Sola Concilium and the Eastern Orthodox

[GaryTaylor]

We should not be amazed to find a general lack of explicit patristic writing on the matter. Christological, Trinitarian and soteriological questions, not questions about papal primacy, were the chief subjects of controversy in the early centuries. Nor should it be expected that those Fathers who did touch upon the authority of the Roman see should have used the more developed language of later times. Earlier references tended to be less precise and less explicit than those of the Middle Ages and the modern era when the doctrine of papal primacy was more often questioned. This should not be surprising since Christology itself did not become highly developed until the controversies of the fourth and fifth centuries.

With the above in mind, it will also be seen that the Greek Fathers were not entirely silent during the first six centuries regarding the authority of the papacy.

During the fifth century, when Nestorianism was ravaging the Eastern Church in particular, Cyril of Alexandria (d. 444) sought a papal judgment concerning the author of the heresy.

I was unwilling to openly sever communion with him until I had laid all the facts before you. Deign therefore to ordain what seems right, whether we ought to communicate at all with him, or to tell him plainly that no one communicates with a person who holds and teaches what he does. Further the purpose of your holiness ought to be made known by letter to the most religious and God-loving bishops of Macedonia, and to all the bishops of the East, for we shall then give them, according to their desire, the opportunity of standing together in unity of soul and mind, and lead them to contend earnestly for the orthodox faith which is being attacked. [29]

We see that Cyril held that Pope Celestine (d. 432), a Westerner, had doctrinal jurisdiction over the East and that his decision would unite the Eastern bishops in orthodox unity. It would also determine whether or not Nestorius, the Patriarch of Constantinople, should be excommunicated.

Cyril did not reveal the basis of his belief in the pope’s authority. But his action accorded with the directive of the Council of Sardica (342) “that the priests (bishops) of the Lord from all the provinces should report to the head that is to the see of Peter the apostle.” [30]

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

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

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

The above evidence in itself is admittedly inconclusive. Nevertheless, it is sufficient to raise substantial doubts concerning the assertion that no Greek Father of the first six centuries connected the position of the pope with the promise to Peter.

Fr Hardin

therealpresence.org/archives/Papacy/Papacy_006.htm

 

[frjohnmorris]

Church of Rome taught that not only was this authority limited to Peter, but that also whatever authority the other Apostles had was mediated through Peter. Just as described with St Mark. And just as with the 50 AD Council.

That is a very creative reading of the Gospels. Biblical scholars call what you are doing eisegesis, that is reading your own preconceived ideas into the Holy Scriptures. The proper method is exegesis, that is forming your ideas on the text of the Holy Scriptures. Read St. John 20: 21-23. Our Lord breathed on all the Apostles. He did not breath on St. Peter and then St. Peter breath on the other Apostles. At Pentecost the Holy Spirit descended on all the Apostles, not just Peter. He gave all His Apostles the keys to the Kingdom, not just St. Peter. You need to read Acts 15. St. Peter spoke, but the decision was made by all the Apostles present and announced by St. James. St. Peter did not deliver a declaration, but went to a council of the Apostles for the final decision on the issue. Acts 15 undermines the whole papal argument, and justifies the Orthodox argument for conciliarism. Historically all important doctrinal and administrative decisions before 1054 were made by councils, not papal decree. Pope Leo I did not resolve the Monophysite crisis by speaking ex cathedra. He sent his Tome to an Ecumenical Council for ratification. When Dioscorus refused to allow it to be read at the Robber Council, Pope St. Leo did not act alone, but appealed to the other Patriarchs and the emperor for a real Ecumenical Council to right the wrongs that had been done at the Council of Ephesus in 449. I honestly do not understand why Roman Catholics continue to reject the historical evidence on the operation of the ancient Church, which was conciliar, not papal.

Fr. John

 

[GaryTaylor]

It is true that Jesus bestowed authority upon all the Apostles collectively, but this does not necessarily preclude the validity of the Roman Catholic doctrine that Peter was the visible head of the apostolic college. Nor does John 20: 21 necessarily preclude the validity of the Roman Catholic teaching that the proper use of the authority granted by Christ to all the Apostles was dependent upon the latter’s union with Peter.

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

Fr Hardin

The Council I addressed a page or so back. Peters decision was through divine revelation, James concurred with Peter. I can see where its plausible its understood differently. Fr Hardins elaboration on the Council is pretty much how I’ve interpreted it.

 

[frjohnmorris]

It is true that Jesus bestowed authority upon all the Apostles collectively, but this does not necessarily preclude the validity of the Roman Catholic doctrine that Peter was the visible head of the apostolic college. Nor does John 20: 21 necessarily preclude the validity of the Roman Catholic teaching that the proper use of the authority granted by Christ to all the Apostles was dependent upon the latter’s union with Peter.

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

Fr Hardin

The Council I addressed a page or so back. Peters decision was through divine revelation, James concurred with Peter. I can see where its plausible its understood differently. Fr Hardins elaboration on the Council is pretty much how I’ve interpreted it.

There is no controversy over the headship of St. Peter. That is not the issue. The issue is what that meant and what it means for the Church. The Orthodox argument is that it was a primacy of honor that did not give St. Peter or his successors absolute authority over the Church. St. Peter presided over the college of the Apostles, but did not exercise a veto over their decisions or the authority to make unilateral pronouncements on doctrinal issues. Acts 15 shows that. God gave St. Peter a vision, but St. Peter went to the other Apostles for ratification of his vision. Only when they all agreed did the Church make a binding decision on the matter of Gentile converts. The successors of St. Peter had authority to lead the Church as senior Bishop, but they did not have the authority to rule the Church as an absolute monarchy. They certainly did not have the authority to appoint local Bishops or to interfere in the internal affairs of another Patriarchate. The canons of the Ecumenical Councils make it clear that each local Church governed its own affairs, chose its own Bishops and that doctrinal decisions could only be binding on the Church if they were made by an Ecumenical Council. The opinion of the Bishop of Rome on doctrinal issues carried great influence, but still did not become official doctrine of the Church until it had been accepted by an Ecumenical Council. During this discussion, I have cited specific canons that prove my arguments, but they have been ignored. The issue is simple. How can you reconcile papal rule with the canons of the Ecumenical Councils?

Fr. John

 

[Peter_J]

… However it is difficult to respond calmly to such a stream of insults towards the Eastern Orthodox Church. Your attitude does nothing to further the cause of Orthodox Catholic reconciliation. Much progress has been made in the American and International Orthodox Catholic Dialogues, but attitudes like yours threaten to destroy all that progress and make it more difficult for us to overcome our differences and once again be one Body in Christ.

FWIW, I have on occasion told (or tried to tell) some of my fellow Catholics basically the same thing.

 

[frjohnmorris]

Fr. John

Can you show me where St. John Chrysostom wrote that:

“…the rock upon which Christ built His Church is the faith confessed by St. Peter, not on the person of St. Peter.” ? (Emphasis mine)

I am aware of his commentary in Homily 54:

Source: newadvent.org/fathers/200154.htm

Notice St. John he does not say here what you said Fr. John (see your comment above, specifically the part I underlined.)

If one were only to read one paragraph from the Catholic Catechism, one could make the incorrect assumption that the Catholic Church believes that “…the rock upon which Christ built His Church is the faith confessed by St. Peter, not on the person of St. Peter.” If you look at the Catechism of the Catholic Church par. 424 it says:

Source: scborromeo.org/ccc/para/424.htm (emphasis mine)

However, we read in par. 552:

Source: scborromeo.org/ccc/para/552.htm (emphasis mine)

These 2 paragraphs are not contradictory but complimentary, and I an aware of nowhere where St. John Chrysostom (or any Father for that matter) has said what you said (the underlined part) above. In another writing, St. John Chrysostom does refer to St. Peter as “‘Peter, that head of the Apostles, the first in the Church, the friend of Christ, who received the revelation not from man but from the Father…this Peter, and when I say Peter, I mean the unbroken Rock, the unshaken foundation, the great apostle, the first of the disciples, the first called, the first to obey.’ (De Eleemos III, 4, vol II, 298[300])”

Source: scborromeo.org/ccc/para/552.htm (emphasis mine)

Regards Father John,

Nick

No one in the Eastern Orthodox Church challenged the view that St.Peter was the chief of the Apostles. Nor did the other Patriarchs reject the primacy of Rome. That is not the issue. The issue is that we differ on that that meant. We believe that Rome was first among equals and do not believe that the ancient Bishops of Rome had the authority now claimed by modern Popes. The canons of the Ecumenical Councils provided for regional self rule and give the Bishop of Rome no authority to interfere in the internal affairs of the other Patriarchates. All doctrine was proclaimed by the Ecumenical Councils, not by the Bishop of Rome speaking ex cathedra. Thus the issue is not the primacy of Rome, but what that means and how it is applied to the life of the Church. Through the centuries Rome has evolved into a top down system in which the Pope holds all power in his hands, whereas we have retained the conciliar system of the ancient undivided Church.

Fr. John

 

[1Tim215Mommy]

The Old Believer Schism took place under Tsar Alexi I in the 1650s, before Peter the Great became Tsar in 1682. Patriarch Nikon who became Patriarch of Moscow in 1652 learned that some mistakes had crept into the Russian service books from visitors to from Greece and Russians who had traveled to Greece. He therefore ordered a reform to bring the Russian practices into conformity to the Greek practices and had new corrected service books printed. The Old Believer objected to the changes, which were relatively minor, nothing as major as the changes that were made in the Catholic Church after Vatican II. They began preaching that the Tsar was the anti-Christ. That brought the Tsar into the matter. In any country in Europe at that time you would get into trouble going around preaching that the ruler is the anti-Christ for obvious reasons. Therefore the Old Believers were persecuted. Some of them fled to China. There are still some Old Believers left. Some of them came back to the Russian Orthodox Church and were allowed to keep their old customs. Besides just like the rest of Europe the Russian ruler determined the state religion. This was not an age of religious toleration. The 30 years war between Catholic and Protestants devastated Germany and only ended in 1648. Just as Catholics were persecuted in England and were not able to openly practice their Faith until 1828. Even in America, the New England Puritans exiled Roger Williams in 1636 and even executed a few Quakers because they did not accept the Puritan religion. In 1685 King Louis XIV revoked the Edict of Nantes that had granted French Protestants toleration and threw them out of France. Ironically, so many French Huguenots fled to Berlin that most people in modern Berlin are of French ancestry.
Patriarch Nikon also got into trouble. He began to meddle in state affairs and to claim equal authority with the Tsar. In 1660 a Pan-Orthodox Council removed him and declared that Orthodox clergy must not become involved in the secular affairs of the state. We are still forbidden to become involved in secular politics. I cannot run for or hold public office. I cannot even serve on a jury. The rules of the Patriarchate of Antioch forbid our Bishops from becoming members of any political party.

Fr. John

ThankYou Fr. John. I’veBeenReading The Canons And SawThat In Either The Canons Of The Apostles Or Either the 1St Or 2Nd Ecumenical Council Clergy Are Forbidden To Have Anything To Do With PolitIcal Office. AreYou Permitted To Vote?

 

[frjohnmorris]

ThankYou Fr. John. I’veBeenReading The Canons And SawThat In Either The Canons Of The Apostles Or Either the 1St Or 2Nd Ecumenical Council Clergy Are Forbidden To Have Anything To Do With PolitIcal Office. AreYou Permitted To Vote?

Of course, I am permitted to vote. I am completely free to have my own political opinions, but never allow them in the Church. When I was teaching history on the college level, I also kept my personal political views out of my classroom. I am only forbidden to become actively involved in partition politics. That makes sense, because one must keep secular political matters out of the Church.

Fr. John

 

[1Tim215Mommy]

Does

Of course, I am permitted to vote. I am completely free to have my own political opinions, but never allow them in the Church. When I was teaching history on the college level, I also kept my personal political views out of my classroom. I am only forbidden to become actively involved in partition politics. That makes sense, because one must keep secular political matters out of the Church.

Fr. John

Yes, it Does Make SensE. Glad You Are Able To Vote ToO.

 

[frjohnmorris]

Was not St. Peter not just the leader of the Apostles but also their spokesperson who spoke for the group?

I Peter 1:5 So I exhort the elders among you, as a fellow elder and a witness of the sufferings of Christ as well as a partaker in the glory that is to be revealed.

Here St. Peter shows that he considers himself equal to, not above, the other clergy of the Church. St. Peter was the leader of the Apostles, but he did not have anything like the authority over the Apostles the modern Pope has over the Roman Catholic Church.
Rome did have a primacy as the senior Bishop of the Church but that does not mean that the Bishop of Rome was considered infallible, had veto power over the decisions of the Ecumenical Councils, or universal jurisdiction over the Church.
Look at the case of Pope St. Leo I. He objected to the pro-Monophysite council of Ephesus of 449. He did not exercise a veto over the council, because he did not have that authority. Instead he appealed to the other Patriarchs and the emperor to hold another council. That was the Council of Chalcedon which excommunicated Dioscorus who presided over the Robber Council and approved the Tome of Leo. Had St. Leo had the authority claimed by modern Popes, he could have simply issued the Tome ex cathedra and ended the controversy. Instead, for the Tome of Leo to have authority over the whole Church, it had to be ratified by an Ecumenical Council.
Papal apologists have made a great deal out of Pope St. Leo’s objections to Canon 28 of Chalcedon. However, St. Leo’s actual response does not state that he rejected the canon because it challenged the status of Rome, but because it demoted Alexandria and Antioch and changed the ranking established by the Council of Nicaea. He did argue that the successors to St. Peter enjoyed special status. However, he did not limit that status to Rome alone, but but included the Patriarch of Alexandria and Antioch as sharing in that status because St. Peter was the first Bishop of Antioch and St. Peter sent St. Mark to Alexandria. However, the other 4 Patriarchs of the Church ignored St.Leo’s objections. This is very important because it shows that they did not recognize the right of the Pope to veto a canon passed by an Ecumenical Council. However when Constantinople had a Latin Patriarch after the 4th Crusade, the 4 Lateran Council recognized the canon in 1215.
Significantly, St. Leo did not question the 9th canon of Chalcedon that took away from Rome the right to hear appeals from Bishops who have disagreements with their Metropolitan given to Rome by Sardica and gave it to Constantinople.
When St. John the Faster assumed the title Ecumenical Patriarch, Pope St. Gregory the Great protested arguing that no Bishop should assume the title universal patriarch. He did not understand that in Greek the title simply meant Patriarch of the Emperor who, of course, ruled from Constantinople not Universal Patriarch. However Pope St. Gregory’s objection to the assumption of St. John the Faster of the title shows that he rejected the idea that any one Bishop has universal authority over the Church.
Thus, the historical record does not support the argument that the ancient undivided Church accorded to Rome the authority now claimed by the papacy.

Fr. John

 

[GaryTaylor]

"However, just because Gregory affirms Christ as Head does not mean he is denying his own primacy as the successor of St. Peter, whom Christ established to oversee Church affairs on earth. In fact, later in the same letter, the Pope says that he is prepared to assert his universal authority, if necessary. He points out to John the Faster that he wants to persuade him to change out of a “sense of shame.” But, adds Gregory, “if the detestable and profane assumption could not be corrected through shame, rigorous canonical measures should then be resorted to”

cufblog.org/?p=1390

 

[GaryTaylor]

There is no controversy over the headship of St. Peter. That is not the issue…

It shouldn’t be reading this thread. I think most of the areas here are touched on.

newadvent.org/cathen/12260a.htm

The issue is what that meant and what it means for the Church. The Orthodox argument is that it was a primacy of honor that did not give St. Peter or his successors absolute authority over the Church.

Father when you say absolute authority over the Church, you’ll have to clarify. I think the God given respect can be seen weaving its way through history which coincides with scripture. If I assume you mean extreme V-I theology, I agree, the Popes in past succession Francis, Benedict and Bl John Paul II agree.

Yet when you say primacy of honor/authority there too is the perspective which relates back to scripture and forward to the link . I think that’s laid out here in this thread. There is and was a position of honor and authority.

St. Peter presided over the college of the Apostles, but did not exercise a veto over their decisions.

Paul debated with Peter, as recorded in Galatians 2 so veto does occur. That doesn’t distract from the teaching authority, the Church infallibility or indefectibility.

or the authority to make unilateral pronouncements on doctrinal issues…

If you mean today with the universal Church during this period of separation when issues need to be addressed such as for example with abortion, he certainly does.

Acts 15 shows that. God gave St. Peter a vision, but St. Peter went to the other Apostles for ratification of his vision. Only when they all agreed did the Church make a binding decision on the matter of Gentile converts. The successors of St. Peter had authority to lead the Church as senior Bishop, but they did not have the authority to rule the Church as an absolute monarchy.

Agreed, and absolute monarchy no. My point was in 50 AD they concurred with St Peter.

They certainly did not have the authority to appoint local Bishops.

No, that’s why the See’s were established.

or to interfere in the internal affairs of another Patriarchate.

Depends what you mean here. For example the above post, what we are talking about with 50-AD, and others on this thread through the years. There’s definitely a consistency through the years of internal conflicts addressed and how and why. Its perspective, .

The canons of the Ecumenical Councils make it clear that each local Church governed its own affairs, chose its own Bishops and that doctrinal decisions could only be binding on the Church if they were made by an Ecumenical Council.

No doubt. How the Church’s reconcile their difference from break in communion to communion again means several issues need to be addressed. Most of which I don’t see as an issue. This doesn’t negate the reason of the teaching authority, its only affirms its correct understanding when the Church’s reconcile. Authority and understanding of it needs clarification.

The opinion of the Bishop of Rome on doctrinal issues carried great influence, but still did not become official doctrine of the Church until it had been accepted by an Ecumenical Council.

Its clear they had doctrinal jurisdiction over the East when the decision would unite the Eastern bishops in orthodox unity and communion. Fair enough.

How can you reconcile papal rule with the canons of the Ecumenical Councils?

Papal rule, I can’t from points which the Popes and most everyone else already agrees need to be addressed.

Fr. John

 

[spina1953]

FWIW, I have on occasion told (or tried to tell) some of my fellow Catholics basically the same thing.

I agree with you. I myself respect Father Morris’s beliefs as well as his knowledge and would never concieve to insult the Eastern Orthodox Church. I look towards a better understanding of the issues involved in order that agreement might be had, Personally, I’m sad that there is division between the Eastern Orthodox Church and the Catholic Church and hope one day there will be reunion.

 

[LionHeart777]

No one in the Eastern Orthodox Church challenged the view that St.Peter was the chief of the Apostles. Nor did the other Patriarchs reject the primacy of Rome. That is not the issue. The issue is that we differ on that that meant. We believe that Rome was first among equals and do not believe that the ancient Bishops of Rome had the authority now claimed by modern Popes. The canons of the Ecumenical Councils provided for regional self rule and give the Bishop of Rome no authority to interfere in the internal affairs of the other Patriarchates. All doctrine was proclaimed by the Ecumenical Councils, not by the Bishop of Rome speaking ex cathedra. Thus the issue is not the primacy of Rome, but what that means and how it is applied to the life of the Church. Through the centuries Rome has evolved into a top down system in which the Pope holds all power in his hands, whereas we have retained the conciliar system of the ancient undivided Church.

Fr. John

Fr. John,

I am more or less familiar with the Eastern Orthodox position regarding the Papacy and I reject it. I was specifically objecting to your paraphrase of St. John Chrysostom’s remarks on St. Matthew 16:18-19. At the very least I hope I have shown that the interpretation given to this passage in the Catechism of the Catholic Church in par. 424 (similar to St. John Chrysostom’s in the given homily) and the interpretation given in par. 552 are not contradictory but rather complimentary. It appeared that in your mind it was an either/or thing and that you were then reading that into St. John’s remarks, when as I said, he never said such a thing (unless of course you can produce it.) I would argue that he merely was affirming the positive without affirming the negative that you introduced; an argument I supported by showing where elsewhere St. John referred to St. Peter as “…the unbroken Rock, the unshaken foundation…”

It was not my intent here to carry on a back and forth about the Papacy in general, but I will respond to (at least some) of what you said and then leave it at that; allowing you the last word.

If the Papacy was established by Divine Right (the Catholic position, which the Acts of Ecumenical Councils as well as the Fathers both East & West testify to), then it is reasonable to conclude that the Pope and the Bishops in communion with him would be the ones to clarify the details related to that office. This is something which happened at Vatican I, if not prior, at least to some extent.

You had written: “The canons of the Ecumenical Councils provided for regional self rule and give the Bishop of Rome no authority to interfere in the internal affairs of the other Patriarchates.”

I’ll take the first part of that sentence (“The canons of the Ecumenical Councils provided for regional self rule…”) and respond by saying that, if what you are saying is correct, there can exist different levels of jurisdiction without one negating the existence of the other. As the Catholic Encycloepdia puts it: “…no difficulty is involved in the exercise of immediate jurisdiction over the same subjects by two rulers, provided only that these rulers stand in subordination, the one to the other. We constantly see the system at work. In an army the regimental officer and the general both possess immediate authority over the soldiers; yet no one maintains that the inferior authority is thereby annulled.”

Source: Joyce, George. “The Pope.” The Catholic Encyclopedia. Vol. 12. New York: Robert Appleton Company, 1911. 9 Nov. 2013 http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12260a.htm.

The second part of your sentence “The canons of the Ecumenical Councils…give the Bishop of Rome no authority to interfere in the internal affairs of the other Patriarchates.” If what you are saying is correct, this does nothing to refute the Catholic position, as the Catholic position is that Papal prerogatives were given by Jesus Christ Himself. Pope St. Nicholas I put it this way to the Byzantine Emperor in the time of Photius: “’These privileges [of the Roman See] have been established by the mouth of Jesus Christ itself. It is not Councils which have granted them. They have only honoured and preserved them. . . .’” (Scott, Herbert S., “The Eastern Churches and the Papacy”, Sheed & Ward, London: 1928. Pg. 327.) This statement is consistent with the words attributed to Pope St. Damasus in the 4th century (cf. “Decree of Damasus) Pope St. Gregory the Great, whom we both venerate as a Saint, certainly saw it as his prerogative to “interfere” in the internal affairs of Constantiniople when “he reverses (Epistle 6:15) a sentence passed on a priest by Patriarch John of Constantinople, an act which itself involves a claim to universal authority, and explicitly states that the Church of Constantinople is subject to the Apostolic See (Epistle 9:12).” Source: Joyce, George. “The Pope.” The Catholic Encyclopedia. Vol. 12. New York: Robert Appleton Company, 1911. 9 Nov. 2013 http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12260a.htm.

Continued…

 

[LionHeart777]

Continued…

Fr. John,

You had also written to me that: “All doctrine was proclaimed by the Ecumenical Councils, not by the Bishop of Rome speaking ex cathedra. Thus the issue is not the primacy of Rome, but what that means and how it is applied to the life of the Church.”

Even if I were to accept that “All doctrine was proclaimed by the Ecumenical Councils…”, that something happened one way in the past one way need not prevent a change in the way things happen in the future. If your argument is that “All doctrine was proclaimed by the Ecumenical Councils…” therefore and because of this, it must of necessity carry on this way; this, I would argue, is a non sequitur. Couldn’t one pick a point in history to compare, say the Apostolic age to just after the Council of Nicaea, and (wrongly) claim that, “In the Jerusalem Council there was no involvement by the Government, however, Constantine was involved in some way at the First Ecumenical Council of Nicaea. Therefore this is a new and therefore invalid procedure” ?

Also, one must look at how the Pope has declared his ex cathedra statements in the past. I believe he did so, at least those declared since the close of The Ecumenical Council of Vatican I, in the context of collegiality (i.e. his decree was not in opposition to the consensus of the Bishops in communion with him.)

Since St. John Chrysostom came up, I thought it relevant to bring up his remarks on the replacement of Judas, as told in the Book of Acts. In commenting of St. John Chrysostom’s words regarding this event in the Book of Act, Dom John Chapman comments (here I give some excerpts):

“That St. Peter might have been expected to appoint a new apostle without betaking himself to lot, or consulting the brethren, is what strikes St. Chrysostom.”

“Thus, if we prefer the Benedictine text, we have a rhetorical question with its answer: ‘Could Peter not have appointed Matthias himself? Of course he could.’ If we prefer the short text, we have a plain statement, ‘And yet he had the same power to appoint as they all collectively.’”

“I know no more emphatic testimony to the supreme jurisdiction of St. Peter in any writer, ancient or modern, than the view taken in this homily of the election of St. Matthias, for I know of no act of jurisdiction in the Church more tremendous than the appointment of an apostle.

Further, I will venture to say that perhaps St. John Chrysostom goes too far. Would it not be more natural to think that Christ only can make an apostle, and that it was because the eleven knew this, that they did not venture to elect one, but chose two, asking for a direct intervention of the Divine Head of the Church in so great a matter? …”

Source: philvaz.com/apologetics/num52.htm

One can go to the link and see the whole section including St. John’s actual remarks.

Regards,

Nick

 

[spina1953]

Your arguments are very concincing and I agree with what you have said.I don’t know if you read Stephen K. Ray’s book’ Upon This Rock’, but it follows your thinking to a tee. It has always been my thinking that the Pope in Rome is in union with his fellow Bishops and they in union with thePope so that whatever is agreed on it is agreed on with the Pope in union speaking for the whole Church in union (Rome).

 

[frjohnmorris]

"However, just because Gregory affirms Christ as Head does not mean he is denying his own primacy as the successor of St. Peter, whom Christ established to oversee Church affairs on earth. In fact, later in the same letter, the Pope says that he is prepared to assert his universal authority, if necessary. He points out to John the Faster that he wants to persuade him to change out of a “sense of shame.” But, adds Gregory, “if the detestable and profane assumption could not be corrected through shame, rigorous canonical measures should then be resorted to”

cufblog.org/?p=1390

Whatever Pope St. Gregory wrote St. John the Faster, he actually had no power to do anything about the new title, which the Patriarchs of Constantinople have used ever since. St. Gregory’s letter stated that no Bishop had universal primacy over the Church. In the ancient undivided Church no Pope had any authority to do anything outside of his own Patriarchate of the West. Only an Ecumenical Council had authority over the whole Church. You cannot find a single example of a Bishop of Rome acting as if he had the authority that modern Popes have before 1054. Pope St. Gregory objected to the Patriarch of Constantinople calling himself the Ecumenical Patriarch, but there really was nothing that he could do about it. Even Pope Nicholas I had to appeal to a council to get rid of St. Photius. He lacked the authority and power to do it himself.When Nestorius who was Patriarch of Constantinople committed heresy, it took an Ecumenical Council to discipline him. The Pope lacked the authority and Power to deal with the matter. After the crimes of Dioscorus at Ephesus in 449 Pope St. Leo had to persuade the other Patriarchs to agree to another Council, to condemn Monophysitism and approve his Tome because he had neither the power or authority to unilaterally deal with the heresy.

Fr. John

Fr. John

 

[josie_L]

Continued…

**Fr. John,

You had also written to me that: “All doctrine was proclaimed by the Ecumenical Councils, not by the Bishop of Rome speaking ex cathedra. Thus the issue is not the primacy of Rome, but what that means and how it is applied to the life of the Church.”**

Even if I were to accept that “All doctrine was proclaimed by the Ecumenical Councils…”, that something happened one way in the past one way need not prevent a change in the way things happen in the future. If your argument is that “All doctrine was proclaimed by the Ecumenical Councils…” therefore and because of this, it must of necessity carry on this way; this, I would argue, is a non sequitur. Couldn’t one pick a point in history to compare, say the Apostolic age to just after the Council of Nicaea, and (wrongly) claim that, “In the Jerusalem Council there was no involvement by the Government, however, Constantine was involved in some way at the First Ecumenical Council of Nicaea. Therefore this is a new and therefore invalid procedure” ?

I do not accept that all doctrine was proclaimed by ecumenical councils as the Bible already attests to the fact that Peter through the Father/God received (more than once) divine revelation/understanding without an ecumenical council/support. If I may quote from Soloviev’s “The Russian Church and the Papacy”:

But Jesus Christ did not commend the vague and contradictory opinions of the mob or the silence of his chosen disciples; it was the unwavering, decisive, and authoritative utterance of Simon Bar-Jona upon which he set the seal of his approval. This utterance which satisfied our Lord clearly needed no human ratification; it possessed absolute validity etiam sine consensus Ecclesiae. It was not by means of a general counsultation but (as Jesus Christ bore witness) with the direct assistance of the heavenly Father that Peter formulated the fundamental dogma of our religion; and his word defined the faith of Christians by its own inherent power, not by the consent of others - ex sese, non autem ex consensus Ecclesiae.

Through his confession of faith Peter becomes the rock upon which the Church would be built, and again quoting Soloviev’s words:

The sublime words which he addressed to Peter alone created in the person of this one apostle the undivided, sovereign authority possessed by the universal Church throughout the whole of its life and development in future ages. That Christ did not see fit to make the formal foundation of his Church and the guarantee of its permanence dependent on the common authority of all the apostles (for he did not say to the apostolic college: “on you I will build my church”) surely shows that our Lord did not regard the episcopal and priestly order, represented by the apostles in common, as sufficient in itself to form the impregnable foundation of the universal Church, in her inevitable struggle against the gates of Hades. In founding his visible Church, Jesus was thinking primarily of the struggle against evil; and in order to ensure for his creation that unity which is strength, he crowned the hierarchy with a single, central institution, absolutely indivisible and independent, possessing in its own right the fullness of authority and of Promise: 'You ar Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades shall not prevail against it." ** All arguments in support of the supreme central authority of the universal Church would in our view have but little weight if they were only arguments. But they rest upon a divine-human fact which remains essential to the Christian faith despite all the artificial interpretations by which men have attempted to suppress it**. . . . Similarly, when we wish to prove that an indivisible center is essential to this same hierarchy, it is the fact of the special choice of Peter to serve as a human point d’appui for the divine truth in this constant struggle against the gates of Hades – it is the fact of this unique choice which provides a firm foundation for all our arguments.

The primacy of honour argued and defined by the Orthodox is not the same primacy which we see delineated in Scripture (which is not only the Word of God, but the unraveling of salvation history) and Tradition, as well as history.

 

[frjohnmorris]

I do not accept that all doctrine was proclaimed by ecumenical councils as the Bible already attests to the fact that Peter through the Father/God received (more than once) divine revelation/understanding without an ecumenical council/support. If I may quote from Soloviev’s
“The Russian Church and the Papacy”
Through his confession of faith Peter becomes the rock upon which the Church would be built, and again quoting Soloviev’s words

The primacy of honour argued and defined by the Orthodox is not the same primacy which we see delineated in Scripture (which is not only the Word of God, but the unraveling of salvation history) and Tradition, as well as history.

You claim that my Orthodox view of history is incorrect. Show me where I am wrong. You cannot support your argument that papal authority in its post Vatican I form existed from the beginning of the history of the Church with an actual example of a pre-schism Pope acting as if he had the authority of modern Popes or an example that the other 4 Patriarchs believed that the Pope had the authority modern Popes have.

Fr. John

 

[josie_L]

We should not be amazed to find a general lack of explicit patristic writing on the matter. Christological, Trinitarian and soteriological questions, not questions about papal primacy, were the chief subjects of controversy in the early centuries. Nor should it be expected that those Fathers who did touch upon the authority of the Roman see should have used the more developed language of later times. Earlier references tended to be less precise and less explicit than those of the Middle Ages and the modern era when the doctrine of papal primacy was more often questioned. This should not be surprising since Christology itself did not become highly developed until the controversies of the fourth and fifth centuries.

With the above in mind, it will also be seen that the Greek Fathers were not entirely silent during the first six centuries regarding the authority of the papacy.

During the fifth century, when Nestorianism was ravaging the Eastern Church in particular, Cyril of Alexandria (d. 444) sought a papal judgment concerning the author of the heresy.

I was unwilling to openly sever communion with him until I had laid all the facts before you. Deign therefore to ordain what seems right, whether we ought to communicate at all with him, or to tell him plainly that no one communicates with a person who holds and teaches what he does. Further the purpose of your holiness ought to be made known by letter to the most religious and God-loving bishops of Macedonia, and to all the bishops of the East, for we shall then give them, according to their desire, the opportunity of standing together in unity of soul and mind, and lead them to contend earnestly for the orthodox faith which is being attacked. [29]

We see that Cyril held that Pope Celestine (d. 432), a Westerner, had doctrinal jurisdiction over the East and that his decision would unite the Eastern bishops in orthodox unity. It would also determine whether or not Nestorius, the Patriarch of Constantinople, should be excommunicated.

Cyril did not reveal the basis of his belief in the pope’s authority. But his action accorded with the directive of the Council of Sardica (342) “that the priests (bishops) of the Lord from all the provinces should report to the head that is to the see of Peter the apostle.” [30]

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

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

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

The above evidence in itself is admittedly inconclusive. Nevertheless, it is sufficient to raise substantial doubts concerning the assertion that no Greek Father of the first six centuries connected the position of the pope with the promise to Peter.

Fr Hardin

therealpresence.org/archives/Papacy/Papacy_006.htm

To add to this:

Celestine commissioned Cyril, Bishop of Alexandria, to investigate and make a report. Cyril having found Nestorius openly professing his heresy sent a full account to Celestine, who in a Roman synod (430),** having solemnly condemned the errors of Nestorius, now ordered Cyril in his name to proceed against Nestorius, who was to be excommunicated and deposed unless within ten days he should have made in writing a solemn retractation of his errors. In letters written the same day to Nestorius, to the clergy and people of Constantinople, and to John of Antioch, Juvenal of Jerusalem, Rufus of Thessalonica, and Flavian of Philippi, Celestine announces the sentence passed upon Nestorius and the commission given to Cyril to execute it. At the same time he restored all who had been excommunicated or deprived by Nestorius. Cyril forwarded the papal sentence and his own anathema to Nestorius.** The emperor now summoned a general council to meet at Ephesus. To this council Celestine sent as legates, Arcadius, and Projectus, bishops, and Philippus, a priest, who were to act in conjunction with Cyril. However, they were not to mix in discussion but were to judge the opinions of the others. Celestine in all his letters assumes his own decision as final, Cyril and the council, “compelled by the sacred canons and the letters of Our Most Holy Father, Celestine, Bishop of the Roman Church.”

newadvent.org/cathen/03477c.htm