The Council of Chalcedon and the papacy

[Gregory_I]

to JOhn VIII

THe Catholic church teaches that ALL the bishops of the world are the successor sof the apostles, in their own ministries, and in the ministries which they established apart from their own.

If we ssume that each apostle was heading SOME church by the time of their death, then we must assume that that role was taken over by an episcopal successor.

Now, it is NOT evident that ALL the apostles were heads of churches at the times of their death, like paul, so in a sense there is a limited number of personal spodtolic successors. BUt ALL The bishops were APPOINTED by the apostles and were HEIRS to the faith and traditions and orthodoxy passed down to them: and in this they truly are successors to the apostles:

They were appointed by apostles, received the apostles teachings and orthodox traditions and the share of their own particular ministry that was worked in each particular church. In this ALL Bishops are succesors. But not all bishops are personal successors, but it would be difficult to find out who those are; Hence, as you say, The firmness of Rome.

 

[joe370]

Gregory, I agree with you, that it would be difficult to find out who those are, and that is why, I too believe in the firmness of Rome, as being so necessary.

to JOhn VIII

THe Catholic church teaches that ALL the bishops of the world are the successor of the apostles, in their own ministries, and in the ministries which they established apart from their own.

If we assume that each apostle was heading SOME church by the time of their death, then we must assume that that role was taken over by an episcopal successor.

Now, it is NOT evident that ALL the apostles were heads of churches at the times of their death, like paul, so in a sense there is a limited number of personal spodtolic successors. BUt ALL The bishops were APPOINTED by the apostles and were HEIRS to the faith and traditions and orthodoxy passed down to them: and in this they truly are successors to the apostles:

They were appointed by apostles, received the apostles teachings and orthodox traditions and the share of their own particular ministry that was worked in each particular church. In this ALL Bishops are succesors. But not all bishops are personal successors, but it would be difficult to find out who those are; Hence, as you say, The firmness of Rome.

 

[josephdaniel29]

“Bishop Paschasinus, guardian of the Apostolic See, stood in the midst [of the Council Fathers] and said, ‘We received directions at the hands of the most blessed and apostolic bishop of the Roman city [Pope Leo I], who is the head of all the churches, which directions say that Dioscorus is not to be allowed to sit in the [present] assembly, but that if he should attempt to take his seat, he is to be cast out. This instruction we must carry out” (Acts of the Council, session 1 [A.D. 451]).

Not sure exactly how much we can read into the statement of a single papal legate.

“After the reading of the foregoing epistle [The Tome of Leo], the most reverend bishops cried out: ‘This is the faith of the fathers! This is the faith of the apostles! So we all believe! Thus the orthodox believe! Anathema to him who does not thus believe! **Peter has spoken thus through Leo!’” **(ibid., session 2).

They said “Peter has spoken” only after they had examined the document to test its’ orthodoxy. And as the Orthodox patriarchs said in the 1848 Encyclical, responding to Pope Pius IX’s reference of the same incident.

These, about two hundred judgments and resolution on the epistle, as chiefly found in the Fourth Session of the said holy Council in such terms as the following:—“Maximus of Antioch in Syria said: 'The epistle of the holy Leo, Archbishop of Imperial Rome, agrees with the decisions of the three hundred and eighteen holy fathers at Nice, and the hundred and fifty at Constantinople, which is new Rome, and with the faith expounded at Ephesus by the most holy Bishop Cyril: and I have subscribed it.”

And again:

“Theodoret,the most religious Bishop of Cyrus: 'The epistle of the most holy Archbishop, the lord Leo, agrees with the faith established at Nice by the holy and blessed fathers, and with the symbol of faith expounded at Constantinople by the hundred and fifty, and with the epistles of the blessed Cyril. And accepting it, I have subscribed the said epistle.”’

And thus all in succession: “The epistle corresponds,” "the epistle is consonant,“the epistle agrees in sense,” and the like. After such great and very severe scrutiny in comparing it with former holy Councils, and a full conviction of the correctness of the meaning, and not merely because it was the epistle of the Pope, they cried aloud, ungrudgingly, the exclamation on which his Holiness now vaunts himself: But if his Holiness had sent us statements concordant and in unison with the seven holy Ecumenical Councils, instead of boasting of the piety of his predecessors lauded by our predecessors and fathers in an Ecumenical Council, he might justly have gloried in his own orthodoxy, declaring his own goodness instead of that of his fathers. Therefore let his Holiness be assured, that if, even now, he will write us such things as two hundred fathers on investigation and inquiry shall find consonant and agreeing with the said former Councils, then, we say, he shall hear from us sinners today, not only, “Peter has so spoken,” or anything of like honor, but this also, "Let the holy hand be kissed which has wiped away the tears of the Catholic Church."

Link

In Christ
Joe

 

[joe370]

Hey Joe…

josephdaniel29;7412166]Not sure exactly how much we can read into the statement of a single papal legate.

What was your take on the following:

Council of Ephesus:

“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 and head of the apostles, pillar of the faith, and foundation of the Catholic Church, received the keys of the kingdom from our Lord Jesus Christ, the Savior and Redeemer of the human race, and that to him was given the power of loosing and binding sins: who down even to today and forever both lives and judges in his successors. The holy and most blessed pope Celestine, according to due order, is his successor and holds his place, and us he sent to supply his place in this holy synod’” (Acts of the Council, session 3 [A.D. 431]).

 

[josephdaniel29]

Hey Joe…

What was your take on the following:

Council of Ephesus:

“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 and head of the apostles, pillar of the faith, and foundation of the Catholic Church, received the keys of the kingdom from our Lord Jesus Christ, the Savior and Redeemer of the human race, and that to him was given the power of loosing and binding sins: who down even to today and forever both lives and judges in his successors. The holy and most blessed pope Celestine, according to due order, is his successor and holds his place, and us he sent to supply his place in this holy synod’” (Acts of the Council, session 3 [A.D. 431]).

My response would be this…

1. Talk is cheap. Look at how the fathers at the council behaved, not what they said.
2. As I said before, not sure how much we can read into a statement by a papal legate.

In Christ
Joe

 

[joe370]

That’s cool; you don’t have to answer the question. By the way, I was not there, so the only way I can know how they behaved, is by what was said.

My response would be this…

1. Talk is cheap. Look at how the fathers at the council behaved, not what they said.
2. As I said before, not sure how much we can read into a statement by a papal legate.

In Christ
Joe

 

[josephdaniel29]

That’s cool; you don’t have to answer the question. By the way, I was not there, so the only way I can know how they behaved, is by what was said.

Or you could read the history and accounts from a source other than Roman Catholic apologist. Be careful, you might not like what you find.

 

[joe370]

Or you could read the history and accounts from a source other than Roman Catholic apologist. Be careful, you might not like what you find.

Please, feel free to send some non-Catholic sources (specifically Eastern Orthodox if you will, prior to the east west schism) - my way friend. If I am wrong, I will be the first to admit it.

 

[josephdaniel29]

Please, feel free to send some non-Catholic sources (specifically Eastern Orthodox if you will, prior to the east west schism) - my way friend. If I am wrong, I will be the first to admit it.

I’m not sure there’s anything for you to be “wrong” about. You hold up the statement of a papal legate named Phillip, who was subscribing to the findings of the council, as evidence of the authority of the pope. I say look at how the council fathers behaved. Phillip was subscribing to the council’s excommunication of Nestorius. The thing is, Pope Celestine had already excommunicated him. The emperor went on to summon a council and then the bishops sat to judge the case for themselves. They even treated Nestorius as a bishop during the council. Could you imagine the bishops of Vatican II seating and hearing the case of a who had already been excommunicated by the pope? We both know the answer to that.

In Christ
Joe

 

[joe370]

Well, maybe Phillip was wrong to say what he said; of course I didn’t base it solely on Phillip’s comment. In your opinion, what was the role of the bishop of Rome prior to the east west schism, regarding the one CC, both east and west? I am a former non-Catholic and I am still learning as I go.

Surely the CC was/is just as conciliar, ecclesiastically speaking, as the EOC was/is? It seems, the only real difference between the EOC and the CC, is the fact that the CC views the bishop of Rome as the earthly head of the CC, and the EOC, I think, views each respective Bishop of each respective see, as the earthly, autonomous head of each respective see, and they convoke to render decisions just as the CC does, when differences arise; is that correct?

I’m not sure there’s anything for you to be “wrong” about. You hold up the statement of a papal legate named Phillip, who was subscribing to the findings of the council, as evidence of the authority of the pope. I say look at how the council fathers behaved. Phillip was subscribing to the council’s excommunication of Nestorius. The thing is, Pope Celestine had already excommunicated him. The emperor went on to summon a council and then the bishops sat to judge the case for themselves. They even treated Nestorius as a bishop during the council. Could you imagine the bishops of Vatican II seating and hearing the case of a who had already been excommunicated by the pope? We both know the answer to that.

In Christ
Joe

 

[josephdaniel29]

Well, maybe Phillip was wrong to say what he said; of course I didn’t base it solely on Phillip’s comment. In your opinion, what was the role of the bishop of Rome prior to the east west schism, regarding the one CC, both east and west? I am a former non-Catholic and I am still learning as I go.

It appears to me that the Bishop of Rome was definitely the senior and most respected bishop. His opinions were highly sought after and he was sometimes called upon to settle disputes. He had certain canonical prerogatives to hear appeals. The difference between then and now is that then, when the Bishop of Rome was wrong or stepped out of line, he was resisted or rebuked by his brother bishops. There ample examples of that in Church history. He was not infallible and had no direct jurisdiction outside of his own patriarchate.

the EOC, I think, views each respective Bishop of each respective see, as the earthly, autonomous head of each respective see, and they convoke to render decisions just as the CC does, when differences arise; is that correct?

More or less. Each bishop rules his own diocese within the bounds of the canons. The governing body of a local Church is the holy synod with the primate at its head. Each of the heads of the local Churches are in communion with each other and commemorate each other during the Divine Liturgy. There really is no governing body for the universal Church. When the need arises for various reasons there are pan-Orthodox councils which are chaired by the senior bishop according to the diptychs. Also, if necessary, an ecumenical council can be convoked. In fact there is an upcoming Great and Holy Council posited for early 2013.

There are of course primacies in Orthodoxy. Archbishops/metropolitans and primates have certain prerogatives either through tradition or specific canons. What those prerogatives are and how they are exercised vary somewhat between the various local Churches. Those prerogatives typically extend to certain administrative duties and in the case of the primate, often afford him great spiritual authority and place him as spokesperson for that local Church. In fact, that pretty much explains the way we see the proper role of the pope, except on a universal level.

In Christ
Joe

 

[joe370]

Thanks for the feedback Joe. By the way, did you mean to imply that the Pope believes that he himself is in infallible? From what I have gathered, he sees himself as a very fallible man just as all men/women are fallible. The infallibility has to do with the chair of Peter and the keys, via the guidance of the Infallible Holy Spirit. I have learned a lot; perhaps you could answer one more question: when the EOC leadership interprets sacred scripture or convokes as an ecumenical council to resolve a doctrinal dispute, is it considered an infallible or inerrant resolution, in the end? For example, the CC views the Eucharist as an infallible doctrine; does the EOC view the Eucharist as an infallible doctrine as well? I ask because most protestants don’t embrace the notion that church leadership can interpret infallibly or infallibly settle doctrinal disputes, just as the early church did regarding things like the Trinity.

It appears to me that the Bishop of Rome was definitely the senior and most respected bishop. His opinions were highly sought after and he was sometimes called upon to settle disputes. He had certain canonical prerogatives to hear appeals. The difference between then and now is that then, when the Bishop of Rome was wrong or stepped out of line, he was resisted or rebuked by his brother bishops. There ample examples of that in Church history. He was not infallible and had no direct jurisdiction outside of his own patriarchate.

More or less. Each bishop rules his own diocese within the bounds of the canons. The governing body of a local Church is the holy synod with the primate at its head. Each of the heads of the local Churches are in communion with each other and commemorate each other during the Divine Liturgy. There really is no governing body for the universal Church. When the need arises for various reasons there are pan-Orthodox councils which are chaired by the senior bishop according to the diptychs. Also, if necessary, an ecumenical council can be convoked. In fact there is an upcoming Great and Holy Council posited for early 2013.

There are of course primacies in Orthodoxy. Archbishops/metropolitans and primates have certain prerogatives either through tradition or specific canons. What those prerogatives are and how they are exercised vary somewhat between the various local Churches. Those prerogatives typically extend to certain administrative duties and in the case of the primate, often afford him great spiritual authority and place him as spokesperson for that local Church. In fact, that pretty much explains the way we see the proper role of the pope, except on a universal level.

In Christ
Joe

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Why make the assumption that he is only reading Catholic apologetical literature? Most Catholics I know read a variety of sources. I know I do. But let’s face it, you’re prejudiced toward Orthodoxy and you’re going to mainly read your own folks, Catholics primarily will read theirs. You have made up your mind to reject Catholicism so what you say here is true of most people, yourself included, Joe.

Sometimes I wonder what we get from the non-catholic religions forum. As a longtime sojourner between Anglicanism and Catholicism, I always kept an open mind to Catholicism with the possibility of returning there. And even now I struggle with several things about Catholicism. But I think the day that I would completely shut off the possibility of being Catholic, I would have no purpose in coming to CAF anymore. I would be convinced that Catholicism is not the truth so the only purpose I would have in coming here is to convert Catholics away from their faith and try to prove them wrong.

I sometimes wonder about motivations…?

Or you could read the history and accounts from a source other than Roman Catholic apologist. Be careful, you might not like what you find.

 

[Harpazo]

Why make the assumption that he is only reading Catholic apologetical literature? Most Catholics I know read a variety of sources. I know I do. But let’s face it, you’re prejudiced toward Orthodoxy and you’re going to mainly read your own folks, Catholics primarily will read theirs. You have made up your mind to reject Catholicism so what you say here is true of most people, yourself included, Joe.

Sometimes I wonder what we get from the non-catholic religions forum. As a longtime sojourner between Anglicanism and Catholicism, I always kept an open mind to Catholicism with the possibility of returning there. And even now I struggle with several things about Catholicism. But I think the day that I would completely shut off the possibility of being Catholic, I would have no purpose in coming to CAF anymore. I would be convinced that Catholicism is not the truth so the only purpose I would have in coming here is to convert Catholics away from their faith and try to prove them wrong.

I sometimes wonder about motivations…?

I won’t speak for my brother Joseph, but I think that’s incredibly unfair of you to say, Scott. If anything, the small number of us are here to answer any questions, enter discussion and correct mistruths and lies about the Orthodox Faith, something many of us sacrificed (and still sacrifice) very greatly to obtain. Surely, you would not appreciate someone saying the same of you, would you?

The truth is that there are many Catholics on CAF that do not read outside of their RC sources, and this is completely understandable (and didn’t you yourself mention in another thread that you got your information about Orthodoxy from other people and not Orthodoxy herself ). I get equally as annoyed when I see Orthodox make ignorant remarks about the RCC or the Protestant sectarians because all they read is the polemical work of one or two people and paint with a broad brush. Let’s work a little closer at getting along and laying off the paranoia.

In Christ,
Andrew

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Well we can get along a lot better by not calling our brethren paranoid, correct, Andrew? The truth is you’re painting Catholics with a broad brush as a bunch of narrow-minded folks that don’t deviate from scripted apologetics. You have no evidence of this so perhaps you are the one being unfair, no? I never said that all I know about Orthodoxy is from other Orthodox and not Orthodoxy itself. I said I have heard about the “three divorces” belief from other Orthodox as well as online sources. But put on your seatbelt, Andrew, I’m not a dumb bumpkin. I own several books by Father Meyendorff and Alexander Schmemann. I have read from several of the same sources I have seen you post. I have read plenty and I’m not a ninny. I don’t like the implication by you or Joseph that Catholics are so narrow and confined while folks like yourself are learned, broad, and scholarly. It’s not fair and I stick to it. Sorry if that offends your sensibilities.

Also, I question whether it is your job to seek out lies against Orthodoxy and try to correct Catholics. I have been on Orthodox forums and listened to what they had to say. I thought a lot of it was not compelling, agreed with several things, and heard a HEAP of anti-Catholic talk like some I hear from Orthodox in here only much worse. I left. It’s not my job to join Orthodox boards and try to correct every lie that comes out. I am not going to Christian Forums.com and trying to correct Orthodox or liberal Episcopalian attitudes about Catholicism. I have better things to do. So, are you here to learn from Catholics and find common ground, or is it a defensive posture? Even as an Anglican and skeptic, I always held an open ear to Catholicism. Sometimes I’d get downright ticked-off and my eyes would bug out at some things I heard said in here but still, it’s a Catholic forum, we’re all guests as non-Catholics when we visit, and I was open to hearing what they had to say. I wasn’t here to defend something else or convert. I have very rarely heard you admonish or argue with your fellow Orthodox as you say in your post but so be it.

Sorry your feelings are hurt. May you be blessed in the New Year, Andrew.

I won’t speak for my brother Joseph, but I think that’s incredibly unfair of you to say, Scott. If anything, the small number of us are here to answer any questions, enter discussion and correct mistruths and lies about the Orthodox Faith, something many of us sacrificed (and still sacrifice) very greatly to obtain. Surely, you would not appreciate someone saying the same of you, would you?

The truth is that there are many Catholics on CAF that do not read outside of their RC sources, and this is completely understandable (and didn’t you yourself mention in another thread that you got your information about Orthodoxy from other people and not Orthodoxy herself ). I get equally as annoyed when I see Orthodox make ignorant remarks about the RCC or the Protestant sectarians because all they read is the polemical work of one or two people and paint with a broad brush. Let’s work a little closer at getting along and laying off the paranoia.

In Christ,
Andrew

 

[joe370]

Hey Gurney…

Why make the assumption that he is only reading Catholic apologetical literature? Most Catholics I know read a variety of sources. I know I do. But let’s face it, you’re prejudiced toward Orthodoxy and you’re going to mainly read your own folks, Catholics primarily will read theirs. You have made up your mind to reject Catholicism so what you say here is true of most people, yourself included, Joe.

I agree; I think it is only natural to be biased toward the church one has chosen allegiance to, but I do attempt to see things from the perspective of both parties involved. For example, I try to embrace sola scriptura, but for me to embrace it, logically speaking, that teaching or practice, should be found somewhere in sacred scripture, and it is not.

Sometimes I wonder what we get from the non-catholic religions forum. As a longtime sojourner between Anglicanism and Catholicism, I always kept an open mind to Catholicism with the possibility of returning there. And even now I struggle with several things about Catholicism. But I think the day that I would completely shut off the possibility of being Catholic, I would have no purpose in coming to CAF anymore.

That certainly seems reasonable, and I relate to your struggle, even to this day. I still struggle with indulgences but that struggle is not enough to keep me from belonging to the church founded by Jesus. If you don’t mind me asking, what is it about Anglicanism that draws you to that church, and what is it about Catholicism that draws you to that church as well?

I would be convinced that Catholicism is not the truth so the only purpose I would have in coming here is to convert Catholics away from their faith and try to prove them wrong.

Which sadly, seems to be the case most of the time. When I first came here, I came with the idea of learning what the catholic faith had to offer, and the more I learned, the more I was convinced. I agree with Newman: "To be steeped in history is to cease being Protestant.” The evidence from the first five centuries of Christian history, that the papacy was a central tenet of the Catholic Christian faith, in both the the East and the West, from Pentecost to the Council of Chalcedon, seems pretty convincing to me, and was one of the reasons why I chose the CC over the EOC. I really did consider the EOC but church history prevented me from doing so.

Gurney, I always enjoy reading your posts; you are quite the learned fellow.

 

[joe370]

Or you could read the history and accounts from a source other than Roman Catholic apologist. Be careful, you might not like what you find.

Hey Joe, I took your advice; below are some examples of the early Church Fathers of the Eastern part of the Catholic Church, supporting the primacy of the Petrine office;your thoughts friend:

Theodoret, Bishop of Cyrus in Syria (450) - If Paul, the herald of the truth, the trumpet of the Holy Spirit, hastened to the great Peter, to convey from him the solution to those in Antioch, who were at issue about living under the law, **how much more do we, poor and humble, run to the Apostolic Throne (Rome) to receive from you (Pope Leo) healing for wounds of the the Churches. **For it pertains to you to have primacy in all things; for your throne is adorned with many prerogatives. (Theodoret Ibid, Epistle Leoni)

Stephen, Bishop of Dora in Palestine (645) - And for this cause, sometimes we ask for water to our head and to our eyes a fountain of tears, sometimes the wings of a dove, according to holy David,** that we might fly away and announce these things to the Chair (the Chair of Peter at Rome) which rules and presides over all, I mean to yours, the head and highest, for the healing of the whole wound. For this it has been accustomed to do from old and from the beginning with power by its canonical or apostolic authority, **because the truly great Peter, head of the Apostles, was clearly thought worthy not only to be trusted with the keys of heaven, alone apart from the rest, to open it worthily to believers, or to close it justly to those who disbelieve the Gospel of grace, but because he was also commissioned to feed the sheep of the whole Catholic Church; for ‘Peter,’ saith He, ‘lovest thou Me? Feed My sheep.’ And again, because he had in a manner peculiar and special, a faith in the Lord stronger than all and unchangeable, to be converted and to confirm his fellows and spiritual brethren when tossed about, as having been adorned by God Himself incarnate for us with power and sacerdotal authority …And Sophronius of blessed memory, who was Patriarch of the holy city of Christ our God, and under whom I was bishop, conferring not with flesh and blood, but caring only for the things of Christ with respect to your Holiness, **hastened to send my nothingness without delay about this matter alone to this Apostolic see, where are the foundations of holy doctrine. **

John Cassian, Monk (c. 430) - That great man, the disciple of disciples, that master among masters, who wielding the government of the Roman Church possessed the principle authority in faith and in priesthood. Tell us, therefore, we beg of you, Peter, prince of Apostles, tell us how the Churches must believe in God (Cassian, Contra Nestorium, III, 12, CSEL, vol. 17, p. 276).

Macedonius, Patriarch of Constantinople (466-516) - Macedonius declared, when desired by the Emperor Anastasius to condemn the Council of Chalcedon, that ‘such a step without an Ecumenical Synod **presided over by the Pope of Rome is impossible.’ (**Macedonius, Patr. Graec. 108: 360a (Theophan. Chronogr. pp. 234-346 seq.)

Emperor Justinian (520-533) - Writing to the Pope:

Yielding honor to the Apostolic See and to Your Holiness, and honoring your Holiness, as one ought to honor a father, we have hastened to subject all the priests of the whole Eastern district, and to unite them to the See of your Holiness, for we do not allow of any point, however manifest and indisputable it be, which relates to the state of the Churches, not being brought to the cognizance of your Holiness, since you are the Head of all the holy Churches. (Justinian Epist. ad. Pap. Joan. ii. Cod. Justin. lib. I. tit. 1).

Let your Apostleship show that you have worthily succeeded to the Apostle Peter, since the Lord will work through you, as **Surpreme Pastor**, the salvation of all. (Coll. Avell. Ep. 196, July 9th, 520, Justinian to Pope Hormisdas).

St. Maximus the Confessor (c. 650) - A celebrated theologian and a native of Constantinople

The extremities of the earth, and everyone in every part of it who purely and rightly confess the Lord, **look directly towards the Most Holy Roman Church and her confession and faith, **as to a sun of unfailing light awaiting from her the brilliant radiance of the sacred dogmas of our Fathers, according to that which the inspired and holy Councils have stainlessly and piously decreed. For, from the descent of the Incarnate Word amongst us, all the churches in every part of the world have held the greatest Church alone to be their base and foundation, seeing that, according to the promise of Christ Our Savior, the gates of hell will never prevail against her, that she has the keys of the orthodox confession and right faith in Him, that she opens the true and exclusive religion to such men as approach with piety, and she shuts up and locks every heretical mouth which speaks against the Most High. (Maximus, Opuscula theologica et polemica, Migne, Patr. Graec. vol. 90)

Continued…

 

[joe370]

Emperor Justinian (520-533) - Writing to the Pope: How much more in the case of the clergy and Church of the Romans, which from old until now presides over all the churches which are under the sun? Having surely received this canonically, as well as from councils and the apostles, as from the princes of the latter (Peter and Paul), and being numbered in their company, she is subject to no writings or issues in synodical documents, on account of the eminence of her pontificate …even as in all these things all are equally subject to her (the Church of Rome) according to sacerodotal law. And so when, without fear, but with all holy and becoming confidence, **those ministers (the popes) are of the truly firm and immovable rock, that is of the most great and Apostolic Church of Rome. **(Maximus, in J.B. Mansi, ed. Amplissima Collectio Conciliorum, vol. 10)

If the Roman See recognizes Pyrrhus to be not only a reprobate but a heretic, it is certainly plain that everyone who anathematizes those who have rejected Pyrrhus also anathematizes the See of Rome, that is, he anathematizes the Catholic Church. I need hardly add that he excommunicates himself also, if indeed he is in communion with the Roman See and the Catholic Church of God …Let him hasten before all things to satisfy the Roman See, for if it is satisfied, all will agree in calling him pious and orthodox. For he only speaks in vain who thinks he ought to pursuade or entrap persons like myself, **and does not satisfy and implore the blessed Pope of the most holy Catholic Church of the Romans, that is, the Apostolic See, which is from the incarnate of the Son of God Himself, and also all the holy synods, accodring to the holy canons and definitions has received universal and surpreme dominion, authority, and power of binding and loosing over all the holy churches of God throughout the whole world. (Maximus, Letter to Peter, in Mansi x, 692). **

John VI, Patriarch of Constantinople (715) - The Pope of Rome, the head of the Christian priesthood, whom in Peter, the Lord commanded to confirm his brethren. (John VI, Epist. ad Constantin. Pap. ad. Combefis, Auctuar. Bibl. P.P. Graec.tom. ii. p. 211, seq.)

St. Nicephorus, Patriarch of Constantinople (758-828) - Without whom (the Romans presiding in the seventh Council) a doctrine brought forward in the Church could not, even though confirmed by canonical decrees and by ecclesiastical usuage, ever obtain full approval or currency. **For it is they (the Popes of Rome) who have had assigned to them the rule in sacred things, and who have received into their hands the dignity of headship among the Apostles. (**Nicephorus, Niceph. Cpl. pro. s. imag. c 25 [Mai N. Bibl. pp. ii. 30]).

St. Theodore the Studite of Constantinople (759-826) - Writing to Pope Leo III:

Since to great Peter Christ our Lord gave the office of Chief Shepherd after entrusting him with the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven, to Peter **or his successor must of necessity every novelty in the Catholic Church be referred. [Therefore], save us, oh most divine Head of Heads, Chief Shepherd of the Church of Heaven. **(Theodore, Bk. I. Ep. 23)

Writing to Emperor Michael:

Order that the declaration from old Rome be received, **as was the custom by Tradition of our Fathers from of old and from the beginning. For this, O Emperor, is the highests of the Churches of God, **in which first Peter held the Chair, to whom the Lord said: Thou art Peter …and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. (Theodore, Bk. II. Ep. 86)

I witness now before God and men, they have torn themselves away from the Body of Christ, from the Surpreme See (Rome), in which Christ placed the keys of the Faith, against which the gates of hell (I mean the mouth of heretics) have not prevailed, and never will until the Consummation, according to the promise of Him Who cannot lie. Let the blessed and Apostolic Paschal (Pope St. Paschal I) rejoice therefore, for he has fulfilled the work of Peter. (Theodore Bk. II. Ep. 63).

In truth we have seen that a manifest successor of the prince of the Apostles presides over the Roman Church. We truly believe that Christ has not deserted the Church here (Constantinople), **for assistance from you has been our one and only aid from of old and from the beginning by the providence of God in the critical times. **You are, indeed the untroubled and pure fount of orthodoxy from the beginning, you the calm harbor of the whole Church, far removed from the waves of heresy, you the God-chosen city of refuge. (Letter of St. Theodor and Four Abbots to Pope Paschal).

Let him (Patriarch Nicephorus of Constantinople) assemble a synod of those with whom he has been at variance, if it is impossible that representatives of the other Patriarchs should be present, a thing which might certainly be if the Emperor should wish the Western Patriarch (the Roman Pope) to be present, **to whom is given authority over an ecumenical synod; **but let him make peace and union by sending his synodical letters to the prelate of the First See. (Theodore the Studite, Patr. Graec. 99, 1420)

Theodoret, Bishop of Cyrus in Syria (450)** I therefore beseech your holiness to persuade the most holy and blessed bishop (Pope Leo) to use his Apostolic power,** and to order me to hasten to your Council. For that most holy throne (Rome) has the sovereignty over the churches throughout the universe on many grounds. (Theodoret, Tom. iv. Epist. cxvi. Renato, p. 1197).

 

[josephdaniel29]

Joe, those are nothing but words (and a very tiny sample at that). I can provide plenty of quotes that are not nearly as flattering. We all have our quotes mills. What does that prove?

As I said before, words are cheap. People of that era were prone to flowery, exuberant language. I have quotes that say St John the Theologian “holds the keys of heaven”, and is “the pillar of the Churches throughout the world” and that “all he saith is infallible.” How much can we read into that?

We have to look at how the early Church behaved. Did the pope call any of the Ecumenical Councils? Did he attend any of them? Was his ruling the last word? Was he opposed at times by his brother bishops? Have any popes ever been excommunicated?

Those are the details that are too often overlooked and they provide an awful lot of context.

In Christ
Joe

 

[joe370]

Hey Joe…

[josephdaniel29;7417907]Joe, those are nothing but words (and a very tiny sample at that). I can provide plenty of quotes that are not nearly as flattering. We all have our quotes mills. What does that prove?

Please, provide those quotes??? I enjoy reading quotes. Well, if quotes don’t matter, then all that is left is my opinion, and I know that that doesn’t matter, and shouldn’t matter.

As I said before, words are cheap. People of that era were prone to flowery, exuberant language. I have quotes that say St John the Theologian “holds the keys of heaven”, and is “the pillar of the Churches throughout the world” and that “all he saith is infallible.” How much can we read into that?

Shoot that quote over…I was just doing what you suggested brother; I am not rying to convert you; I love the EOC and believe that the EOC is the only other church that can trace her lineage all the way back to the apostles, and therefore, you should stay right where you are.

We have to look at how the early Church behaved. Did the pope call any of the Ecumenical Councils? Did he attend any of them? Was his ruling the last word? Was he opposed at times by his brother bishops? Have any popes ever been excommunicated?

Could you provide some information regarding those questions Joe?