Sola Concilium and the Eastern Orthodox

[GaryTaylor]

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.

Yes, but all in communion with Rome, an important overlooked point. Which all are called to be. As stated above, if you were not in communion with Rome you were outside the Church. Everyone knew this. And I understand the positions taken from here as to those not in communion.

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.

Still talking individual See’s though not the universal Church. Again your own example of the second see.

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.

Again none of this is what we are discussing, nor is Rome of question in Canon VIII. Its “expected” each See be self sufficient, but like a living cell it must be part of the body. Or its is lacking, namely in communion with the Frist Chair thus that of St Peter.

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.

Canon III - Sure does “and let those who tried the case write to Julius, the bishop of Rome, and if he shall judge that the case should be retried, let that be done, and let him appoint judges; but if he shall find that the case is of such a sort that the former decision need not be disturbed, what he has decreed shall be confirmed. Is this the pleasure of all? The synod answered, It is our pleasure.”

“He shall judge, he shall appoint judges”. He is St Peters successor who you notice contrary to your thinking above is in Rome? Why didn’t they talk about Antioch here Father?

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.

They were given the second chair that came with responsibility. and from there where would they appeal? Rome of course. Also note what your saying here in relation to above

 

[GaryTaylor]

Father I shall return to address your other points. Peace!

 

[frjohnmorris]

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

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.
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.

I RESPOND: Rome can claim to have a successor to St. Peter, but so can the Patriarch of Antioch who is also a successor to St. Peter. As I have explained the importance of a see was determined by the importance of the city. As the New Rome Constantinople was raised to Patriarchal rank by the 2 Ecumenical Council at the 2nd Ecumenical Council, Constantinople I in 381. Canon 28 of Chalcedon “gave equal privileges” to the New Rome that had been given to the Old Rome. It does not matter that the Pope did not accept this canon, because the Bishop of Rome does not have the right to veto the acts of an Ecumenical Council, but must obey the decisions of the Council. In any case, the canon shows beyond the shadow of a doubt that the ancient undivided Church did not recognize Rome’s claim to universal jurisdiction.

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

I RESPOND: Rome is under the authority of an Ecumenical Council not above it. Like all other Bishops, the Bishop of Rome must obey the decisions of the Ecumenical Councils. Nowhere can you find recognition in the texts and canons of the 7 Ecumenical Councils that they recognized Rome’s claim to possess authority over the Ecumenical Councils. They all assume authority over all Bishops, including Rome. Look at the actual decrees, discussions and canons of the Ecumenical Councils at the volume on the Ecumenical Councils at this site. ccel.org/fathers.html

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

Links?

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

Look carefully at this site en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eastern_Orthodox_opposition_to_papal_supremacy

Archpriest John W. Morris

 

[GaryTaylor]

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.

Yet we went through this very sequence above with individual See’s and then Constantinople etc. This is simply the established chain of command. Thus authority. I’ll read you last link perhaps a light will go on.

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.

.

In communion with the See of Peter with an established chain of command, and its self evident by yourself above with the second chair. Honor and Authority is addressed in the links I provided with Lambeth, not to belabor the point

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. .

No Father he gave Keys to St Peter and the power to bind and loose to all the Bishops (and Biblically) in communion with Rome. Augustine stated something similar, yet for him I present his own work Retractions. Which he clarifies his statements. He said I will give “you-Peter-singular not plural” the Keys of the Kingdom. He didn’t say…"You guys, you all. He said: You, thus St Peter.

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. .

How do you know its nothing more? He could have said three time anything else, but he said to “Peter” 3X "Feed My Sheep. He could have said “I forgive you” three times as He certainly did Biblically with others. But He said “Feed My Sheep”. Buy the way why He forgive Peter and not Judas?

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…

I don’t know Father. It could be said the same with the shoe on the other foot. Needless to say I enjoy your conversation and thinking. Safe to say we can agree to disagree. Father, we need an “Ecumenical Council” where all is well understood or everyone exhausts themselves till “they agree” . Conclave style bread and water to speed up the apprehensiveness.

 

[josie_L]

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.

First of all, he did not claim in his letter as you suggest that any decisions concerning this Arian fiasco HAD to be made by a council, i.e., he was asked if a synod could take place by the Eusebians in order that both sides represent their cases to him (the pope). This synod which took place in ROME was PRESIDED over by the POPE. The fact that the Eusebians and those deposed by their machinations sought out his support in order to be reinstated or recognized is proof that he did have the power to reinstate them (why waste time seeking him out if this were not the case). The pope has I have already mentioned is the final arbiter, i.e., therefore whatever sentence he imposed is said to stand, this cannot be said for appeals made to other bishops (including that of Milan). This is why the canons of Sardica are relevant because unlike the manner in which you are defining them, it did confirm that the pope had the final say.

Canon 3 of Sardica

Bishop Hosius said: This also it is necessary to add—that bishops shall not pass from their own province to another province in which there are bishops, unless perchance upon invitation from their brethren, that we seem not to close the door of charity.

But if in any province a bishop have a matter in dispute against his brother bishop, one of the two shall not call in as judge a bishop from another province.

But if judgment have gone against a bishop in any cause, and he think that he has a good case, in order that the question may be reopened, let us, if it be your pleasure, honour the memory of St. Peter the Apostle, and let those who tried the case write to Julius, the bishop of Rome, and if he shall judge that the case should be retried, let that be done, and let him appoint judges; but if he shall find that the case is of such a sort that the former decision need not be disturbed, what he has decreed shall be confirmed. Is this the pleasure of all? The synod answered, It is our pleasure.

Canon 4

Bishop Gaudentius said: It ought to be added, if it be your pleasure, to this sentence full of sanctity which you have pronounced, that— when any bishop has been deposed by the judgment of those bishops who have sees in neighbouring places, and he [the bishop deposed] shall announce that his case is to be examined in the city of Rome— that no other bishop shall in any wise be ordained to his see, after the appeal of him who is apparently deposed, unless the case shall have been determined in the judgment of the Roman bishop.

Canon 5

Bishop Hosius said: Further decreed, that if a bishop is accused, and the bishops of that region assemble and depose him from his office, if he who has been deposed shall appeal and take refuge with the bishop of the Roman church and wishes to be given a hearing, if he think it right that the trial or examination of his case be renewed, let him be pleased to write to those bishops who are in an adjacent and neighbouring province, that they may diligently inquire into all the particulars and decide according to the word of truth. But if he who asks to have his case reheard, shall by his entreaty move the Bishop of Rome to send a presbyter a latere it shall be in the power of that bishop to do what he shall resolve and determine upon; and if he shall decide that some be sent, who shall be present and be judges with the bishops invested with his authority by whom they were appointed, it shall be as he shall choose. But if he believe that the bishops suffice to give a final decision, he shall do what he shall determine upon in his most wise judgment.

Do you see any mention other than the Roman Church one could appeal to that could overturn the decisions made by other bishops? And as I have already mentioned, Trullo, which you consider ecumenical, elevated these canons to a whole new level.

to be continued . . . .

 

[josie_L]

**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.**

Ok, lets get things straight, popes are not tyrants that can change things wily nily (especially conciliar decisions that were already accepted by the Church and his predecessors), i.e., they are bound by the constitutional laws/customs of the Church, hence, as Catholics we view our Church along the lines of a constitutional monarchy. Now that being said, you keep insinuating this either/or argument wherein it’s either this or either that, as a Catholic, I keep telling you that if a pope consents to feed or strengthen his brethren through a council then he can do so without nullifying his prerogative of universal jurisdiction. He is not meant to act alone on all decisions concerning the faith, but he does have the final say or has I have mentioned before is the final arbiter.

It behooved you to write to all of us, that thus what was just might be decreed by all. For they who suffered were Bishops, and the Churches suffered no common ones, over which the Apostles ruled in person. And why were we not written to concerning the Church, especially of Alexandria? Or are you ignorant that this has been the custom first to write to us, and thus what is just be decreed from this place (Rome)? If, therefore, any such suspicion fell upon the Bishop there (Alexandria), it was befitting to write to this Church (Rome). But now they who acquainted us not, but did what they themselves chose, proceed to wish us, though unacquainted with the fact, to become supporters of their views. Not thus were Paul’s ordinances, not thus have the fathers handed down to us, this is another form, and a new institution. Bear with me cheerfully, I beseech you, for what I write is for the common good. **For what we have received from the blessed Apostle Peter, the same do I make known to you; and these things I would not have written to you, deeming them manifest to you all, had not what has been done confounded us.” **– Ep. ad Eusebian. n. 6,21. Galland. T. v. p.6,13)

The pope is not suggesting that his prerogatives/primacy come from some conciliar decision but rather from the blessed Peter, and according to him it is not something that he needed to inform others of because it was obvious to the Church what his role was within the Church. Because he is the successor to Peter custom dictated that these churches write to him first before taking undue action against other bishops, especially those as important as Alexandria, i.e., a council could not dispose a bishop as important as that of Alexandria without first requiring the consent of Rome.

to be continued and continued and continued . . . . . . .

 

[spina1953]

Thank you frjohnmorris for you reply to my question. However, am I now to understand that the Patriarchate (Constantinople) being “given equality with Rome” Pope) that both Rome and Constantinople were equal in stature? Does not seem righ to me.

 

[spina1953]

Ok, lets get things straight, popes are not tyrants that can change things wily nily (especially conciliar decisions that were already accepted by the Church and his predecessors), i.e., they are bound by the constitutional laws/customs of the Church, hence, as Catholics we view our Church along the lines of a constitutional monarchy. Now that being said, you keep insinuating this either/or argument wherein it’s either this or either that, as a Catholic, I keep telling you that if a pope consents to feed or strengthen his brethren through a council then he can do so without nullifying his prerogative of universal jurisdiction. He is not meant to act alone on all decisions concerning the faith, but he does have the final say or has I have mentioned before is the final arbiter.

The pope is not suggesting that his prerogatives/primacy come from some conciliar decision but rather from the blessed Peter, and according to him it is not something that he needed to inform others of because it was obvious to the Church what his role was within the Church. Because he is the successor to Peter custom dictated that these churches write to him first before taking undue action against other bishops, especially those as important as Alexandria, i.e., a council could not dispose a bishop as important as that of Alexandria without first requiring the consent of Rome.

to be continued and continued and continued . . . . . . .

I quite agree with your statements.

 

[frjohnmorris]

Yet we went through this very sequence above with individual See’s and then Constantinople etc. This is simply the established chain of command. Thus authority. I’ll read you last link perhaps a light will go on.
In communion with the See of Peter with an established chain of command, and its self evident by yourself above with the second chair. Honor and Authority is addressed in the links I provided with Lambeth, not to belabor the point
No Father he gave Keys to St Peter and the power to bind and loose to all the Bishops (and Biblically) in communion with Rome. Augustine stated something similar, yet for him I present his own work Retractions. Which he clarifies his statements. He said I will give “you-Peter-singular not plural” the Keys of the Kingdom. He didn’t say…"You guys, you all. He said: You, thus St Peter.
How do you know its nothing more? He could have said three time anything else, but he said to “Peter” 3X "Feed My Sheep. He could have said “I forgive you” three times as He certainly did Biblically with others. But He said “Feed My Sheep”. Buy the way why He forgive Peter and not Judas?
I don’t know Father. It could be said the same with the shoe on the other foot. Needless to say I enjoy your conversation and thinking. Safe to say we can agree to disagree. Father, we need an “Ecumenical Council” where all is well understood or everyone exhausts themselves till “they agree” . Conclave style bread and water to speed up the apprehensiveness.

You do not understand the Eastern Orthodox concept of seniority or “presvia.” Rank is not a chain of command. It is purely honorific. All Priests are equal as are all Bishops. There are certain honorific and administrative titles, but they do not convey special spiritual authority over other Priests and Bishops. As an older Priest with the rank of Archpriest, I hold a higher rank than most other Priests of the Antiochian Archdiocese, but I have no authority over them. If I go to a parish and concelebrate with newly ordained Priest has not been elevated as I have, I serve as junior Priest because in his own parish, he has seniority over all other Priests. Thus rank is only honorific. I only commemorate my own Bishop because he is the Bishop over the parish. I do not commemorate the Patriarch of Antioch. If the Patriarch of Antioch goes to Moscow, the Patriarch of Moscow presides because although the Patriarch of Antioch has higher rank than the Patriarch of Moscow in his own Patriarchate, the Patriarch of Moscow has the right to preside even when serving with a Patriarch who outranks him. The Pope had a higher rank, but not authority than the other Patriarchs in the ancient Church.
Christ did not say to St. Peter, I give you the keys of the kingdom, but I will give you the keys to the kingdom. Our Lord gave the keys to the kingdom to all the Apostles when he gave them all the power to pronounce the forgiveness of sins after His Resurrection.
Our Lord did not forgive Judas because he did not repent and ask for forgiveness. Our Lord told St. Peter to feed His sheep three times because St. Peter denied him three times. The two events are a parallel. Thus the triple feed my sheep restored St. Peter to the rank of Apostle. Christ did not give St. Peter anything that He did not give to the other Apostles. Remember on the matter of how much of the Jewish law converts had to follow St. Peter did not speak “ex cathedra,” but he submitted his vision to the other Apostles for their judgment. He may have spoken first because he was the chief of the Apostles, but in the end St. James as the local Bishop announced the decision.

Archpriest John W. Morris

 

[josie_L]

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

No it doesn’t as Pope Vigilius was captured (545) way before any council was even considered, i.e., Emperor Justinian wanted the consent or affirmation of the pope because he realized that was all he needed in order to settle the matter, however, when he could not get his approval, he convened a council (553). You don’t hold a bishop captive for 10 years because his opinion doesn’t carry any weight whatsoever within the Church, and you certainly don’t hold him captive after the synod ended unless you think that his consent was necessary to that synod. And even if the council threatened to strike his name off the diptychs, did this scare Vigilius into assenting, no, he held his own based on his authority as head of the Church, i.e, he waited months after the synod convened before deciding to affirm Constantinople II. The fact that (heretical/disobedient) bishops have broken communion with the Catholic Church does not change the fact that it is still the true Church of Christ, so neither does the disobedience of bishops or those who break with the Roman see change the fact that he is still the head of Christ’s Church (with universal jurisdiction).

 

[Reuben_J]

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

First of all, let’s say that the Orthodox view point is noted in this post. And the ‘founders’ of the different churches by the individual apostles has never been the issue with the Catholic Church. But perhaps this is where we are talking passing each other.

Second of all, Catholic would not speak in term of founders of the various churches by the individual apostles which they did as they travelled wide and far but these are all one Church of Christ. However, it is in Peter that this Church is built. Peter could start a church, a parish in the modern day term, in Antioch or Rome, but they are not individual churches that are different from each other. In theory they are of the same Church where Peter is the head of them all, unless a church separates itself and adopts a new belief.

Thus there is no rank in the Catholic Church per se but the successor of Peter, wherever he will be, is the head of them all.

We cannot see Constantinople as the new Rome unless the Papacy was moved to it.

Perhaps these are some areas of differences in Catholic and Orthodox viewpoints such as how we see things respectively.

 

[frjohnmorris]

No it doesn’t as Pope Vigilius was captured (545) way before any council was even considered, i.e., Emperor Justinian wanted the consent or affirmation of the pope because he realized that was all he needed in order to settle the matter, however, when he could not get his approval, he convened a council (553). You don’t hold a bishop captive for 10 years because his opinion doesn’t carry any weight whatsoever within the Church, and you certainly don’t hold him captive after the synod ended unless you think that his consent was necessary to that synod. And even if the council threatened to strike his name off the diptychs, did this scare Vigilius into assenting, no, he held his own based on his authority as head of the Church, i.e, he waited months after the synod convened before deciding to affirm Constantinople II. The fact that (heretical/disobedient) bishops have broken communion with the Catholic Church does not change the fact that it is still the true Church of Christ, so neither does the disobedience of bishops or those who break with the Roman see change the fact that he is still the head of Christ’s Church (with universal jurisdiction).

I disagree with you the incident involving Pope Vigilius shows that the Ecumenical Councils considered themselves superior to the Pope. Until he agreed to accept the decisions of the Council, Pope Vigilius was treated like any other heretic which he was until he accepted the decisions of the 5th Ecumenical Council. He went to Constantinople to escape the Germanic tribes who had invaded Italy. If the council recognized Pope Vigilius as the head of the Church they certainly would not have defied him the way that they did. The fact is that theologically the Council was right and Vigilius was wrong because he refused to condemn the heresy of Nestorianism expressed in the works known to history as the Three Chapters. The decision of the Council that Chalcedon must be interpreted in conformity with the theology of St. Cyril of Jerusalem was absolutely essential because one can read Chalcedon and apply a Nestorian interpretation to it. Just look at Calvinism. They affirm Chalcedon and are pure Nestorians.
Christ is the head of the Church, not any human being. From our point of view it is Rome that is in schism. There were 5 Patriarchs. None of the other 4 agreed with Rome. Does that not tell you something? It was Rome that broke with the rest of the Church and allowed Cardinal Humbert to begin the schism. As long as Rome confined itself to managing its own Patriarchate and did not try to interfere in the affairs of the others, we had unity. But when Rome overstepped it authority and began to demand authority over the other Patriarchs, the schism took place. The other Patriarchs resisted Rome’s claims because they were an innovation that contradicted the decisions of the Ecumenical Councils and the way that the Church had operated before 1054. Remember, Pope Nicholas I based his claims on a forged document, the Donation of Constantine. Does it not bother you that most of the Popes claims come from a document that was a forgery?

Archpriest John W. Morris

 

[GaryTaylor]

You do not understand the Eastern Orthodox concept of seniority or “presvia.” Rank is not a chain of command. It is purely honorific. All Priests are equal as are all Bishops. There are certain honorific and administrative titles, but they do not convey special spiritual authority over other Priests and Bishops.As an older Priest with the rank of Archpriest, I hold a higher rank than most other Priests of the Antiochian Archdiocese, but I have no authority over them.

This is today in your church. Obviously not in Rome nor has it ever been St Irenaeus. I already addressed this. Were are just talking past one another now.

The Pope had a higher rank, but not authority than the other Patriarchs in the ancient Church.

No the Pope “has” a higher rank. Which all are called to be in communion with his See. Historic fact. Apparently we’ll have to agree to disagree. I do not see where you proved a single point.

Christ did not say to St. Peter, I give you the keys of the kingdom, but I will give you the keys to the kingdom. Our Lord gave the keys to the kingdom to all the Apostles when he gave them all the power to pronounce the forgiveness of sins after His Resurrection

Not Biblical. Show me the verse where ALL the Apostles received the Keys, it does not exist. Inadmissible as an interpretation of Christ’s words. For it is plain that He desired to confer by them some special prerogative on Peter,

Christ did not give St. Peter anything that He did not give to the other Apostles. Remember on the matter of how much of the Jewish law converts had to follow St. Peter did not speak “ex cathedra,” but he submitted his vision to the other Apostles for their judgment. He may have spoken first because he was the chief of the Apostles, but in the end St. James as the local Bishop announced the decision.

Unacceptable. unbiblical. Safe to say we disagree. This is addressed above at Lambeth also.

And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven.

All singular “you” and 3X also. Then bind and loose was mentioned.

Do you have another verse where the Church is divinely established on all the Apostles? How about the Keys? Of course not it does not exist, sorry.

Bind and loose is what indeed is mentioned to all the apostles.

BTW where in scripture does this transpire with Peter, its doesn’t nor does it with Judas. The only explaination is this is all above us with Christ.

 

[spina1953]

First of all, let’s say that the Orthodox view point is noted in this post. And the ‘founders’ of the different churches by the individual apostles has never been the issue with the Catholic Church. But perhaps this is where we are talking passing each other.

Second of all, Catholic would not speak in term of founders of the various churches by the individual apostles which they did as they travelled wide and far but these are all one Church of Christ. However, it is in Peter that this Church is built. Peter could start a church, a parish in the modern day term, in Antioch or Rome, but they are not individual churches that are different from each other. In theory they are of the same Church where Peter is the head of them all, unless a church separates itself and adopts a new belief.

Thus there is no rank in the Catholic Church per se but the successor of Peter, wherever he will be, is the head of them all.

We cannot see Constantinople as the new Rome unless the Papacy was moved to it.

Perhaps these are some areas of differences in Catholic and Orthodox viewpoints such as how we see things respectively.

I agree with you wholeheartily
It did seem to me that it was appearing that somehow both the Pope in Rome and the Patriarchate of Constantinople were equals meaning they shared the same power as head of theChurch to which I don’t agree with. Also it was my understanding that the emperor thought he’d try to have the Pope move to Constantinople or just make Constantinople the new head of the whole Church; a polical thing, as it is known that he wanted to control the Pope and the Church as a whole. That was my understanding of the history. I do not think it matters where the Pope lives as He still head of the whole Chuch just as he was when he lived in France.

 

[frjohnmorris]

First of all, let’s say that the Orthodox view point is noted in this post. And the ‘founders’ of the different churches by the individual apostles has never been the issue with the Catholic Church. But perhaps this is where we are talking passing each other.

Second of all, Catholic would not speak in term of founders of the various churches by the individual apostles which they did as they travelled wide and far but these are all one Church of Christ. However, it is in Peter that this Church is built. Peter could start a church, a parish in the modern day term, in Antioch or Rome, but they are not individual churches that are different from each other. In theory they are of the same Church where Peter is the head of them all, unless a church separates itself and adopts a new belief.

Thus there is no rank in the Catholic Church per se but the successor of Peter, wherever he will be, is the head of them all.

We cannot see Constantinople as the new Rome unless the Papacy was moved to it.

Perhaps these are some areas of differences in Catholic and Orthodox viewpoints such as how we see things respectively.

We would say the same thing, except that Christ is the head of the Church. Let us back up a little bit. What is the Church? The Church is a Eucharistic Assembly. It is the Eucharist that makes a group of people a Church. The head of each Eucharist Assembly is the Bishop, or the Priest appointed by the Bishop to act as His representative in the parish. Whenever the Faithful gather with their Bishop or Priest for the Eucharist, as St. Ignatius of Antioch wrote, “there is the Catholic Church.” However, in Greek Catholic does not mean universal, but full or complete. That is there is nothing lacking in the fullness of the local Eucharistic Assembly that is essential to being the Church. The world wide Church is created by the Communion between the Bishops of the local Churches. Other offices such as Metropolitan, Patriarch or Pope are merely administrative. Thus, all Bishops are successors to St. Peter, not just the Pope or the Patriarch of Antioch. All Bishops are spiritually equal. No one Bishop is infallible or has universal jurisdiction. Decisions within an autocephalous Church are made by the Holy Synod and the Primate working together. Decisions on the international level are made by Ecumenical Councils or Pan Orthodox Councils. There is an honorary ranking of Churches, but it is only honorary, for each autocephalous Church governs its own affairs and elects its own Bishops.
You can argue with me all you want, but it is historical fact that the ancient Church followed the administrative divisions of the Roman Empire with the Bishop of the capital of the Province or Metropolis given the title Metropolitan. It was his duty to call the Bishops of the Province together to administer the affairs of the Church in the Province. When St. Constantine built a new capital of the Empire in Constantinople, Constantinople became the New Rome. The Church followed its old traditions and the Archbishop of the New Rome became senior Bishop in the Empire with equal rank with the Bishop of the Old Rome. This decision was made by the 4th Ecumenical Council, Chalcedon in 451 and ratified by the 5th, 6th, and 7th Ecumenical Councils. Ecumenical Councils have authority over the whole Church, not the Bishop of the Old Rome, who only had a primacy of honor because of the prestige of Rome as old capital of the Roman Empire. Therefore it does not mater what the Popes of Old Rome thought for the Church meeting in Ecumenical Council had spoken. Do not forget, Antioch is also the Church of Sts. Peter and Paul and the Patriarch of Antioch is just as much a successor to St. Peter as is the Bishop of Rome but because in the ranking of cities in the Empire Antioch came after Rome and Alexandria. That is how the Church operated before the schism. Therefore the solution to our division is to go back to the way things were in the ancient Church with the Bishop of Rome having a primacy of honor as senior Bishop, but respecting the independence of each autocephalous Church and the highest authority being a general council representing all of the local Churches presided over by the Pope or his representative since the Pope is the first among equals in the Church. Naturally, the other Patriarchs would respect the independence of the Church of Rome to administer its own affairs according to its own customs. In places like the United States, we would have parallel jurisdictions much like there are now. For example, just as the Melkite Churches are under the authority of the Melkite Bishop, not the local Latin Rite Bishop we would remain under our own Bishops, but would be in Communion with the local Latin Rite parish.

Archpriest John W. Morris

 

[GaryTaylor]

The only thing which occurred is Alexandria the second See was attacked by the pagans. Due to this unfortunate event Constantinople was given the honor of second See, Antioch was third. Nevertheless Cyprian addressed a good deal of this in prior to all this with Unity.

Aside from Chapter 4 which I addressed here Lambeth adds the following which is linked here. …

Chapter five states that there is one priest, that is, one bishop in the Church who is for the time judge in place of Christ. Because he is not obeyed, heresies and schisms have arisen. If he were obeyed no harm would come to the college of (high) priests. Note that Cyprian regarded these convictions as based upon divine teaching.

Chapter fourteen maintains that Rome is the site of the See of Peter, the principal Church from which the unity of the (high) priesthood took its rise or origin. Those belonging to this see, viz. the Romans, are those to whom falsehood could not gain access.

Chapter five says that there is one bishop who by divine authority possesses the magisterial and jurisdictional primacy over the Church. Submission to his teaching prevents heresies and schisms from arising. Chapter fourteen says that it is the See of Rome which is immune to heresy. This would also obviously include the bishop of the see, who most certainly is the same bishop referred to in the fifth chapter.

The evidence provided by Cyprian in Epistle 59 indicates that in at least one instance outside of the De Unitate, where Cyprian expressed a belief in the primacy of the papacy by divine right.

“He who deserts the Chair of Peter on which the Church was founded, does he trust that he is in the Church?” As we have seen, this statement also has a counterpart in Cyprian’s Epistle 59, where the same belief is disclosed.

However, independent analyses of the evidence indicate that during the early years of his episcopate, Cyprian openly advocated papal primacy

Scripturally Lambeth addressed the Rock in Matthew/ Ephesians also and the Council of Jerusalem

The contexts of both the Matthean and Ephesians passages are taken into consideration, it will be seen that the Church referred to in the one is not precisely the same as that in the other. The Church in the Matthean text is the Church militant; that in Ephesians is the entire Body of Christ, both in this life and beyond. In Matthew, Peter alone is called the rock of the Church militant. In Ephesians, all the Apostles with the prophets are the foundation of the entire Church, visible and invisible. Furthermore, in Ephesians, Christ is described as the cornerstone or head of the entire Church. In Matthew, Peter, as the sole steward in charge of the keys, is the sole visible head of the visible Church. It can be seen, therefore, that there is a real distinction made between Peter as the rock, and all the Apostles as the Church’s foundation.

 

[GaryTaylor]

While feed my sheep has never been a point of contention for me. There are different views on this, again above Lambeth…

John Chrysostom interpreted the disputed text in a Roman Catholic manner in the century preceding Leo’s.

After that grave fall (for there is no sin equal to denial), after so great a sin, he brought him back to his former honor, and entrusted him with the care of the universal Church, and, what is more than all, he showed us that he had a greater love for his master than any of the apostles, for he said, “Peter, lovest thou me more than these?”

Pope Leo I (440-461) was held to be the first to invent the germ of the idea that the text revealed a Petrine primacy over the Church.

St John Chrysostom wrote that Jesus entrusted Peter with the care of the universal Church. Another text reveals that no other Apostle shared in this honor.

“He say to him “Feed my Sheep.” Why does he pass over the others and speak about these to him ? He was the chosen one of the Apostles, the mouth of the disciples, the head of the choir; for this reason Paul went up to see him rather than the other (…). He entrusts him with the primacy of the brethren; and as He does not bring forward the denial, or reproach him with the past, but says: “If you love me, rule the brethren (…). And if anyone would say “How did James receive the chair of Jerusalem,” I would reply that He appointed Peter a teacher not of the chair, but of the world (…).”

Peter was charged with the care of the whole Church and with the primacy of the brethren. It is worth noting that the Father above expressing these beliefs was from the East.

Again this was never a point of contention here for me. Some claim papal infallibility was never affirmed by the teaching of the early undivided Church.

Cyprian and Lambeth again, …Yet we have already noted that this was held by Cyprian. Jerome, too, expressed an implicit belief in the doctrine. This is seen in a letter of his to Pope Damasus.

Decide, I beseech, if you please, and I will not fear to acknowledge three hypostases. If you order it, let a new creed be compiled after the Nicene, and the orthodox will confess in like words with the Arians. (…) Well might Ursinus be joined to your beatitude, Auxentius to Ambrose. Far be this from the faith of Rome. May the devout hearts of the people drink of no such sacrilege. Let us be satisfied to say one substance, three persons subsisting, perfect, equal, coeternal. Let us drop three hypostases, if you please, and hold one. It is no use using different words in the same sense (…). But if you think right that, with explanations, we should say three hypostases, we do not refuse (…).

Let me put this another way. There have been several ideas proposed, early church fathers in disagreement. etc.

The fact remains, the Bishop of Rome and the exact biblical interpretation as spoken by Jesus Christ exist today in Rome and always have. You might call this coincidence. To that I say there is no such thing as coincidence with Divine Providence. Its a fact historically and in reality. Perhaps as astonishing as this is? Its because its the word of God.

None of the this is new as Scripture states OT “Nothing is new under the sun” Same arguments for hundreds of years. Same as with the 50 AD Council, Here again Lambeth…

“Many non-Roman Catholics believed that James of Jerusalem was presiding officer of the Jerusalem Conference. Jones, however, maintained that the events described in Acts 15 made it clear that Peter, not James, assumed this position. It was pointed out that during the delivery of decisive speeches at the end of the conference, it was Peter who took the lead. It was his speech, based upon a divine vision, which provided the solution for the controversy occasioning the meeting. James, on the other hand, simply voiced his opinion in the matter which, significantly, was based upon Peter’s judgment. There was nothing to indicate that he was speaking authoritatively for the whole Church, whereas Peter’s declaration had divine support.”

Goodnight, lets focus on the Ecumenical Council tomorrow. Not sure how we become distracted. Father wanted to discuss Peter the Rock and Keys

 

[frjohnmorris]

Ok, lets get things straight, popes are not tyrants that can change things wily nily (especially conciliar decisions that were already accepted by the Church and his predecessors), i.e., they are bound by the constitutional laws/customs of the Church, hence, as Catholics we view our Church along the lines of a constitutional monarchy. Now that being said, you keep insinuating this either/or argument wherein it’s either this or either that, as a Catholic, I keep telling you that if a pope consents to feed or strengthen his brethren through a council then he can do so without nullifying his prerogative of universal jurisdiction. He is not meant to act alone on all decisions concerning the faith, but he does have the final say or has I have mentioned before is the final arbiter.

The pope is not suggesting that his prerogatives/primacy come from some conciliar decision but rather from the blessed Peter, and according to him it is not something that he needed to inform others of because it was obvious to the Church what his role was within the Church. Because he is the successor to Peter custom dictated that these churches write to him first before taking undue action against other bishops, especially those as important as Alexandria, i.e., a council could not dispose a bishop as important as that of Alexandria without first requiring the consent of Rome.

to be continued and continued and continued . . . . . . .

What you describe is not a constitutional monarchy. In a constitutional monarchy, the monarch cannot make unilateral decisions, but must follow the will of the people expressed through their representatives in a parliament. The Roman Catholic Church operates more like a medieval absolute monarchy because as you put it the Pope is the final arbitrator. Your view of the Catholic Church confirms my suspicion that his position as the the absolute monarch over Rome and central Italy had more influence on the development of the papacy than the Holy Tradition of the Church. The Popes treated the Church the same way that they treated the papal states.
The Pope was not the final arbitrator in the age of the Councils, an Ecumenical Council was the final arbitrator because it represented the whole Body of Christ. The Pope was subject to an Ecumenical Council. The Ecumenical Councils were not subject to the Pope. If the Popes during this period that later Popes claimed, it would be evident in the canons of the Ecumenical Councils, but it is not. Therefore it is reasonable to conclude that the ancient Popes did not have the authority then that they have today. There is no doubt that the canons and other decisions of the Ecumenical Councils assume that they had legislative authority over the entire Church including the Pope. Have you actually studied the canons and decisions of the Ecumenical Councils yourself? Perhaps if you did you would see my point.
It is quite a stretch to go from the few verses recognizing St. Peter as the leader of the Apostles, to the modern infallible papacy that is not answerable to any higher authority. All the Scriptures tell us is that St. Peter was the leader of the Apostles. There is nothing in the New Testament that states that St. Peter was either infallible or above the authority of the college of Apostles. Indeed, the Apostolic Council recorded in Acts 15 show that he was not but that he had to go to the other Apostles for a decision on what parts of the Jewish law Gentile converts had to follow. As their leader, St. Peter certainly had a voice, but he did not make the decision unilaterally. He spoke, followed by Sts. Paul and Barnabas and the Apostles agreed with St. Peter. However, it was St. James who rendered the decision because he was the local Bishop.
The Holy Synod of an autocephalous Church could depose a Bishop without the approval of the Pope during the time before the schism. However, In this particular incident the Patriarch of Antioch exceeded his authority by calling a council to depose the Patriarch of Alexandria without inviting the Pope to send representatives to the council. Only the Holy Synod of Alexandria or a General Council could depose the Patriarch of Alexandria. Unless all the Bishops were invited, a council could not be an General Council. If a General Council was received by the Church, it became an Ecumenical Council. Thus Pope St. Julius I was acting properly to protest this uncanonical action against St. Athanasius.

Archpriest John W. Morris

 

[frjohnmorris]

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

Regardless of whether or not Pope St. Leo recognized Canon 28 of the Council of Chalcedon that an Ecumenical Council passed such a canon shows that the ancient Church did not recognize the Pope as having universal jurisdiction no matter what the Popes claimed.

However, there is even more evidence from Chalcedon that the ancient Church did not recognize the universal jurisdiction of the Pope. Canon IX of Chalcedon actually gave the Patriarch of Constantinople greater authority to hear appeals than Canon V of Sardica had given to Rome. Significantly, Pope St. Leo accepted this canon.

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.

Ancient Epitome of Canon IX.
Litigious clerics shall be punished according to canon, if they despise the episcopal and resort to the secular tribunal. When a cleric has a contention with a bishop let him wait till the synod sits, and if a bishop have a contention with his metropolitan let him carry the case to Constantinople.

This canon also shows that the Pope did not have universal jurisdiction over the ancient Church, for if he had such authority, the canon would have made the Bishop of Rome the final court of appeal, not the Patriarch of Constantinople. Notice that the canon does not limit the authority of the Patriarch of Constantinople to hear appeals from the East, but gives him the right to hear appeals from the entire Church including the West, which was under the Pope. However, Pope St. Leo did not protest this canon like he did Canon 28. That can only mean that Pope St. Leo realized that the Church did not recognize universal papal jurisdiction over the Church.

Archpriest John W. Morris

 

[josie_L]

I disagree with you the incident involving Pope Vigilius shows that the Ecumenical Councils considered themselves superior to the Pope. Until he agreed to accept the decisions of the Council, Pope Vigilius was treated like any other heretic which he was until he accepted the decisions of the 5th Ecumenical Council. He went to Constantinople to escape the Germanic tribes who had invaded Italy. If the council recognized Pope Vigilius as the head of the Church they certainly would not have defied him the way that they did. . . . Christ is the head of the Church, not any human being. From our point of view it is Rome that is in schism. There were 5 Patriarchs. None of the other 4 agreed with Rome. Does that not tell you something? It was Rome that broke with the rest of the Church and allowed Cardinal Humbert to begin the schism. . . .

Archpriest John W. Morris

If any patriarch/region was the cause of schism it was Constantinople, and it’s attempts to put itself at the forefront of the Church at the expense of other APOSTOLIC SEES, i.e, Antioch and Alexandria. It secured itself this position by claiming for secular reasons(not SCRIPTURAL or SACRED ones) that Rome held the primacy because it was the capital of the empire, so that it could then wiggle its way past Antioch and Alexandria. Moreover, canon 28 was decreed by a rump of bishops (150 bishops out of 550 bishops) in Constantinople (no longer in Chalcedon) without taking into consideration what the other patriarchs had to say about the matter, but I’m sure that they were all going to concede their rights over to Constantinople (can you hear the sarcasm). The fact that the clergy of Constantinople were the very same people who were pushing forth this decree doesn’t smack you as being motivated by self interest, and can you honestly accept this canon as being ecumenical, even though it was presented by a small portion of the Church, and rejected by the Pope? In the words of Patriarch Anatolius to Pope St. Leo:

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).

Pope St. Leo never confirmed canon 28, but. of course, that didn’t prevent Constantinople, which was mired in caesaropapism from gaining ascendancy, such that it was no longer 4 patriarchs against 1, but more like Constantinople against Rome, because there were GREEK patriarchs of Antioch as early as 518 A.D., and in Jerusalem the situation was the similar:

The Council of Chalcedon in 451 raised the bishop of Jerusalem to the rank of patriarch. (See Pentarchy) “However, Byzantine politics meant that Jerusalem passed from the jurisdiction of Patriarch of Antioch to the Greek authorities in Constantinople.”

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greek_Orthodox_Patriarch_of_Jerusalem

And since Alexandria broke off after Chalcedon, Greek patriarchs of Alexandria were then supplanted.

In the schism that was created by the political and Christological controversies at the Council of Chalcedon in 451, the Church of Alexandria split in two. The majority of the native (i.e., Coptic) population was non-Chalcedonian and became known as the Coptic Orthodox Church of Alexandria. The small portion of the Church at Alexandria that followed Chalcedonian Christology, being loyal to the emperor at Constantinople (New Rome), has long used Greek as its liturgical language, and it became subsumed under Constantinople as the Greek Orthodox Church of Alexandria

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greek_Orthodox_Church_of_Alexandria

It is the height of irony to say that it was Rome whose primacy over the Church came from Christ himself (Scripture and Traditon attest to this) who attempted to go beyond its confines, when it was Constantinople that was grabbing power for itself (by undermining the other patriarchs and/or having jurisdiction over them). And for you to claim that Vigilius was a heretic is ridiculous, he did not endorse the Three Chapters, he was not however ready to concede due to how it would effect Chalcedon, and because he wished to act freely on the issue, i.e, he was held captive.

With regard to the schism I have only this to say that it was not Rome’s intent to cause a schism, moreover, I think it has already been mentioned to you that Humbert’s reasons for being in Constantinople in the first place was due to the closing of Latin Churches, the desecration of the Eucharist . . . etc., therefore, for you to claim that the onus of schism flaws squarely on the shoulders of Rome is blithely to ignore the ignominious tactics used by Patriarch Michael.

I leave you now with this quote from St. Jerome to Pope Damasus:

From the priest I ask the salvation of the victim; from the shepherd the safety of his sheep. Away with envy, away with all canvassing of the Roman power; it is but with the successor of the fisherman and the disciple of the Cross that I speak. Following none in the first place but Christ, I am in communion with your beatitude, that is, with the Chair of Peter. On that rock I know the Church is built.