The Catholic/Orthodox Schism Much Older Than Believed?

[Duane1966]

The bishops in the Assyrian Empire learned about the Council of Nicea in 410. They only decided to accept it after holding a council of their own and determining that Nicea is correct and worthy of acceptance because its teachings “agree with the faith handed down from their fathers.” There’s absolutely no mention of Rome or “obeying the council because Rome says so.”

That’s funny. Here I am on an official site of the Assyrian Church of the East, and what do I see? Bishop John of Persia attended the Council of Nicaea!

325 A.D. First Ecumenical Council called by the Emperor Constantine in Nicaea; Bishop John of Persia attended and participated in the Council. The Council fixed the method of the reckoning of Holy Pascha for the entire church.

What does another Assyrian Church of the East site say? That it was natural for Constantine not to summon bishops from outside the Empire, since he viewed it as a domestic matter.

This fact, the ignorance of a not unimportant Church of the greatest of all Church controversies, will bear some examination. First, the fact must be admitted, explain it as we may, that the “Assyrian” Church did know nothing officially of the Nicene Council at the time of its assembling. Not only is there no reference to it in any of the nearly contemporary documents that remain to us (for they, with one important exception, are acta martyrum where such reference might naturally not be found); but the one work of theology (properly so called) that remains to us from the period, is obviously the work of a man who had no knowledge of the council, or what was debated therein. The author in question, of course, is Afraat, the “Sage of Persia.” Writing about fifteen years after the council (337-346) he uses expressions, and formulates a creed56 in a fashion that one may fairly say would have been impossible to a man who had heard of the rights and wrongs of the great controversy that was then agitating “the West,” no matter which side he took in it.

The Church of “the East” was not asked to accept Nicaea, or its doctrines, until eighty-five years later, when it frankly and fully accepted both the council and its creed. **Individual bishops may have (must have)**57 known of the fact, but not the auto-cephalous Church as such.

The most probable explanation of the phenomenon is as follows. Constantine regarded the council as an “imperial affair.” In the whole controversy, it was the peace of the Empire that he saw endangered, not the vital truth of Christianity; and the council was summoned to guard the first, by determining the second. Under these circumstances, it was natural that he should not summon bishops from outside the empire to settle a domestic matter. The Emperor was, of course, aware of the existence of the Church in Persia, and took an interest (too much interest, perhaps) in its fortunes; but in the matter of the council he seems to have regarded it as outside his purview. So the synod met, and the “Easterns” were not represented to it.

A few years elapsed, and the rise of the great persecution protected them (at a frightful cost) from the weary controversy that followed.

It is a fact, however, that one of the greatest of “Assyrian” saints, and the holder of one of the most important metropolitical sees of later “Assyrian” history, was undoubtedly present at Nicaea. James of Nisibis certainly, and Ephraim Syrus his deacon probably, were at the council; but they were there as representatives, not of a see in the Persian Empire, but of one in the Roman.

Just because they were asked to accept something in 410 does not mean that it was not known before then.

If Peter’s divine authority as head of the church was understood from day 1, then why did bishops outside of the Roman Empire have absolutely no awareness of this?

Can you show me that the bishops had no awareness of it from day 1, with links?

When papal legates reached India in the 16th century, the Indian bishops, who had been there since the second century, had no awareness of a papacy or supreme bishop of any sort whatsoever.

Can you show me that they had no awareness whatsoever, with links?

The papal legates used violence to make some of the Indian church submit, but not all did

What part does this statement play in your premise that the East had not heard of Peter’s divine authority?

To be continued…

 

[Duane1966]

part 2.

A few questions for you Donuts, based on this part of Clement:

Chapter 57. Let the Authors of Sedition Submit Themselves.

You therefore, who laid the foundation of this sedition, submit yourselves to the presbyters, and receive correction so as to repent, bending the knees of your hearts. Learn to be subject, laying aside the proud and arrogant self-confidence of your tongue. For it is better for you that you should occupy a humble but honourable place in the flock of Christ, than that, being highly exalted, you should be cast out from the hope of His people. For thus speaks all-virtuous Wisdom: “Behold, I will bring forth to you the words of my Spirit, and I will teach you my speech. Since I called, and you did not hear; I held forth my words, and you regarded not, but set at naught my counsels, and yielded not at my reproofs; therefore I too will laugh at your destruction; yea, I will rejoice when ruin comes upon you, and when sudden confusion overtakes you, when overturning presents itself like a tempest, or when tribulation and oppression fall upon you. For it shall come to pass, that when you call upon me, I will not hear you; the wicked shall seek me, and they shall not find me. For they hated wisdom, and did not choose the fear of the Lord; nor would they listen to my counsels, but despised my reproofs. Wherefore they shall eat the fruits of their own way, and they shall be filled with their own ungodliness. Proverbs 1:22-33 …For, in punishment for the wrongs which they practised upon babes, shall they be slain, and inquiry will be death to the ungodly; but he that hears me shall rest in hope and be undisturbed by the fear of any evil.”
Chapter 58. Submission the Precursor of Salvation.

Let us, therefore, flee from the warning threats pronounced by Wisdom on the disobedient, and yield submission to His all-holy and glorious name, that we may stay our trust upon the most hallowed name of His majesty. Receive our counsel, and you shall be without repentance. For, as God lives, and as the Lord Jesus Christ and the Holy Ghost live—both the faith and hope of the elect, he who in lowliness of mind, with instant gentleness, and without repentance has observed the ordinances and appointments given by God— the same shall obtain a place and name in the number of those who are being saved through Jesus Christ, through whom is glory to Him for ever and ever. Amen.
Chapter 59. Warning Against Disobedience. Prayer.

If, however, any shall disobey the words spoken by Him through us, let them know that they will involve themselves in transgression and serious danger; but we shall be innocent of this sin, and, instant in prayer and supplication, shall desire that the Creator of all preserve unbroken the computed number of His elect in the whole world through His beloved Son Jesus Christ, through whom He called us from darkness to light, from ignorance to knowledge of the glory of His name, our hope resting on Your name which is primal cause of every creature—having opened the eyes of our heart to the knowledge of You, who alone “rests highest among the highest, holy among the holy,”

1.) How come Corinth wrote to Rome instead of handling it themselves?
2.) Why didn’t Clement say for him to give an answer would be interference by Rome?
3.) How come Clement says if they disobey him they are sinning?
4.) Would it have been okay if Corinth didn’t like what Clement wrote, to reject what he wrote?
5.) And if they had rejected what he wrote, thereby disobeying him, would they be sinning?
6.) Is Jesus the Messiah?

 

[Here_For_Donuts]

There was no “John of Persia” at Nicea lol. That’s a complete myth.

Here’s a link to an Assyrian Chrisian forum discussing the issue. Go to the final two posts in the thread here:

peshitta.org/for/printthread.php?tid=3121

And no, the Assyriam church wasn’t “asked” to accept Nicea. They were a fiercely independent church that CHOSE to accept Nicea only after having held a council of their own, which occurred ninety years later.

You’re also quoting someone else and making it appear as if it’s me.

 

[Starwarsfan2]

part 2.

A few questions for you Donuts, based on this part of Clement:

1.) How come Corinth wrote to Rome instead of handling it themselves?
2.) Why didn’t Clement say for him to give an answer would be interference by Rome?
3.) How come Clement says if they disobey him they are sinning?
4.) Would it have been okay if Corinth didn’t like what Clement wrote, to reject what he wrote?
5.) And if they had rejected what he wrote, thereby disobeying him, would they be sinning?
6.) Is Jesus the Messiah?

Did you even have to ask that question ? ( number 6) of course Jesus is the Messiah!

 

[Duane1966]

There was no “John of Persia” at Nicea lol. That’s a complete myth.

Here’s a link to an Assyrian Chrisian forum discussing the issue. Go to the final two posts in the thread here:

peshitta.org/for/printthread.php?tid=3121

And no, the Assyriam church wasn’t “asked” to accept Nicea. They were a fiercely independent church that CHOSE to accept Nicea only after having held a council of their own, which occurred ninety years later.

You’re also quoting someone else and making it appear as if it’s me.

Where have I quoted someone else and making it appear to be you? And just don’t show me a thread with answers from two people who say it is a forgery with no link to show it is a forgery.

 

[Duane1966]

Did you even have to ask that question ? ( number 6) of course Jesus is the Messiah!

Starwars, did I ask you or Donuts for an answer to number 6?

 

[Here_For_Donuts]

Regarding St. Clement:

They appealed to Rome because they were having internal disputes and yes, the church in Rome was the church that, according to St. Ignatius of Antioch, “presides in love.”

But here’s why. I’ll quote an earlier post I made:

In my opinion, the Roman church became the center of theological authority in the Roman Empire because Rome was the imperial center. Have you ever heard the saying “All roads lead to Rome?” This is what the Romans used to say. Anyone who was anyone went to Rome at some point. The fact that the Church of Rome was situated at the center of commerce and travel meant that it was easy for its bishops to keep in touch with other churches and to keep “steady” in doctrine. Ease of communication, not divine mandate, kept the early Roman church on top of doctrinal issues. And if you add to this the fact that Peter and Paul died there, well…that’s just icing on the cake.

As the church moved into the second and third centuries, Rome was able to keep doctrinally pure for the sole reason of its physical location. This is why heresies tended to form in “backwater” churches, and this is why heresy rarely began among Christians in Rome. The bishops of Rome seized on the legendary status afforded by Peter and Paul’s martyrdom there and claimed that their church’s history of orthodoxy was because of divine mandate.

The other bishops, especially those not in Italy (like Firmilian), thought it was absurd. Firmilian in his letter to Cyprian had no qualms about calling Stephen an apostate who has “excommunicated himself” from the rest of the church.

As more centuries passed, and as Western Europe fell into the Dark Ages, the only unifying force in the west was Christianity, and since Rome was the only apostolic see in the west, the bishop of Rome became a de facto head of state. As the first millennium came to a close, he wished to assert his newfound power and authority on the eastern churches, even going as far as to cite forged documents to “prove” his right to do so.

 

[Here_For_Donuts]

Where have I quoted someone else and making it appear to be you? And just don’t show me a thread with answers from two people who say it is a forgery with no link to show it is a forgery.

The quote on your post that starts, “This fact, the ignorance of a not unimportant…” is not my words, but you make it appear that way.

 

[Duane1966]

Regarding St. Clement:

They appealed to Rome because they were having internal disputes and yes, the church in Rome was the church that, according to St. Ignatius of Antioch, “presides in love.”

But here’s why. I’ll quote an earlier post I made:

In my opinion, the Roman church became the center of theological authority in the Roman Empire because Rome was the imperial center. Have you ever heard the saying “All roads lead to Rome?” This is what the Romans used to say. Anyone who was anyone went to Rome at some point. The fact that the Church of Rome was situated at the center of commerce and travel meant that it was easy for its bishops to keep in touch with other churches and to keep “steady” in doctrine. Ease of communication, not divine mandate, kept the early Roman church on top of doctrinal issues. And if you add to this the fact that Peter and Paul died there, well…that’s just icing on the cake.

As the church moved into the second and third centuries, Rome was able to keep doctrinally pure for the sole reason of its physical location. This is why heresies tended to form in “backwater” churches, and this is why heresy rarely began among Christians in Rome. The bishops of Rome seized on the legendary status afforded by Peter and Paul’s martyrdom there and claimed that their church’s history of orthodoxy was because of divine mandate.

The other bishops, especially those not in Italy (like Firmilian), thought it was absurd. Firmilian in his letter to Cyprian had no qualms about calling Stephen an apostate who has “excommunicated himself” from the rest of the church.

As more centuries passed, and as Western Europe fell into the Dark Ages, the only unifying force in the west was Christianity, and since Rome was the only apostolic see in the west, the bishop of Rome became a de facto head of state. As the first millennium came to a close, he wished to assert his newfound power and authority on the eastern churches, even going as far as to cite forged documents to “prove” his right to do so.

Can you give me a link to these forged documents?

 

[Here_For_Donuts]

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pseudo-Isidorian_Decretals

 

[Duane1966]

The quote on your post that starts, “This fact, the ignorance of a not unimportant…” is not my words, but you make it appear that way.

No, I thought I made it clear that i was from an Assyrian Church of the East site. Here is the link for you: aina.org/books/itthotac/itthotac.htm It is actually from a paper called an Introduction to the History of the Assyrian Church of the East.

If there is no Bishop John of Persia, you better write this Church of the East website, and ask them to correct it. They are the one’s that have him listed. easterncatholicchurch.org/about.html

 

[Duane1966]

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pseudo-Isidorian_Decretals

And who actually forged the decretals, and who hoped to gain by their promulgation?

hile the anti-Catholic charge appears damning at first glance, it must be remembered the Roman claims were well-established before the False Decretals were penned in the ninth century. Roman bishops long had applied verses of Scripture to their office. For example, papal legates at the Council of Ephesus (431) refer to the pope as the successor of Peter and as having the powers to bind and loose (Matt. 16:19), while Pope Hormisdas, in 517, applies Matthew 16:18—where Peter is declared “rock”—to the Apostolic See. Although the False Decretals describe the Roman Church as “head,” numerous genuine documents that predate these forgeries explicitly declare as much. The records of the ecumenical councils of Ephesus, Chalcedon (451), Constantinople III, and Nicaea II (787) contain many references to the pope or the Apostolic See as “father,” “head of all Churches,” “archbishop of all the Churches,” “spiritual mother,” “sacred head,” and so forth.

It was no ninth-century innovation to claim that anything done against the will of the Apostolic See was invalid. Fifth-century historians Sozomen and Socrates, in separate histories of the fourth-century Church, record in similar words that “an ecclesiastical canon commands that the Churches shall not make any ordinances against the opinion of the bishop of Rome.” Peter Chrysologus, bishop of Ravenna, declares in his Letter to Eutyches (449) that cases of faith cannot be tried “without the consent of the bishop of Rome.” At the Council of Chalcedon, papal legates—without opposition—declare the holding of a council without the pope’s authority to be a “thing which had never taken place nor can take place.” The Council of Ephesus declares itself “compelled” by the canons and by the decision of Pope Celestine to depose the heretic Nestorius, Patriarch of Constantinople. The pope was recognized in both East and West as having the authority to hear appeals from bishops, to depose them, and to restore them to their sees, as proved by the course of history and by the canons of the Council of Sardica (343).

While infallibility may be inferred from some of the genuine documents cited, more explicit affirmations of it may be found in other places. For example, in 517 the Eastern bishops assented to and signed the formula of Pope Hormisdas, which states in part: “The first condition of salvation is to keep the norm of the true faith and in no way to deviate from the established doctrine of the Fathers. For it is impossible that the words of our Lord Jesus Christ who said, ‘Thou are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church’ [Matt 16:18], should not be verified. And their truth has been proved by the course of history, for in the Apostolic See the Catholic religion has always been kept unsullied.”

In a letter from Pope Agatho, accepted by Constantinople III, the Pope says the Roman Church “has never erred,” has never yielded to “heretical innovations,” and “remains undefiled unto the end.” Agatho links this claim directly to the “divine promise” found in Luke 22:32, where the Lord prays that Peter’s faith would never fail. Declarations that the Apostolic See “has been kept unsullied” are claims of papal infallibility.

In short, there is no reason to suspect the papacy to be the forgery factory conjured up in the minds of anti-Catholic apologists. If many, including popes, presumed the veracity of the False Decretals for a time, it was because the documents in many respects corresponded to the already long-accepted reality of the primacy and infallibility of the popes. Furthermore, no doctrinal error may be inferred from the fact that False Decretals were quoted by popes, since papal infallibility applies to definitions on faith and morals, not to judgments about the authenticity of documents. The important point is that none of the forgeries served as the basis for a single doctrine regarding the papacy. The doctrines came first, the forgeries long centuries later.

catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=105

 

[Here_For_Donuts]

Still, the Assyrians didn’t convene a council regarding Nicea until 410. They obviously didn’t believe in papal supremacy. It would be like the Roman Catholic bishops of Canada today convening to determine if Vatican II is correct in its teachings.

 

[Here_For_Donuts]

And who actually forged the decretals, and who hoped to gain by their promulgation?

Nobody knows who, but they sure did influence Thomas Acquinas and modern Roman Catholic theology a great deal.

christiantruth.com/articles/forgeries.html

When I first read this article, I was surprised. How can the the true church of God have such a deceitful history? The Orthodox Church seems much more legitimate, in my opinion.

 

[Duane1966]

catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=105

By the way, will you answer the rest of my questions about Clement?

 

[Here_For_Donuts]

catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=105

By the way, will you answer the rest of my questions about Clement?

My post on the secular view of papal rise to authority did, I believe.

 

[Here_For_Donuts]

The article I linked to completely disproves what your post says regarding the decretals and the “anti-Catholics.”

I have to go to bed. Take care.

 

[Duane1966]

Nobody knows who, but they sure did influence Thomas Acquinas and modern Roman Catholic theology a great deal.

christiantruth.com/articles/forgeries.html

When I first read this article, I was surprised. How can the the true church of God have such a deceitful history? The Orthodox Church seems much more legitimate, in my opinion.

That article answered here: cathapol.wordpress.com/2010/11/05/an-answer-to-the-false-decretals-argument/

By the way, William Webster has written many anti-Catholic papers. Every one of them I have seen easily refuted. I wonder why you did not bother to do some more research on that article. When I read it I was surprised also, that anyone could be so easily fooled.

The Catholic Church is much more legitimate in my opinion.

 

[Duane1966]

My post on the secular view of papal rise to authority did, I believe.

No it didn’t.

 

[Duane1966]

The article I linked to completely disproves what your post says regarding the decretals and the “anti-Catholics.”

I have to go to bed. Take care.

So you are saying that the Roman claims to primacy and infallibility were born with the false decretals? That is laughable.

And we can prove that the author is mistaken about Aquinas, because Aquinas also formulated his theories on other sources. cathapol.wordpress.com/2010/11/05/an-answer-to-the-false-decretals-argument/

argues that this document is Aquinas’ sole source for his doctrine on the papacy as found in the Summa. Clearly I have shown that the doctrine is spoken of and taught centuries before Aquinas. If Aquinas only used this one source, but there are many others out there to support him, then so what!? Is Aquinas’ argument destroyed because he used a forged document that he had no way of knowing was forged? It would IF there were no other proofs available to support Aquinas’ conclusions. Since I have shown here that MANY other sources are available – James’ argument holds little water.

I will be looking for other citations of papal authority from within the Summa that are not from the False Decretals and will post them here when found. Keeping in mind, I would only need ONE such source to soundly put down James’ argument (that Aquinas used “no” other source).
If anyone reading this has such references, please send them to me, citing your sources (preferably internet sources) to: bigscott@a2z.org. If I use your sources, I will give proper credit.
In JMJ,
Scott<<<
*ADDENDUM 2:

“Further, the blessed Cyril, bishop of Alexandria, says: “That we may remain members of our apostolic head, the throne of the Roman Pontiffs, of whom it is our duty to seek what we are to believe and what we are to hold, venerating him, beseeching him above others; for his it is to reprove, to correct, to appoint, to loose, and to bind in place of Him Who set up that very throne, and Who gave the fulness of His own to no other, but to him alone, to whom by divine right all bow the head, and the primates of the world are obedient as to our Lord Jesus Christ Himself.” Therefore bishops are subject to someone even by divine right.” [Question 40 – Article 6: Whether in the Church there can be anyone above the bishops? – St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica]

James’ argument was that St. Thomas didn’t use any other sources when discussing the papacy and papal authority. Clearly it is shown here that St. Thomas cites Cyril of Alexandria. Case closed.