accordance with each other, as this would be an essential criteria. But again, the pope’s decision to ratify the decrees issued forth from a general council is what ultimately gives it ecumenical status.

A good example, of what I mean, is Pope Vigilius and the 5th ecumenical council. Here is a case, wherein an emperor holds captive a pope (545 A.D) because he would not condemn “the three chapters.” only to ultimately convene a general council (May to June of 553 A.D.) because the pope refused to give his consent on the matter if he could not act freely. He was held captive for ten years (February of 554), and the only reason he was finally released was because he eventually consented to ratify the acts of the Council of Constantinople II. Now, my question is, if the 5th ecumenical council was sufficient enough to be binding on all Christians without the pope’s ratification, then why would the emperor need to keep the pope in captivity during and after its convening? Could it be that the emperor believed that it was absolutely necessary to attain the pope’s approval of the council for it to have ecumenical force? Despite, Emperor Justinian’s ruthless approach in acquiring the pope’s consent, he is conscious of the fact that as head of the Church a pope’s confirmation is required, in his own words:

The point of the incident of Pope Vigilius and the 5th Ecumenical Council shows that the Councils assumed authority over the Bishop of Rome, because the council threatened to excommunicate the Pope if he did not accept the decrees of the council. They did not want another schism, led by Pope Vigilius in the West. As it happened, both Milan and Aquileia broke Communion with Rome because they did not accept the decisions of the Council. If Milan and Aquileia recognized the universal jurisdiction of the Popes they would not have broken Communion with Rome. They would have obeyed the Pope. That shows that even in the West at that time there were important sees that rejected the doctrine of the universal jurisdiction of the Pope.

Archpriest John W. Morris

 

[GaryTaylor]

I do not understand exactly what point you are trying to make. I already know what the Roman Catholic Church believes about the papacy, and respectfully disagree. Roman Catholics are very good at taking quotes and incidents out of context to prove their case.

We both disagree thus the conversation? In fairness Father this is a two way street, perhaps at times intentional perhaps at other times misunderstanding. Perhaps Rome is, after all right. Perhaps otherwise. This remains to be seen. Couldn’t I in all fairness say the same about the EO? Of course I could

I However, when one studies the whole history of the ancient undivided Church it is clear the Bishop of Rome was the senior Bishop but only held a primacy of honor as a successor to St. Peter. I write “a” successor to St. Peter, because as Pope St. Gregory the Great wrote there were three Petrine sees in the ancient Church not just one, Rome, where St. Peter died and served as Bishop, Antioch, where St. Peter was Bishop before he went to Rome, and Alexandria, because St. Peter commissioned St. Mark to go to Alexandria where he became the first Bishop.

Antioch claims apostolic succession from St. Peter, but only Rome can claim to have the actual successor of St. Peter. This is no different with Constantinople and Moscow with the Apostle Andrew. And you’ll see your thinking come to it fruition below.

As we know eventually Constantinople was raised to the dignity of a Patriarchate at the 2nd Ecumenical Council in 381 and given equality with Rome by the 4th Ecumenical Council.

Equality in what sense. It was raised to the second chair, two is not nor has even been equal to one. Nor does it mention equal anywhere. Now thats a myth.

It does not matter whether or not the Pope objected to canon 28 of the council, for its very existence testifies to the fact that the rest of the Church did not accord any special privileges to Rome.

Another myth. there is no Ecumenical Council without agreement and on each Canon. These proceed in love and charity not in force.

Finally Chalcedon also raised Jerusalem to the rank of Patriarch, completing the Pentarchy of 5 Patrirchates that administered the ancient undivided Church. However, like all other Bishops, the Bishop of Rome was subject to the authority of an Ecumenical Council. The decrees of the councils were sent to all 5 Patriarchs for ratification, not just the Bishop of Rome. Each Patriarch presided over the council of Bishops in his Patriarchate and had to follow their decisions.

Yet Canon 28 was rejected by Rome. And I don’t see where anyone had anything to say, and rightfully so as stated above,

This is clearly outlined in the canons. Many of the people like St. Athanasius or St. John Chrysostom appealed to Rome for support, but they also appealed to other leading Bishops such as the Bishop of Milan, something that Roman Catholic arguments in favor of papal authority fail to mention.

Links?

Canon IV of the 1st Ecumenical Council, Nicaea I in 325 states that all Bishops are to be elected locally by all the Bishops in the Province. It gives the Bishop of Rome no authority to appoint Bishops or requires his approval for the consecration of a Bishop.

This occurred with all the See’s, yet this doesn’t prove your point. Do you have the examples. As both St John and St Athanasius are covered above in dialogue with Rome with links I provided, Seems to be at odds. Also this is self addressed by you with Constantinople