The Petrine views

[frjohnmorris]

I believe St. Gregory’s comments, if they are being used to try and prove that he didn’t believe he had universal jurisdiction, are being taken out of context. So I totally disagree with all of this.

Here I will cite the Protestant scholar Schaff as a hostile witness:

Source: ccel.org/ccel/schaff/hcc4.i.iv.iv.html

If Schaff translated the Greek for Ecumenical Patriarch into “Universal Bishop” he was wrong. All the title actually meant was “Bishop of the Imperial City” or “Bishop of the Emperor.” It was not a claim to universal jurisdiction. It still is not. I assure you that the Ecumenical Patriarch does not act as an Eastern Orthodox Pope. His authority is strictly limited to his own Patriarchate. He can call meetings of the other Primates and preside, but he cannot make a ruling on any matter outside of his own Patriarchate and even then, he has to abide by the will of the Holy Synod of Constantinople. The other autocephalous Churches are not shy at all about disagreeing with him on matters involving the whole Eastern Orthodox Church. There have been major disagreements between Moscow and Constantinople on numerous occasions. Even the Patriarchate of Antioch has had its disagreements with Constantinople. In 1899 after the people forced the removal of a Greek Patriarch and elected an Arab Patriarch, Constantinople did not recognize the Patriarch of Antioch for about 20 years. When the Bulgarians declared their Church autocephalous, Constantinope did not recognize its autocepahlous status for almost t00 years.

Fr. John

 

[Cavaradossi]

Since the topic on infallibility has come up in this thread, I wonder, were Pope Honorius’ two epistles to Sergius infallible? Was Pope Vigilius’ First Constitutum (in which he clearly taught that it is contrary to the Catholic faith to anathematize the dead and that it was incorrect to anathematize the letter of Ibas to Maris because this letter contained a true exposition of faith by virtue of which Ibas was rehabilitated at Chalcedon) also infallible?

 

[frjohnmorris]

Significantly, the II Council of Constantinople cited Blessed Augustine in support of its right to anathematize a person who was dead. Pope Vigilius finally sent a very detailed denunciation of the Three Chapters to the council and his deposition was lifted by the council and he was restored to office.

Fr. John

 

[Cavaradossi]

Significantly, the II Council of Constantinople cited Blessed Augustine in support of its right to anathematize a person who was dead. Pope Vigilius finally sent a very detailed denunciation of the Three Chapters to the council and his deposition was lifted by the council and he was restored to office.

Fr. John

Pope Vigilius also cited St. Augustine in his retraction of his First Constitution. If the great Saint was able later in his life to amend without shame some views from earlier in his life (like he did in his Retractions), what shame could there be in himself doing the same, Pope Vigilius reckoned.

 

[mardukm]

One of the major problems that led to the schism, was that by the time of Pope St. Gregory the Great the West spoke Latin and the East Greek. As a result they did not really understand each other. At the time that St. John the Faster began to us the title Ecumenical Patriarch, it did not mean anything like universal Bishop.

Naturally, we need to adhere to the self-interpretation of the Eastern Orthodox when the use of this term by the Patriarch of Constantinople is explained. That’s the key to promoting understanding between the parties. Unfortunately, Father, the like consideration has not been shown to the Catholic Church’s own teaching on the papacy. All I have seen so far are straw man arguments.

Father, please also consider that the interpretation of the term “ecumenical patriarch” given above directly contradicts your claim (discussed below) that the 4th Ecum sought to replace the authority of the Pope of Rome with a supposedly perfectly equal authority by the Patriarch of Constantinople. As you have admitted above, the authority of the Patriarch only extended to the Eastern portion of the Empire. It did not, unlike the authority of the bishop of Rome, extend to the Church universal.

That is rather difficult to believe if one looks at the historical record…the Church did not accept the Tome of Leo without studying it to determine its fidelity to orthodox doctrine.

Was the Tome of Leo deemed by the great majority of the Church’s bishops to be orthodox or not? If it was not, then that would be the sure sign of a denial of “papal” infallibility. Otherwise — to claim that the agreement of the bishops is a sign that they did not believe in “papal” infallibility either demonstrates a misundertanding of what “papal” infallibility is as defined by the CC, or demonstrates an eisegetic reading into history.

At the first council called to deal with Eutyches and the heresy of Monophysitism, the Council of Ephesus of 449, later known of as the Robber Council, Dioscorus refused to allow it to be read. Pope St. Leo was only able to have the decrees of the Robber Council set aside because emperor and other Patriarchs called another council at Chalcedon in 451, to reconsider the matter. Thus, the Church did not recognize the right of the Pope to revoke the decrees of a general council on his own authority.

No one here has claimed the Pope has the authority to revoke the decrees of a general council, except you. Shouldn’t that indicate, Father, that you are merely proferring a straw man.

However, the Holy Fathers meeting at Chalcedon did not accept the Tome just because it was written by Pope Leo.

This statement merely demonstrates a misunderstanding of the Catholic teaching on “papal” infallibility, and infallibility in general. The Church understands that infallible teachings are from God and therefore eternal. They do not have their origin from any member(s) of the Church - neither the Pope nor a Council nor the Church as a whole. They have their sole origin from God Himself. Once you realize this, perhaps you can begin to let go of your misunderstanding and the straw men arguments.

Instead they sent the document to a committee headed by Anatolius, the Patriarch of Constantinople. After Patriarch Anatolius and his committee determined that the Tome of Leo was orthodox, it was sent back to the Council for approval.

Father, this relation of events is so inaccurate, that I am surprised it comes from a professional historian. In the 4th Session, ALL the bishops together had already agreed with Pope St. Leo’s Tome. You can see this for yourself in the NPNF version. The purpose of the committee to which you refer (held the day before the 5th Session) made no determination about Pope St. Leo’s Tome (since ALL the bishops - except the Egyptians - had already expressed their adhesion to the Tome during the 4th Session). The purpose of the committee was to draw up a definition of Faith. However, the Committee’s definition was ambiguous. Some bishops believed that it did not agree with St. Leo’s Tome. However, most maintained that it did agree with the Tome. The Tome was, in fact, the standard upon which the whole debate focused during the 5th Session. Father, may I humbly suggest that you take the time to read Hefele’s History of the Councils for a more complete account of the matter.

CONT’d

 

[mardukm]

CONT’d

The same Council approved Canon IX which too away from Rome the authority to appoint neighboring Bishops to mediate disputes between a Bishop and his Metropolitan given to Rome by the Council of Sardica.

That is a false interpretation, because we know that bishops from the East continued to appeal to the Pope of Rome – even from decisions of the Patriarch of Constantinople – after the 4th Ecum.

Instead in the future the Patriarch of Constantinople was given the authority to hear all appeals from clergy involved in disputes with their Bishop or Metropoltian.

Yet we have not a single record of Western bishops appealing to the Patriarch of Consatantinople after this supposed decree, but we indeed have records of Eastern bishops appealing to the Pope of Rome, even appealing to him FROM the decisions of the Patriarch of Constantinople. Again, your interpretation does not align with the historical facts.

Of course, we all know that the Council of Chalcedon passed canon 28, which recognized the equality of the Patriarch of Constantinople with the Pope.

That’s a rather eisegetic reading, Father, especially since Canon 28 specifically asserts that in ecclesiastical matters, Constantinople is only SECOND after Rome.

Although Rome objected to this canon, the East ignored his objection and followed the canon.

Actually, the Easterns finally accepted correction on the matter when it removed the objectionable portions of Canon 28 in Canon 36 of Trullo.

Thus it is obvious that the Council of Chalcedon did not recognize the infallibility of the Pope.

What does Canon 28 have to do with infallibility? Please explain.

Of course, it is also true that at that point in history, Pope Leo made no such claim. It was not until 1870 that the Catholic Church recognized the right of the Pope to infallibly and unilaterally make declarations on the doctrine of the Church speaking “ex cathedra.”

That would be another straw man. Any informed person knows that an ex cathedra decree is not a unilateral action.

Lest there be any doubt, the next Ecumenical Council, Constantinople II in 553, removed Pope Vigilius from office and threatened to excommunicate him if he did not accept its condemnation of the Three Chapters.

Please read the “Vigilius $ the FIfth Ecum-7th Session” thread. It evinces the falsehood of this claim. If you wish to challenge the historical facts presented in that thread (the FACT that the Emperor’s letter was not published as part of the Council’s Acts; the FACT that the Constitutum never came before the Council; the FACT that there is no mention of a deposition or excommunication of Pope VIgilius in the Sentence of the Council), please feel free to do so. Interpretations are not historical facts – as a professional historian yourself, I trust you can distinguish between the two.

However, Pope Vigilius reconsidered and accepted the declaration of the council against the Three Chapters.

Amen. Head bishops should be humble enough to accept correction from his brother bishops.

The next Council, Constantinople III, in 680 did not hesitate to condemn Pope Honorius I for teaching heresy.

He was accused of heresy, but not for teaching it. Please show us exactly where the 6th Ecum indicated that Pope Honorius taught the heresy to his flock? Is it rather not the case that eisegesis has been employed by non-Catholics to read certain ideas into this historical event?

Thus, it is clear that the 7 Ecumenical Councils did not accept papal infallibility or the requirement of papal acceptance for the acts of a council to have validity.

Father, I haven’t seen any presentation of facts on the matter – only interpretations, and straw man caricatures of Catholic teaching on the papacy. As someone else stated, it is obvious we understand the historical record differently. That’s OK. But I do think there is a problem when a certain interpretation depends on excising or neglecting certain sections of the historical record to make it fit into a preconceived notion (intentionally or not, I dare not say).

Significantly…his deposition was lifted by the council and he was restored to office.

Father, can you please cite where (in the Acts or Sentence of the 5th Council) it is stated that Pope Vigilius was deposed? Please do not avoid the question, Father, as has been done with so many of my other questions. I do not mind if you do not answer my pointed questions, but at least offer proof for your claims. That’s what an historian should do.

Humbly,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

Dear Cavaradossi,

Since the topic on infallibility has come up in this thread, I wonder, were Pope Honorius’ two epistles to Sergius infallible?

I’m not aware that any Catholic apologist, historian, or Magisterial source has ever claimed it was infallible. I have read one historian indicate that it was made with ex cathedra authority, however. Of course, this statement was made before the definition of V1. Before V1, “ex cathedra” meant simply “with the authority of the chair.” It did not have the meaning of “a public definition of Faith given with the authority of the chair of Peter”; before V1, “ex cathedra” could even refer to merely canonical pronouncements.

Was Pope Vigilius’ First Constitutum (in which he clearly taught that it is contrary to the Catholic faith to anathematize the dead) also infallible?

Did he say “we declare and define” or that this was a “definition?” If not, how can you claim it is “infallible?”

and that it was incorrect to anathematize the letter of Ibas to Maris because this letter contained a true exposition of faith by virtue of which Ibas was rehabilitated at Chalcedon)

Really? From Hefele’s account, Pope Vigilius affirmed the heterodoxy of Ibas’ statements against Pope St. Cyril. The Pope likewise affirmed that the letter of Ibas commended the Third Ecum and its definition of Faith. Perhaps you have confused the latter as stating that the letter of Ibas “contained a true exposition of Faith?”

Pope Vigilius also cited St. Augustine in his retraction of his First Constitution. If the great Saint was able later in his life to amend without shame some views from earlier in his life (like he did in his Retractions), what shame could there be in himself doing the same, Pope Vigilius reckoned.

Amen. That’s what a good head bishop does.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Wandile]

Since the topic on infallibility has come up in this thread, I wonder, were Pope Honorius’ two epistles to Sergius infallible? Was Pope Vigilius’ First Constitutum (in which he clearly taught that it is contrary to the Catholic faith to anathematize the dead and that it was incorrect to anathematize the letter of Ibas to Maris because this letter contained a true exposition of faith by virtue of which Ibas was rehabilitated at Chalcedon) also infallible?

With regards to Pope Honorius… His letters in no way teach monothelitism. Maximus the confessor shows this… But more importantly, the very own SCRIBE who wrote the letters with Honorius explains the meaning of the letter and that they DID not tech monothelitism.
I can cite the evidence for you.

 

[Cavaradossi]

Dear Marduk,

Did he say “we declare and define” or that this was a “definition?” If not, how can you claim it is “infallible?”

That is of course a non-sequitur, because not even all of the definitions of the Ecumenical Councils, (which I am positive are considered infallible in your Church) were issued with the phrasing, “we declare,” but also sometimes in the form of anathematisms (for example, nobody, I think, would argue that the dogmatic canons of the Fifth Ecumenical Council are prone to error, even though they are in the form of anathematisms and not of positive declarations). The words “we declare,” in fact don’t seem to need to be present in the opinion of some scholars, such as those who view Pope Leo’s Tome as an ex-cathedra statement. At any rate, Pope Vigilius anathematizes anybody of ecclesiastical rank who would inflict contumely upon one who died at peace with the Church, and again at the end of the Constitution annuls by the power of the apostolic see any contrary declaration which has been written or which will be written by anybody of ecclesiastical rank. Even if this statement were not infallible, how is it that the council pressed on despite the fact that Pope Vigilius pronounced any contrary declaration to be null? Was not, then, the decision of the Council automatically nullified by Pope Vigilius’ declaration? How then could the Pope later affirm the council’s decrees if they were already null and void?

Really? From Hefele’s account, Pope Vigilius affirmed the heterodoxy of Ibas’ statements against Pope St. Cyril. The Pope likewise affirmed that the letter of Ibas commended the Third Ecum and its definition of Faith. Perhaps you have confused the latter as stating that the letter of Ibas “contained a true exposition of Faith?”

Reading primary sources before trying to make me out as “confused” might be helpful. As I have actually read the First Constitution, I can quite confidently say that I am not confused. For Vigilius writes of the letter, “…earlier on in the same letter Ibas had said that the same Nestorius wrote harmful books which were a scandal to their readers and he denied the blessed Virgin Mary is the Mother of God. For it is right for us to understand correctly in this way a document that our fathers accepted, and not to suspect something else which the writer of the letter is not recorded as having said.” and again, “On account, therefore, of what we have said above, and on account of that profession of faith which through the offices of Paul bishop of the city of Emesa restored to concord Cyril bishop of Alexandria of venerable memory and the most devout John of Antioch and all the bishops of the east (a profession that Ibas also praises and freely embraces in the letter), the writing of Bishop Ibas was pronounced by the fathers to be orthodox.”

 

[Cavaradossi]

With regards to Pope Honorius… His letters in no way teach monothelitism. Maximus the confessor shows this… But more importantly, the very own SCRIBE who wrote the letters with Honorius explains the meaning of the letter and that they DID not tech monothelitism.
I can cite the evidence for you.

We’ve debated this before, if I remember. St. Maximus strains to try and salvage the writings of Pope Honorius, offering a bunch of mutually exclusive explanations for his words, claiming in his Disputation with Pyrrhus that Honorius by one will meant the human will, but then claiming in Opusc. 20 that Honorius meant the divine will. Later in the same work (Opusc. 20) St. Maximus then claims that Honorius only meant to exclude a sinful will contrary to the will of the Father, and later still in the same work he claims that from Honorius’ statement it can be unambiguously deduced that Honorius meant that Christ had a complete human will. Then as his final defense offered in Opusc. 20, he claimed that the writings were forged. The problem of course, is by this standard, none of the monothelites were heretics, because any of their writings could then be given an orthodox reading using one of the above methods. When one also takes into account Honorius’ docetic understanding of Gethsemane, it becomes rather clear that he meant to deny a full human will in Christ, which is why for Honorius, Christ did not actually will for self-preservation, but only pretended to do so in order to teach us to prefer the will of God over our own will.

 

[frjohnmorris]

With regards to Pope Honorius… His letters in no way teach monothelitism. Maximus the confessor shows this… But more importantly, the very own SCRIBE who wrote the letters with Honorius explains the meaning of the letter and that they DID not tech monothelitism.
I can cite the evidence for you.

It is rather difficult to argue that Pope Honorius did not teach monothelitism since the historical record shows that his letters are the origin of this particular heresy. Read the accounts of the 6th Ecumenical Council which condemned Honorius for the content of his letters. I can also cite evidence for you. Go to this site and go to the last vol. of the Nicene Fathers, the one containing the acts and decisions of the Ecumenical Councils.
ccel.org/fathers.html

Fr. John

 

[Wandile]

It is rather difficult to argue that Pope Honorius did not teach monothelitism since the historical record shows that his letters are the origin of this particular heresy. Read the accounts of the 6th Ecumenical Council which condemned Honorius for the content of his letters. I can also cite evidence for you. Go to this site and go to the last vol. of the Nicene Fathers, the one containing the acts and decisions of the Ecumenical Councils.
ccel.org/fathers.html

Fr. John

Father, Honorius’s letters could not be the source of the heresy as Sergius of Constantinople held the heresy before Honorius was even Pope!

Secondly the Honorius’ scribe testified to the fact that when writing up the letters to sergius, they were saying that Christ had ONE HUMAN WILL as opposed to one will alone of both natures. The Abbot John, who was SCRIBE and SECRETARY to Honorius, and who had written the letter, testified as follows:

“We said that there is one will in the Lord, not of his divinity and humanity, but of his humanity solely.”

Further St. Maximus, afterwards martyred by them, asserted and proved that the writings of Honorius did not favor the Monothelites, and that his intention had been to maintain one will in the human nature of Christ, not in his person. John IV., who, after Severinus, succeeded Honorius in the Papal chair, wrote a defence of Honorius to the Emperor Constantine, in which he makes the same assertions that Maximus had made.

The Lateran Synod, convoked by St. Martin against the Monothelites, fifteen years after the date of Honorius’s letter, condemned the Monophysites and anathematized them by name, without making any mention of Honorius; it even asserted that all the Roman pontiffs had not, since the rise of the heresy, desisted from solicitude for the faith, writing to the erring, etc. The series of these pontiffs is as follows: Honorius I. (628), Severinus (640), John IV. (642), Theodore I. (649), St. Martin I., Pope St. Agatho, who convened the Sixth General Council, defended Honorius before the Fathers there assembled, and said that Honorius had exhorted the erring that :

“at least, by keeping silence, they should desist from the error of their doctrine.”

Lastly ecumenical councils are not infallible with regards to judgments pronounced on persons. The 6th Ecumenical Council condemned honorius and correctly so… But as later popes and fathers testify; for negligence in allowing the heresy to spread. NOT for actually teaching the heresy.

 

[dcointin]

I personally will favor the judgement of St. Maximus, both because of his relative proximity to the event and his personal holiness, than those who have a vested interest in condemning Pope Honorius.

 

[tdgesq]

It is rather difficult to argue that Pope Honorius did not teach monothelitism since the historical record shows that his letters are the origin of this particular heresy. Read the accounts of the 6th Ecumenical Council which condemned Honorius for the content of his letters. I can also cite evidence for you. Go to this site and go to the last vol. of the Nicene Fathers, the one containing the acts and decisions of the Ecumenical Councils.
ccel.org/fathers.html

Fr. John

1. Honorius had already been dead for years at the time of the 3rd Council of Constantinople. The only evidence of Pope Honorius’ belief in Monothelitism are the letters written to Sergius. The Council confirms this here: 13thSession.
2. The actual letter(s) to Sergius from Honorius are here: Helfe.. He ultimately tells Sergius not to teach the one will (energy) of Christ, nor to teach the two wills(energies) of Christ; because he admits he doesn’t know.
3. Anathemas and excommunications by councils against individuals are not infallible pronouncements. They can be incorrect, and have at times been recognized as incorrect by the universal Church. Take, for example, the mutual excommunications of 1054 that were annulled by both the Catholic Church and the Orthodox. Joint Declaration.

Honorius did not teach Monothelitism, and the Council was wrong to posthumously anathematize him for it.

 

[prodromos]

Anathemas and excommunications by councils against individuals are not infallible pronouncements. They can be incorrect, and have at times been recognized as incorrect by the universal Church. Take, for example, the mutual excommunications of 1054 that were annulled by both the Catholic Church and the Orthodox. Joint Declaration.

I don’t know that the decision made by the Constantinople Synod to lift the anathemas has been accepted as valid by the other patriarchates. Certainly the original anathemas have been accepted.

 

[Cavaradossi]

I personally will favor the judgement of St. Maximus, both because of his relative proximity to the event and his personal holiness, than those who have a vested interest in condemning Pope Honorius.

See my post above. St. Maximus offers several mutually exclusive theories on Honorius’ teaching of one will, sometimes claiming that they were forged, sometimes claiming that one will referred to the divine will and sometimes claiming the opposite, that one will referred to the human will. Which theory then are we to take? And furthermore, how does accepting these defenses of Honorius not exonerate the other monothelites? I think it is far more likely that the Third Council of Constantinople, which was under no pressing need to salvage such quotes from Honorius, and did not propose several mutually exclusive theories, was more accurate in its judgment, openly condemning Honorius with the other monothelites. And as St. Vincent of Lerins teaches in the Commonitorium, we should prefer the conclusions of the councils over those of individual fathers. And if that even is not enough convincing evidence that Pope Honorius was indeed condemned, it should also be mentioned that not only was this condemnation repeated at the Seventh Ecumenical Council, but that the very fact of Honorius’ condemnation was for centuries included in the Roman Breviary as part of a reading for the feast day of Pope St. Leo II.

 

[LionHeart777]

There is absolutely no apology necessary. You did not offend me. I am not that hyper sensitive. I hope that you understand that I strive with all my might to teach and live the Faith of the ancient undivided Church. That is why I spend so much time studying the Fathers and the Ecumenical Councils. I enjoy these discussions because they force me to rethink my ideas and take another look at the Fathers and the Ecumenical Councils. They are my guides.

Fr. John

Fr. John,

I’m glad, I just wanted to be sure and sometimes it is hard to gauge by type. I learn a lot from conversations like these; they force me to dig into matters deeper. I also get tips on some books that I am interested in; one example being Fr. Dvornik’s book “The Photian schism: history and legend”, which is now on my Amazon list.

A few posts back, discussion of the term “universal bishop” came up and I was trying to make a point that the other Patriarchs were aware of the Roman Bishops’ claims. One thing that came to mind was part of Pope St. Hadrian’s Letter to the Emperor and Empress which is included in the Acts of the 7th Ecumenical Council. The Latin version shows Rome’s claims quite vociferously, the Greek translation of the first part, which was read at the Council and contains, to use the late Bishop Hefele’s words, “arbitrary alterations” which seem to soften the letter a bit (“History of the Councils”, pg. 349) (if anyone knows anything about why the text was altered so, I would like to know.)

Anyway, the last part of the letter was not read at the Council as Hefele tell’s us, because the Patriarch “…Tarasius was blamed by the Pope, and this might have been abused by his opponents and those of the Council so as to do injury to the good cause itself.” (Ibid.) This part of the letter, included in the Acts of the 2nd session, reads as follows:

“We greatly wondered that in your imperial commands, directed for the Patriarch of the royal city, Tarasius, we find him there called Universal: but we know not whether this was written through ignorance or schism, or the heresy of the wicked. But henceforth we advise your most merciful and imperial majesty, that he be by no means called Universal in your writings, because it appears to be contrary to the institutions of the holy Canons and the decrees of the traditions of the holy Fathers. For he never could have ranked second, save for the authority of our holy Catholic and Apostolic Church, as is plain to all. Because if he be named Universal, above the holy Roman Church which has a prior rank, which is the head of all the Churches of God, it is certain that he shows himself as a rebel against the holy Councils, and a heretic. For, if he is Universal, he is recognized to have the Primacy even over the Church of our See, which appears ridiculous to all faithful Christians: because in the whole world the chief rank and power was given to the blessed Apostle Peter by the Redeemer of the world himself; and through the same Apostle, whose place we unworthily hold, the holy Catholic and Apostolic Roman Church holds the first rank, and the authority of power, now and for ever, so that if any one, which we believe not, has called him, or assents to his being called Universal, let him know that he is estranged from the orthodox Faith, and a rebel against our holy Catholic and Apostolic Church.”

Source: newadvent.org/fathers/3819.htm

Again here, we have the “Roman claims” voiced rather frankly. Do you believe that the other Patriarchs had no idea of Hadrain’s claims?

Regards,

Nick

Note: Hefele’s work I cited is found at:

archive.org/stream/historyofcouncil05hefeuoft#page/348/mode/2up

 

[dcointin]

http://http://canadaartsconnect.com/magazine/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/axe-to-grind.jpg

 

[Cavaradossi]

Fr. John,

I’m glad, I just wanted to be sure and sometimes it is hard to gauge by type. I learn a lot from conversations like these; they force me to dig into matters deeper. I also get tips on some books that I am interested in; one example being Dvornik’s book “The Photian schism: history and legend”, which is now on my Amazon list.

A few posts back, discussion of the term “universal bishop” came up and I was trying to make a point that the other Patriarchs were aware of the Roman Bishops’ claims. One thing that came to mind was part of Pope St. Hadrian’s Letter to the Emperor and Empress which is included in the Acts of the 7th Ecumenical Council. The Latin version shows Rome’s claims quite vociferously, the Greek translation of the first part, which was read at the Council and contains, to use the late Bishop Hefele’s words, “arbitrary alterations” which seem to soften the letter a bit (“History of the Councils”, pg. 349) (if anyone knows anything about why the text was altered so, I would like to know.)

Anyway, the last part of the letter was not read at the Council as Hefele tell’s us, because the Patriarch “…Tarasius was blamed by the Pope, and this might have been abused by his opponents and those of the Council so as to do injury to the good cause itself.” (Ibid.) This part of the letter, included in the Acts of the 2nd session, reads as follows:

“We greatly wondered that in your imperial commands, directed for the Patriarch of the royal city, Tarasius, we find him there called Universal: but we know not whether this was written through ignorance or schism, or the heresy of the wicked. But henceforth we advise your most merciful and imperial majesty, that he be by no means called Universal in your writings, because it appears to be contrary to the institutions of the holy Canons and the decrees of the traditions of the holy Fathers. For he never could have ranked second, save for the authority of our holy Catholic and Apostolic Church, as is plain to all. Because if he be named Universal, above the holy Roman Church which has a prior rank, which is the head of all the Churches of God, it is certain that he shows himself as a rebel against the holy Councils, and a heretic. For, if he is Universal, he is recognized to have the Primacy even over the Church of our See, which appears ridiculous to all faithful Christians: because in the whole world the chief rank and power was given to the blessed Apostle Peter by the Redeemer of the world himself; and through the same Apostle, whose place we unworthily hold, the holy Catholic and Apostolic Roman Church holds the first rank, and the authority of power, now and for ever, so that if any one, which we believe not, has called him, or assents to his being called Universal, let him know that he is estranged from the orthodox Faith, and a rebel against our holy Catholic and Apostolic Church.”

Source: newadvent.org/fathers/3819.htm

Again here, we have the “Roman claims” voiced rather frankly. Do you believe that the other Patriarchs had no idea of Hadrain’s claims?

Regards,

Nick

Note: Hefele’s work I cited is found at:

archive.org/stream/historyofcouncil05hefeuoft#page/348/mode/2up

That part of the letter wasn’t read at the council. In fact, when one compares the letter as it was written in Latin to what was read in Greek at the council, he would find that all of the Petrine claims had been completely edited out.

 

[LionHeart777]

That part of the letter wasn’t read at the council. In fact, when one compares the letter as it was written in Latin to what was read in Greek at the council, he would find that all of the Petrine claims had been completely edited out.

I wouldn’t say they were “completely edited out”, but I would like to have more information and haven’t been able to find it as of yet. I did take time to set up my citation and explain what was read and what wasn’t from the letter, and mentioned the edits.

Do you believe the Eastern Bishops, the Patriarchs in particular, were unaware of the claims Pope Hadrian makes?