The Council of Chalcedon and the papacy

[josephdaniel29]

Hey Joe…

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.

I really, really don’t like trading quotes but I will provide a few for you since you asked.

St Cyprian

For neither does any of us set himself up as a bishop of bishops, nor by tyrannical terror does any compel his colleague to the necessity of obedience; since every bishop, according to the allowance of his liberty and power, has his own proper right of judgment, and can no more be judged by another than he himself can judge another (council of Carthage 256 AD)

St Cyprian

But that they who are at Rome do not observe those things in all cases which are handed down from the beginning, and vainly pretend the authority of the apostles (The Epistles of Cyprian Letter LXXIV.6)

Origen

But if you suppose that upon the one Peter only the whole church is built by God, what would you say about John the son of thunder or each one of the Apostles? Shall we otherwise dare to say, that against Peter in particular the gates of Hades shall not prevail, but that they shall prevail against the other Apostles and the perfect? Does not the saying previously made, ‘The gates of Hades shall not prevail against it,’ hold in regard to all and in the case of each of them? And also the saying, ‘Upon this rock I will build My Church?’ Are the keys of the kingdom of heaven given by the Lord to Peter only, and will no other of the blessed receive them? But if this promise, ‘I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven,’ be common to others, how shall not all things previously spoken of, and the things which are subjoined as having been addressed to Peter, be common to them? (Origen commentary on Matthew)

St Augustine

So this disciple is called Rocky from the rock, like Christian from Christ…Why have I wanted to make this little introduction? In order to suggest to you that in Peter the Church is to be recognized. Christ, you see, built his Church not on a man but on Peter’s confession. (St Augustine sermons)

St Augustine

Well, let us suppose that those bishops who decided the case at Rome were not good judges; there still remained a plenary Council of the universal Church, in which these judges themselves might be put on their defense; so that, if they were convicted of mistake, their decisions might be reversed (Confessions)

St John Chrysostom

”For the Son of thunder, the beloved of Christ, the pillar of the Churches throughout the world, who holds the keys of heaven, who drank the cup of Christ, and was baptized with His baptism, who lay upon his Master’s bosom, with much confidence, this man now comes forward to us now” (Homilies on the Gospel of John, Homily 1.1)

St John Chrysostom

Do you not see that the headship was in the hands of these three, especially of Peter and James? This was the chief cause of their condemnation by Herod (Homilies on the Acts of the Apostles, Homily XXVI)

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.

I appreciate your kindness. I have genuine love for the Catholic Church. I almost became Catholic before discovering Orthodoxy. In fact, it was Pope John Paul II who brought me to Christ. Watching the young people gathered in vigil at St Peter’s square before he died was an inspiration. I will never forget it.

In Christ
Joe

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

The pope sent legates to the great councils. He didn’t need to call the councils to be the head of the Church either. God uses different saintly men in different ways. Whether it was Constantine or great heroes like Athanasius or the Leos of the world, heresies were fought as a collective effort. No Catholic believes that all the papacy has been a unilateral war with a silent collective around him. Words are not always cheap. In Matthew 16:18 Jesus’s words, from a Catholic perspective, are not cheap. They declare the primacy of Peter. I myself have even struggled and fought against this passage in the past. But I share the Catholic belief in these words. And there are powerful commentaries by fathers and great saints about the Pope that are compelling. Words are not always cheap.

And also having bishops opposed to the pope isn’t an indicator that he’s not in charge, not the Rock and supreme earthly shepherd of the Flock, etc. Look at Paul and Peter having a disagreement to which Peter acquiesced and declared in favor of Paul’s views. Look at St. Cyprian and Bishop Firmilian and their stern rebukes of Pope Stephen I. Cyprian and Fermilian were in the wrong, Stephen was right. Just having opposition doesn’t make one impotent. That’s true of anything whether it’s the war on terror, in the workplace, or in religion. Bishops and priests disagreed with the pope at Vatican I and walked out of the Church. That doesn’t mean the pope is not infallible or any of the other claims the Church makes IMO.

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

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

I really, really don’t like trading quotes but I will provide a few for you since you asked.

**Strange how Cyprian endorsed papal decisions and lauded the popes as head of the Church until he heard something he didn’t like (the lapsi, etc.) and then he was a staunch critic. That’s human nature. Cyprian was quite a character. Here’s a classic quote of his, since we’re quoting: “The Lord says to Peter: ‘I say to you,’ he says, ‘that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church.’ . . . On him [Peter] he builds the Church, and to him he gives the command to feed the sheep [John 21:17], and although he assigns a like power to all the apostles, yet he founded a single chair [cathedra], and he established by his own authority a source and an intrinsic reason for that unity. Indeed, the others were that also which Peter was *, but a primacy is given to Peter, whereby it is made clear that there is but one Church and one chair. So too, all [the apostles] are shepherds, and the flock is shown to be one, fed by all the apostles in single-minded accord. If someone does not hold fast to this unity of Peter, can he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he [should] desert the chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, can he still be confident that he is in the Church?” (The Unity of the Catholic Church 4; 1st edition [A.D. 251]).

---

St Cyprian

For neither does any of us set himself up as a bishop of bishops, nor by tyrannical terror does any compel his colleague to the necessity of obedience; since every bishop, according to the allowance of his liberty and power, has his own proper right of judgment, and can no more be judged by another than he himself can judge another (council of Carthage 256 AD)

St Cyprian

But that they who are at Rome do not observe those things in all cases which are handed down from the beginning, and vainly pretend the authority of the apostles (The Epistles of Cyprian Letter LXXIV.6)

**Origen has had so many anathemas thrown on him that it could kill a herd of rhinos. I take Origen’s wisdom with a grain of salt. But if we have to quote Origen:
“*f we were to attend carefully to the Gospels, we should also find, in relation to those things which seem to be common to Peter . . . a great difference and a preeminence in the things [Jesus] said to Peter, compared with the second class [of apostles]. For it is no small difference that Peter received the keys not of one heaven but of more, and in order that whatsoever things he binds on earth may be bound not in one heaven but in them all, as compared with the many who bind on earth and loose on earth, so that these things are bound and loosed not in [all] the heavens, as in the case of Peter, but in one only; for they do not reach so high a stage with power as Peter to bind and loose in all the heavens” (Commentary on Matthew 13:31 [A.D. 248]).

---

Origen

But if you suppose that upon the one Peter only the whole church is built by God, what would you say about John the son of thunder or each one of the Apostles? Shall we otherwise dare to say, that against Peter in particular the gates of Hades shall not prevail, but that they shall prevail against the other Apostles and the perfect? Does not the saying previously made, ‘The gates of Hades shall not prevail against it,’ hold in regard to all and in the case of each of them? And also the saying, ‘Upon this rock I will build My Church?’ Are the keys of the kingdom of heaven given by the Lord to Peter only, and will no other of the blessed receive them? But if this promise, ‘I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven,’ be common to others, how shall not all things previously spoken of, and the things which are subjoined as having been addressed to Peter, be common to them? (Origen commentary on Matthew)

**This might be the apocalypse when we have Orthodox folks quoting the great doctor of the Church, St. Augustine! Right on, man! Augustine’s famous statement ‘Roma locuta est, causa finita est,’ is one of my favorites (Rome has spoken, the case is closed."

“Number the bishops from the see of Peter itself. And in that order of Fathers see who succeeded whom, That is the rock against which the gates of hell do not prevail.”
Psalmus contra partem Donati, 18 (A.D. 393),GCC 51

**
St Augustine

So this disciple is called Rocky from the rock, like Christian from Christ…Why have I wanted to make this little introduction? In order to suggest to you that in Peter the Church is to be recognized. Christ, you see, built his Church not on a man but on Peter’s confession. (St Augustine sermons)

St Augustine

Well, let us suppose that those bishops who decided the case at Rome were not good judges; there still remained a plenary Council of the universal Church, in which these judges themselves might be put on their defense; so that, if they were convicted of mistake, their decisions might be reversed (Confessions)

In Christ
Joe
​

​

 

[Timothy17]

*“The Petrine office only has authority when it speaks to the whole Church. At all other times it is only a bishop that is speaking, just like any other bishop in the Church.” *

I would agree with this formula, ( with due reservation to the Church’s Magisterium, of course ), as it appears to be in accord not only with Scripture and Tradition, but also with common sense and humanity. Allow me to explain.

Our Lord speaks about how a father will differ judgement to his son, so that the son may be honoured. This is the joy of fathers : to raise up good sons, and sons are deemed good by their judgement. If sons are in their judgement good, then they do give honour and glory to their fathers also, as their fathers gave them honour to pass judgement on a matter ; that is, the honour to be heard on account of their father’s society, reputation, authority, etc. Now this example is imperfect but sufficient for illustration : the priests of the Latin rite are fathers only to Christians, which is a spiritual fatherhood. It therefore would seem natural to them and behoove them to desire to take comfort and solace at times in the society of their fellows, such as the Bishops are, on one hand, and to prefer this over disciplinary or corrective or authoritative actions. So while the Bishop of Rome, being at once sovereign, is free therefore to set aside his standard, as it were, and take his seat among his brothers ; nonetheless, he does notwithstanding retain his specifically Petrine rights, and thus duties in accordance with his charge.

So, based roughly on the above, I find the quoted statement to be in accordance with Holy Writ, Sacred Tradition and also the natural logic of a brotherly and fatherly station.

Pax,
Tim

 

[Timothy17]

I would agree with this formula…

If I may be permitted to take liberty with the original quote, and perhaps re-formulate it more positively and closer to what I have in mind in interpreting it,

*‘The Petrine office has authority to speak on behalf of the whole Church, but also at liberty to speak as a brother bishop in the Church.’ *

That is to say that the Apostolic See is at liberty and within its rights to make *ex cathdra pronouncements, but this is the extraordinary (exercise of the keys) rather than the ordinary *competence (of binding and loosing) of that See.

Pax,
Tim

 

[Mikeoffaith]

Dcointin, I was just hoping to get your take on the following 2 quotes regarding the Petrine office, as the “head of all the churches,” and Peter speaking through his successors; perhaps I am missing something but they do seem to be important to these councils:

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]).

Council of Chalcedon

“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]).

“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).

Oh come on Joe. You have chosen two quotes from two men who work for the Bishop of Rome. Do you really think that they are going to stand up say anything bad about the boss or his position?

 

[Mikeoffaith]

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

Too funny. It makes me wonder what kind of reception Luther would have received at Trent.

 

[Dave_Noonan]

Why would the Council of Chalcedon (attended by almost all bishops from the church in the east) - clearly recognize Pope Leo as the successor of Peter as well as the Head of the Church, if in fact, Pope Leo was not the head of the church, as Eastern orthodox (those not in communion with the Catholic Church) - Christians maintain?

Chalcedon to Pope Leo:
“You are set as an interpreter to all, of the voice of blessed Peter, and to all you impart the blessings of that Faith.”

“For if where two or three are gathered together in His name He has said that there He is in the midst of them, must He not have been much more particularly present with 520 priests, who preferred the spread of knowledge concerning Him …Of whom you were Chief, as Head to the members, showing your good will.”

“Besides all this, he (Dioscorus) extended his fury even against him who had been charged with the custody of the vine by the Savior. We refer to Your Holiness.”*

Actually, I’d take issue with your basic premise. Although the Byzantine church was well represented at Chalcedon, none of the other Churches of the East had bishops attending, as far as I know.

 

[joe370]

Oh come on Joe. You have chosen two quotes from two men who work for the Bishop of Rome. Do you really think that they are going to stand up say anything bad about the boss or his position?

Well, perhaps Jesus didn’t leave us with a way to know the truth regarding the chair of Peter?