Sola Concilium and the Eastern Orthodox

[josie_L]

Father is a cool fellow. I honor his position, but his authority? Possibly! I think there’s a difference. I could be wrong also. On a more serious note I believe its wonderful he’s taken time to involve himself here at CAF. I think that’s the gest of the problem honor/authority.

So the flowers are not for me? :bighanky:

 

[frjohnmorris]

All bishops are equal in that they are all bishops (that is what St. Cyprian is saying), i.e., the same sacraments that were applied to the bishop of Rome are the same that would be applied to the bishop of Patara (a bishop so unknown in Church history except for the fact that he ministered to Pope St. Silverius when he was exiled by General Belisarius), however, they are not equal in authority, i.e., jurisdiction. Let me take an excerpt from Adrian Fortesque’s book, "The Early Papacy to the Synod of Chalcedon in 451 to explain:

Of course there have always been Bishops with administrative authority over other Bishops. That is obvious. It is also obvious that the Bishop of Rome had always held a primacy of honor as senior Bishop of the Church. However, where we Orthodox differ from Catholicism is what we believe that means. I believe that the canons of the Ecumenical Councils mandate a system in which no Bishop has supreme authority, but that a Patriarch must meet with the Bishops under his authority in council or as we call it a Holy Synod and seek their advice and consent on all important matters. Canon IX of the Council of Antioch in 341. This Holy Synod elects the Bishops of the province. Canon IV of the 1st Council of Nicaea in 325 and must meet at least twice a year. Canon V of the 1st Council of Nicaea in 325. Canon VI divided the Church into 3 provinces, Rome, Alexandria and Antioch, each of which governed their own affairs. Rome had a primacy of honor as the senior Bishop of the Church, but had no authority to interfere in the internal affairs of the other two Patriarchates. Then in 381 Constantinople became a Patriarchate at the I Council of Constantinople which was the 2nd Ecumenical Council. Finally at the 4th Ecumenical Council, Chalcedon Jerusalem became a Patriarchate. Where we differ with Catholicism, is that we believe that the primacy of Rome was purely honorific and that councils made all the important doctrinal decisions in the Church. There were local councils and at the top with authority over the whole Church there was an Ecumenical Council. As the senior Bishop Rome had the authority to preside over an Ecumenical Council, either personally or through his representatives or legates, but Rome just like all other Bishops was under the authority of an Ecumenical Council. However, an international council was not necessarily an Ecumenical Council. The Patriarchates could reject the decision of a general council and demand the calling of a new Council. This was the case with the Robber Council of Ephesus in 449. The Patriarchtes of Rome, Constantinople and Antioch refused to recognize the acquittal of Eutyches by the Robber Council, because of the authoritative way in which Dioscorus conducted the council. Thus the Council of Chalcedon was called to meet in 451 to resolve the conflicts not resolved by the Robber Council and condemn the heresy of Monophysitism. Thus papal confirmation was required to make a council arecognized Ecumenical Council, but what Roman Catholics miss is that confirmation was also needed from the other 4 Partiarchs as well as Rome. As is shown by the case of Pope Vigilius and the 5th Ecumenical Council, Constantinople III in 580, these councils assumed authority over the Pope.
However, although we have preserved this ancient conciliar system in the Orthodox Church, the Roman Catholic Church moved away from the conciliar system to the papal system in which the Pope began to exercise the authority reserved to an Ecumenical Council during the first centuries of church history. This was a slow process that took centuries and is too complex to detail here. However, this process did not climax until the 1st Vatican Council in 1870 that declared the Pope infallible when he speaks “ex cathedra” on matters of faith and morals.

Archpriest John W. Morris

 

[josie_L]

In continuation of things that have already been discussed, I wish to revisit “canon” 28 of Chalcedon through the eyes of the general council of Ephesus:

Philip, presbyter and legate of the Apostolic See said: We offer our thanks to the holy and venerable Synod, that when the writings of our holy and blessed pope had been read to you, the holy members by our [or your] holy voices,(1) ye joined yourselves to the holy head also by your holy acclamations. For your blessedness is not ignorant that the head of the whole faith, the head of the Apostles, is blessed Peter the Apostle. And since now our mediocrity, after having been tempest-tossed and much vexed, has arrived, we ask that ye give order that there be laid before us what things were done in this holy Synod before our arrival; in order that according to the opinion of our blessed pope and of this present holy assembly, we likewise may ratify their determination.

The question is as head of the whole faith, what does this mean? Well, as I tried to use both Scripture and Tradition to support the view that Peter was chief steward and therefore had the ability to open what was shut and shut was open, so too do his successors, in fact, that is why he is the final arbiter in matters of faith and discipline or rather the final court of appeal, which in essence implies universal jurisdiction. I do not claim however that the universal jurisdiction of today is the same as in the first millennium, for that would be untrue, I am, however, saying that it was there. Furthermore, during this council of 200 or so bishops, Philip the papal legate in the presence of this holy synod states:

Philip the presbyter and legate of the Apostolic See said: There is no doubt, and in fact it has been known in all ages, that the holy and most blessed Peter, prince ( exarkos ) and head of the Apostles, pillar of the faith, and foundation ( qemelios ) of the Catholic Church, received the keys of the kingdom from our Lord Jesus Christ, the Saviour and Redeemer of the human race, and that to him was given the power of loosing and binding sins: who down even to to-day and forever both lives and judges in his successors. The holy and most blessed pope Coelestine, according to due order, is his successor and holds his place, and us he sent to supply his place m this holy synod, which the most humane and Christian Emperors have commanded to assemble, bearing in mind and continually watching over the Catholic faith. For they both have kept and are now keeping intact the apostolic doctrine handed down to them from their most pious and humane grandfathers and fathers of holy memory down to the present time, etc.

fordham.edu/halsall/basis/ephesus.asp

Now, if Pope Celestine is Peter’s successor and holds his place, then this means that he is the head of the Church because of his link to Peter’s office and not because of Rome’s capitalistic importance within the empire. So let’s fast-forward from Ephesus (431)to Chalcedon (451) where a limited amount of bishops (150 bishops of 550) of a certain area (Constantinople) declare that the reasons for Rome’s primacy were due to its once being the capital of the empire:

Canon 28

Following in all things the decisions of the holy Fathers, and acknowledging the canon, which has been just read, of the One Hundred and Fifty Bishops beloved-of-God (who assembled in the imperial city of Constantinople, which is New Rome, in the time of the Emperor Theodosius of happy memory), we also do enact and decree the same things concerning the privileges of the most holy Church of Constantinople, which is New Rome. For the Fathers rightly granted privileges to the throne of old Rome, because it was the royal city. And the One Hundred and Fifty most religious Bishops, actuated by the same consideration, gave equal privileges (isa presbeia) to the most holy throne of New Rome, justly judging that the city which is honored with the Sovereignty and the Senate, and enjoys equal privileges with the old imperial Rome, should in ecclesiastical matters also be magnified as she is, and rank next after her. . . . {1}

Do you see the contradiction with what these bishops have said and what was declared in front of the whole council of Ephesus by Philip, the papal legate? Moreover, how can a canon deliberated by the clergy of Constantinople and rejected by the pope be ecumenical in status, i.e., representative of the beliefs of the Church at large and binding on all Churches? The answer to that question is it is not. The letter (letter 98 to Pope St. Leo for those who wish to see the original wording) that was sent by these bishops to the Pope actually seek his consent:

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.

The weird thing about this whole situation is that not only was canon 28 rejected by Pope St. Leo but so it seems by the patriarch of Constantinople, Anatolius:

**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).

 

[frjohnmorris]

Speaking of St. Cyprian, I finally found my copy of the 2nd edition of St. Cyprian’s On the Unity of the Catholic Church. It was published in vol. 1 of William A. Jurgen’s The Faith of the Early Father, published by the Liturgical Press which is associated with St. John’s Abbey a Roman Catholic Benedictine Monastery. I strongly recommend this work. It is a 3 vol anthology of the most important works of the Fathers. Thus it is the best collection of the works of the Fathers available with the possible exception of the muti-volume set published by Eerdmans.

In his 2nd edition St. Cyprian wrote:
It is on one man that He builds the Church; and although He assigns like power to all the Apostles after His resurrection when He says, “As the Father has sent me, so also send you; receive the Holy Spirit; if you forgive any man his sins…

This text is why I have argued that Our Lord gave the keys to the Kingdom promised to St. Peter in Matthew 16:19 not only to St. Peter, but to all the Apostles after His Resurrection in John 20:21-23.

St. Cyprian also wrote:
Indeed the other Apostles were also which Peter was, being equally endowed with an equal portion of dignity and power; but the origin is grounded in unity, so that it may be made clear that there is but one Church of Christ…The episcopate is one, of which each bishop holds his part within the undivided structure.

In a Letter to Quintas, a Bishop in Mauretania A.D. 254/255

For Peter, whom the Lord chose first and upon whom He built His Church, when Paul later disagreed with him about circumcision, did not claim anything for himself nor assume anything arrogantly, so as to say he held the primacy and that he ought rather to be obeyed by novices and those more recently arrived.

St. Cyprian presided over the 7th Council of Carthage in A.D. 256 which ruled:
For neither does anyone of us set himself up as bishop nor by tyranny and terror does anyone compel his colleagues to the necessity of obedience, since every bishop has his own free will to the unrestrained exercise of his liberty and power, so that neither can he be judged by another, nor is he himself a able to judge another.

Therefore, St. Cyprian, who disagreed with Pope St.Stephen on the Baptism of heretics and schismatics, taught that all Bishops are equally share in the primacy of St. Peter and only recognized the Bishop or Rome as having a primacy of honor as first among equals.

Archpriest John W. Morris

 

[GaryTaylor]

Speaking of St. Cyprian, I finally found my copy of the 2nd edition of St. Cyprian’s On the Unity of the Catholic Church. It was published in vol. 1 of William A. Jurgen’s The Faith of the Early Father, published by the Liturgical Press which is associated with St. John’s Abbey a Roman Catholic Benedictine Monastery. I strongly recommend this work. It is a 3 vol anthology of the most important works of the Fathers. Thus it is the best collection of the works of the Fathers available with the possible exception of the muti-volume set published by Eerdmans.

In his 2nd edition St. Cyprian wrote:
It is on one man that He builds the Church; and although He assigns like power to all the Apostles after His resurrection when He says, “As the Father has sent me, so also send you; receive the Holy Spirit; if you forgive any man his sins…

This text is why I have argued that Our Lord gave the keys to the Kingdom promised to St. Peter in Matthew 16:19 not only to St. Peter, but to all the Apostles after His Resurrection in John 20:21-23.

St. Cyprian also wrote:
Indeed the other Apostles were also which Peter was, being equally endowed with an equal portion of dignity and power; but the origin is grounded in unity, so that it may be made clear that there is but one Church of Christ…The episcopate is one, of which each bishop holds his part within the undivided structure.

In a Letter to Quintas, a Bishop in Mauretania A.D. 254/255

For Peter, whom the Lord chose first and upon whom He built His Church, when Paul later disagreed with him about circumcision, did not claim anything for himself nor assume anything arrogantly, so as to say he held the primacy and that he ought rather to be obeyed by novices and those more recently arrived.

St. Cyprian presided over the 7th Council of Carthage in A.D. 256 which ruled:
For neither does anyone of us set himself up as bishop nor by tyranny and terror does anyone compel his colleagues to the necessity of obedience, since every bishop has his own free will to the unrestrained exercise of his liberty and power, so that neither can he be judged by another, nor is he himself a able to judge another.

Therefore, St. Cyprian, who disagreed with Pope St.Stephen on the Baptism of heretics and schismatics, taught that all Bishops are equally share in the primacy of St. Peter and only recognized the Bishop or Rome as having a primacy of honor as first among equals.

Archpriest John W. Morris

BUT…Those works of St Cyprian are as you say from his second work and this time period as indicated by you. And we all know what occurred between the first and second. His feeling about the Pope definitely become strained. Pope Stephen presided in Rome between 254 to his death in 257. St Cyprian in 258

Thus the difference in the original version of Unity-251 and the revised version. Was it the on-going issue with Baptism that tempered his thinking and writing? We have to admit its plausible.

Good research though.

I agree with you that series is a good read. Its fair to the other apostolic Church’s

 

[Reuben_J]

I don’t think anyone is claiming that the Papacy or the Primacy were moved from Old Rome to New Rome (Primacy perhaps, after the schism, assuming Old Rome to be incapacitated due to heresy). As far as I’m aware, the Constantinopolitan bishops have not made any claim to specifically Petrine primacy, etc.

I am fine with that then. Wonder why the need to call it the new Rome. That’s something to think about.

 

[Reuben_J]

I appreciate your reasoned response. As I am sure last night I received a very insulting response from an irate poster.
The Eastern Orthodox Church has never denied that Rome held a primacy. The issue that divides us is over what that means. I believe that was a primacy of honor as first among equals and that the Pope did not have universal jurisdiction or infallibly. For in the ancient Church there was local autonomy. In each province the local Bishops were led by the Bishop of the provincial capital or Metropolis, thus the title Metropolitan who presided over meetings of the Bishops that together made all important decisions. Canon IX of the Council of Antioch 341
Canon IX.
It behoves the bishops in every province to acknowledge the bishop who presides in the
metropolis, and who has to take thought for the whole province; because all men of business come together from every quarter to the metropolis. Wherefore it is decreed that he have precedence in rank, and that the other bishops do nothing extraordinary without him, (according to the ancient canon which prevailed from [the times of] our Fathers) or such things only as pertain to their own particular parishes and the districts subject to them. For each bishop has authority over his own parish, both to manage it with the piety which is incumbent on every one, and to make provision for the whole district which is dependent on his city; to ordain presbyters and deacons; and to settle everything with judgment. But let him undertake nothing further without the bishop of the metropolis; neither the latter without the consent of the others.

This canon establishes the principle of administration by councils. Notice that the Metropolitan did not have veto power but had to administer the Archdiocese with the consent of the others. Canon V of the 1st Ecumenical Council, Nicaea 1 in 325 required that the Bishops of each province meet at least twice a year. Thus the Church was administered by what we call the Holy Synod of the Bishops presided over by the Metropolitan. Canon VI of 1st Nicaea established 3 Metropolitnates, Rome, Alexandria and Antioch. Although Rome had a primacy of honor, each Metropolintate administered its own affairs and elected the local Bishops and Metropolitan (canon IV of 1st Nicaea). After the founding of Constantinople on the site of the ancient village of Byzantium, the Bishop of Byzantium was raised to the level of Metopolitan of Constantinople at the 2nd Council, I Constantinople in 381 and given a rank of honor equal to the Old Rome by canon 28 of Chalcedon in 451. The Bishop of Jerusalem was given Metropolitan rank by Chalcedon. Eventully, the Metropolitans were called Patriarchs in the Constantinople, Antioch and Jerusalem, and Popes in Rome and Alexandria. All decisions were made by councils, some local and some international. The ultimate authority in the Church was an Ecumenical Councils representing all 5 Patriarchates. All Patriarchs including the Pope were under the authority of an Ecumenical Council.
It is on this issue that we differ. Eastern Orthodox continue to follow the old form of polity. The Roman Catholic Church evolved differently into papal rule. The problem that I have with the modern papacy is that the authority that belonged to council in the ancient Church has been concentrated into the hands of one man, the Pope by giving the Pope an absolute veto and instead of electing Bishops locally giving the Pope the authority to appoint the Bishops. Despite the passionate arguments to the contrary, the ancient Popes had no such authority, but like every other Patriarch had to abide by the decisions of his Synod and of an Ecumenical Council. As holding a primacy of honor, the Pope had great influence, but did not have absolute authority or veto power as do modern Popes. That is where we disagree. I believe that Roman Catholicism concentrates too much power in the hands of the Pope and has made a major mistake by not making the Pope accountable to the College of Cardinals or an Ecumenical Council and by giving him the authority to unilaterally make ex cathedra declarations on the teachings of the Church. In the age of the ancient undivided Church doctrinal decisions were made by Ecumenical Councils which had authority over every Bishop of the Church including the Bishop of Rome.
Despite the fervor of the defenders of the papacy, the papacy as we know it today did not exist in the age of the undivided Church. No serious historian will argue that it did. The Popes slowly gained authority, first over the rest of the West, and then tried to gain authority over the East. When the papacy tried to gain authority over the East, the Eastern Patriarchs refused to give up their ancient right of autonomy and submit to the power of the Popes, and the result was the schism.

Archpriest John W. Morris

Quite a long post there frjohnmorris. I am glad about your acknowledging the primacy of Peter because to me that is the truth. As far as Papacy is concerned, any Catholic would say otherwise to you frjohnmorris. It has existed since the beginning of the Church. One can’t deny this factual truth no matter how hard it is for you to take, as an Orthodox. It was a small Church and the structure might be different then. To say that the Papacy is non existence during those days is as insulting as how you been insulted. If you post as a priest, you may want to know that your standard is supposed to be higher than us who are mere laypeople. I always accord that respect for priest as long as he behaves like one.

 

[GaryTaylor]

Constantinople was imperative to expansion of the Roman Empire It was also called the new capital of the Roman Empire by Constantine the Great, after whom it was named. At this period in history though he wasn’t converted. He’s another interesting read to add fullness to what indeed occurred historically in this period. First thing Constantine did was erect a Statue of himself. The tower it stood on still stands. He on the top is missing. In other words in truth there’s three sides to the story, the Christians, the pagans and then there’s the truth.

 

[spina1953]

I am fine with that then. Wonder why the need to call it the new Rome. That’s something to think about.

It might have been me as I thought from history that Constantine wanted to or tried to get the Pope to move to Constantinople and when that did not happen decided to elevate it to equal to Rome in that the Patriarch would have the sare status as the Pope in Rome. As I had said before polical interferring. Calling Constantinople New Rome is something to think about though I supose it was called that because they moved the captial from Rome. Also the Roman empire was still whole and not dedived till the 400’s and then the eastern emperor did not come to the defense of the Western half of the empire as I understand it. I also think it was Constantine who called the first council of Nicia?

 

[Reuben_J]

Constantinople was imperative to expansion of the Roman Empire It was also called the new capital of the Roman Empire by Constantine the Great, after whom it was named. At this period in history though he wasn’t converted. He’s another interesting read to add fullness to what indeed occurred historically in this period. First thing Constantine did was erect a Statue of himself. The tower it stood on still stands. He on the top is missing.

That’s what I thought. Administrative capital, political capital. So why bring it into spiritual contention? Why rank the churches? And who has the authority to give these rankings? That questions are not for you Gary, sorry, I am just responding to this issue. You brought up an obvious clarification. Good one there.

 

[EIF5A]

Quite a long post there frjohnmorris. I am glad about your acknowledging the primacy of Peter because to me that is the truth. As far as Papacy is concerned, any Catholic would say otherwise to you frjohnmorris. It has existed since the beginning of the Church. One can’t deny this factual truth no matter how hard it is for you to take, as an Orthodox. It was a small Church and the structure might be different then. To say that the Papacy is non existence during those days is as insulting as how you been insulted. If you post as a priest, you may want to know that your standard is supposed to be higher than us who are mere laypeople. I always accord that respect for priest as long as he behaves like one.

Really? It’s admirable you esteem the Papacy so highly, but chastising a priest is not respect.

 

[GaryTaylor]

To bring peace to Rome first with the on-going issue the Christians. Thus the Council. And imagine what he thought as an emperor after witnessing that mess. He viewed them as a pain in the neck. This also enabled him to fatten up his military. He never understood the theology of Christianity completely. He was combining pagan worship with Christianity for a period. The story of his vision is a rework by Eusebuis. Nevertheless something happened as immediately after that he declared Christianity legal in the Edict of Milan. The later work appears the vision. Eusebius wrote for him and his writings are a polar opposite of the pagans. Just over the top. When he quieted the Christian conflict, he was able to get on with business. His empire which was the largest in the known world.

The Christians embraced him and he indeed became imperative to Christianity. All these emperors from him forward had an influence on the Church to some degree. Yet the majority allowed the elect to make internal decisions. Their influence and intention was as you say geographical, socio political and usually self serving His mother by 337 sent the military through him up to Israel for artifacts. In a very real way her intercession I believe is what converted him.

Hey the Lord works in mysterious ways. Exactly why I don’t fault Putin. He may have an agenda but if he hangs around the EO long enough a complete change will happen, if it hasn’t already.

 

[Reuben_J]

Really? It’s admirable you esteem the Papacy so highly, but chastising a priest is not respect.

There are rogue priests though. We never know but we know by their fruit since we do not know them personally as this is the internet. Anyone can put up their nick as priest. But if one does so, perhaps a priest being a clergy should be better in knowledge generally than us layperson since they have their priestly training and formation in the seminary. Maybe behaves better too.

And by the way there were rogue Popes. Really we have bad popes in our history.

 

[EIF5A]

There are rogue priests though. We never know but we know by their fruit since we do not know them personally as this is the internet. Anyone can put up their nick as priest. But if one does so, perhaps a priest being a clergy should be better in knowledge generally than us layperson since they have their priestly training and formation in the seminary. Maybe behaves better too.

And by the way there were rogue Popes. Really we have bad popes in our history.

I just think there are many knowledgeable and spiritual people on both sides of the fence…He’s just on the other (perhaps not completely correct) side…

Rogue suggests that he’s going against established teachings of his Church…which I don’t think was the charge here…unless I missed something.

Dear Lord, Let us be unified once again.

 

[GaryTaylor]

He’s legit. He’s exactly who he claims to be. He’s a good man as are his intentions. We should give him a break. We should give each other a break here for the sake of Christs Church. The conflicts occur exactly because everyone believes very strongly in their faith. Lets face it everyone here recites that Creed regularly. along with some very pious prayers in a structured Church setting from antiquity. At some point at least for me, I had to ask myself what I was doing if I really believed in what I indeed found myself reciting. Its like God asked Adam “Where are you”. Same question I had to ask myself. Adam I don’t think did that.

 

[Reuben_J]

I just think there are many knowledgeable and spiritual people on both sides of the fence…He’s just on the other (perhaps not completely correct) side…

Rogue suggests that he’s going against established teachings of his Church…which I don’t think was the charge here…unless I missed something.

Dear Lord, Let us be unified once again.

Agreed wholeheartedly.

My using the word rogue was meant to be used generally. Btw Papacy does not equal Popes. The former is the office while the latter are the persons holding it. The latter are human persons and thus subjected personally to human behavior.

 

[spina1953]

He’s legit. He’s exactly who he claims to be. He’s a good man as are his intentions. We should give him a break. We should give each other a break here for the sake of Christs Church. The conflicts occur exactly because everyone believes very strongly in their faith. Lets face it everyone here recites that Creed regularly. along with some very pious prayers in a structured Church setting from antiquity. At some point at least for me, I had to ask myself what I was doing if I really believed in what I indeed found myself reciting. Its like God asked Adam “Where are you”. Same question I had to ask myself. Adam I don’t think did that.

I agree!!!

 

[Novocastrian]

He’s legit. He’s exactly who he claims to be. He’s a good man as are his intentions. We should give him a break. We should give each other a break here for the sake of Christs Church. The conflicts occur exactly because everyone believes very strongly in their faith. Lets face it everyone here recites that Creed regularly. along with some very pious prayers in a structured Church setting from antiquity. At some point at least for me, I had to ask myself what I was doing if I really believed in what I indeed found myself reciting. Its like God asked Adam “Where are you”. Same question I had to ask myself. Adam I don’t think did that.

Now are you gonna include me in that?

 

[frjohnmorris]

BUT…Those works of St Cyprian are as you say from his second work and this time period as indicated by you. And we all know what occurred between the first and second. His feeling about the Pope definitely become strained. Pope Stephen presided in Rome between 254 to his death in 257. St Cyprian in 258

Thus the difference in the original version of Unity-251 and the revised version. Was it the on-going issue with Baptism that tempered his thinking and writing? We have to admit its plausible.

Good research though.

I agree with you that series is a good read. Its fair to the other apostolic Church’s

Of course it did. I do not deny that. The point is that St. Cyprian’s thinking evolved when he realized the problems that would be caused by giving too much authority to the Pope. What is significant is that no one including Pope St. Stephen accused him of heresy for the content of the second edition of his work. That shows that what he wrote in the 2nd edition was not against the doctrine of the Church at that time because the papal claims to universal jurisdiction came much later. In the middle of the 3rd century Pope St. Stephen made no pretense to have authority to order St. Cyprian to obey him on the controversy over the Baptism of heretics or schismatics or punish him for the contents of the 2nd edition of his work “On the Unity of the Catholic Church.” Remember, not only did St. Cyprian not only revised his work to argue that St. Peter had nothing more than a primacy of honor, he also presided over a local council that openly rejected the opinion of Pope St. Stephen and the Pope did nothisng. He did not excommunicate or break Communion with him. That shows that although he strongly disagreed with St Cyprian, the 3rd century Popes neither claimed nor had the authority to do anything about it. Had a Catholic Bishop done something like that 1,000 years later, the Pope would have excommunicated him for daring to openly challenge him.

Fr. John

Fr. John

 

[Novocastrian]

To bring peace to Rome first with the on-going issue the Christians. Thus the Council. And imagine what he thought as an emperor after witnessing that mess. He viewed them as a pain in the neck. This also enabled him to fatten up his military. He never understood the theology of Christianity completely. He was combining pagan worship with Christianity for a period. The story of his vision is a rework by Eusebuis. Nevertheless something happened as immediately after that he declared Christianity legal in the Edict of Milan. The later work appears the vision. Eusebius wrote for him and his writings are a polar opposite of the pagans. Just over the top. When he quieted the Christian conflict, he was able to get on with business. His empire which was the largest in the known world.

The Christians embraced him and he indeed became imperative to Christianity. All these emperors from him forward had an influence on the Church to some degree. Yet the majority allowed the elect to make internal decisions. Their influence and intention was as you say geographical, socio political and usually self serving His mother by 337 sent the military through him up to Israel for artifacts. In a very real way her intercession I believe is what converted him.

Hey the Lord works in mysterious ways. Exactly why I don’t fault Putin. He may have an agenda but if he hangs around the EO long enough a complete change will happen, if it hasn’t already.

If our Lord could work through Cyrus and call him His anointed, then he can work through Constantine and many others!