The Ratzinger Proposal (Orthodox apply here)

[josie_L]

Maybe, but do you have evidence that this was a formal principle? Both the First and Second Councils of Constantinople are good test cases. Can you tell me when the Pope ratified First Constantinople, and can you show evidence that this changed the attitude of Eastern Christians toward the Council?

First, the evidence for this “formal principle” is more a matter of custom and tradition (prerogatives of the pope), i.e. you will see it promulgated in Sacred Tradition, and as such generally reflected in Church history. One such example can be found during Chalcedon, i.e., when Anatolius wrote to Pope St. Leo regarding his disannulment of canon 28:

“As for those things which the universal Council of Chalcedon recently ordained in favor of the church of Constantinople, let Your Holiness be sure that there was no fault in me, who from my youth have always loved peace and quiet, keeping myself in humility. It was the most reverend clergy of the church of Constantinople who were eager about it, and they were equally supported by the most reverend priests of those parts, who agreed about it. Even so, the whole force of confirmation of the acts was reserved for the authority of Your Blessedness. Therefore, let Your Holiness know for certain that I did nothing to further the matter, knowing always that I held myself bound to avoid the lusts of pride and covetousness. – Patriarch Anatolius of Constantinople to Pope Leo, Ep 132 (on the subject of canon 28 of Chalcedon).”

Now, Anatolius is saying that even though canon 28 was ratified by 160 or so members of Chalcedon, it still needed the force of his confirmation before it could be validated. There fore, without the consent and authority of the apostolic see decrees could not (or rather should not) be enforced. There is also the case of St. Athanasius’s expulsion from his see and St. Julius’s reply to those who deposed him:

“And why was nothing said to us concerning the Church of the Alexandrians in particular? Are you ignorant that the custom has been for word to be written first to us, and then for a just decision to be passed from this place? If then any such suspicion rested upon the Bishop there, notice thereof ought to have been sent to the Church of this place; whereas, after neglecting to inform us, and proceeding on their own authority as they pleased, now they desire to obtain our concurrence in their decisions, though we never condemned him. Not so have the constitutions of Paul, not so have the traditions of the Fathers directed; this is another form of procedure, a novel practice. I beseech you, readily bear with me: what I write is for the common good. For what we have received from the blessed Apostle Peter s, that I signify to you; and I should not have written this, as deeming that these things were manifest unto all men, had not these proceedings so disturbed us.” Julius[regn A.D. 337-352],To the Eusebians,fragment in Athanasius’ Against the Arians,2:35,in NPNF2,IV:118

Pope St. Julius is very firm in his insistence that it was custom that word should be written to Rome first so that a just decision could be rendered. With respect to I Constantinople I can say that it was St. Gregory the Great who recognized and validated it (only the dogmatic decrees however), i.e., as per tradition a council could only (should only) be in force with the pope’s confirmation. I delineated this in another thread "Orthodoxy Papacy by quoting several (of many) church fathers attesting to the necessity of the Pope’s consent:

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, Migne PG 108:360a [Theophan Chronogr, pages 234-346])

St. Nicephorus, Patriarch of Constantinople (758-828), writes:

“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 usage, 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.” (St. Nicephorus, Niceph Cpl pro s imag c 25)

St. Theodore the Studite (c. 759-826):

“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.” (St. Theodore the Studite, Migne PG 99:1420)

St. Peter Chrysologus, Archbishop of Ravenna, writes:

We exhort you, honorable brother, that you obediently listen to what has been written by the blessed Pope of the city of Rome, since blessed Peter, who lives and presides in his own see, offers the truth of faith to those who seek. For we, in our zeal for peace and faith, cannot decide questions of faith apart from consent of the Bishop of Rome. – Peter Chrysologus of Ravenna to Eutyches, Ep 25

Pope St. Gregory the Great

The decrees of councils would have NO FORCE “WITHOUT the authority and consent of the Apostolic See” [ix:156; cf. v:39,41,44].

to be continued. . . .

 

[Nicea325]

It was a claim by a Catholic that it exists in scripture. Read much?

Yes…that Peter had a primacy and the papacy is an office? Comprehend much?

 

[Nicea325]

Constantinople was only recognized by the Catholic Church as the second see at the Council of Constance, and this because at the time (1208) there was a Latin holding the patriarch of Constantinople. Moreover, the reasons for respecting Alexandria (2nd see) and Antioch (3rd see) were rather moot at this point in time, i.e., these sees were subjugated by Muslim forces, while Constantinople was the only remaining Eastern patriarch that was not.

Edit: You are correct that it was at Constantinople that the Eastern bishops first tried to place Constantinople over Alexandria and Antioch but it was never ratified by a pope until the Council of Constance.

Indeed,you are correct!

 

[josie_L]

Maybe, but do you have evidence that this was a formal principle? Both the First and Second Councils of Constantinople are good test cases. Can you tell me when the Pope ratified First Constantinople, and can you show evidence that this changed the attitude of Eastern Christians toward the Council?

This quote from Pope St. Gelasius (ca. 492 A.D.) is particularly explicit about the authority/judgment of the Apostolic See:

"The canons themselves willed the appeals of the whole Church to be referred to the examination of this See. From it they decreed also that no appeal whatever ought to be made; and thereby that it judged of the whole Church, and that itself passed under the judgment of none . . . . Timothy of Alexandria , Peter of Antioch, Peter, Paul, John, not one, but many, bearing the name of the priesthood, were deposed by the sole authority of the Apostolic See . . . . The canons cannot summon the Apostolic See to judgment . . . . Therefore we are in no fear lest the Apostolic judgment be reversed, which both the voice of Christ and the tradition of the fathers, as also the authority of the canons support, in such wise that rather it always may judge the whole Church." (Gelasius, Epist. iv. Commonitor ad Faustum, pp. 1169-1171, Labbe, iv.; and Epist. Rom. Pont. ed. Thiel, 1867, tom. i. p. 343, Epist. x.n. 5)

“The first See both confirms every synod by its authority, and guards by its continuous rule, by reasons, to wit, of its supremacy, which, received by the Apostolic Peter from the mouth of the Lord, the Church nevertheless seconding, it both always has held and retains . . . We will not pass over in silence what every Church throughout the world knows, that the See of the Blessed Apostle Peter has the right to absolve from what has been bound by the sentence of any prelates whatsoever, in that it has the right of judging of the whole Church; neither is lawful for any one to pass judgment on its judgment, seeing that the canons have willed that it may be appealed to from any part of the world, but that from it no one be permitted to appeal.” (Gelasius, Epist. xiii. ad Episc. Dardon, p. 1200, Labbe; and Thiel, Epist. xxvi. n.5, tom.i. p. 399)

to be continued. . .

 

[josie_L]

Pope Vigilius accepted the decrees of II Constantinople, but only after considerable resistance. Can you show me which Eastern Christians refused to acknowledge II Constantinople as valid until Pope Vigilius gave his approval?

It seems Emperor Justinian went to great lenghts to have Pope Vigilius confirm the unorthodoxy of the Three Chapters (and as such the people who wrote them: Theodoret of Cyrrhus, Theodore of Mopsuestia and Ibas of Edessa), i.e., having him arrested while in the middle of mass, and then holding him in captivity (for 10 years). So has I said before the consent of Popes was necessary to give force to councils (ecumenical or otherwise). Justinian could accept no less considering that he himself realized this:

“Yielding honour to the Apostolic See, and to your Holiness, and honouring your Holiness, as one ought to honour 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 holy churches.” (Justinian, Epist. ad Pap. Joan. ii. Cod. Justin. lib. i. tit. 1)

“Nor do we allow that any of these things, concerning ecclesiastical institution, should fail to be brought before his Holiness, as being the head of all the holy Priests of God, and because as often as heretics have arisen in these parts, have been repressed by the sentence and judgment of that Holy See.” (Justinian, Epist. ad Epiphan. Cod. Justinian, lib. i. tom. i. n. 7)

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

That he used force (albeit Vigilius of his own free-will came to accept and confirm II Constantinople) is only evidence of his need to reconcile monophysites to the empire. Vigilius defied Justinian (after being arrested) as a matter of principle rather than opposition in condemning The Three Chapters, i.e., to protect Chalcedon and his role as head of the Church, i.e., the office of Peter.

 

[scottm]

It’s a matter of fact Scott that Rome held the primacy long before Nicea, i.e., Nicea was only declaring what had been in place from the time Peter moved to Rome (42 A.D.).

Hi. That’s not disputed. But the Orthodox Church is ruled by the decrees of Ecumenical Councils. What so-and-so believes before a Council decrees it, does not have to be followed by all Orthodox. What a Council decrees, however, must be followed by all Orthodox. So, from the Orthodox perspective, Rome gained primacy through a Council decree or two, and Constantinople was given 2nd place, and so on for the rest.

Pope Damasus 1 (304-384 A.D.)

"Although all the Catholic Churches spread abroad through the world comprise but one bridal chamber of Christ, nevertheless, the holy Roman Church has been placed at the forefront not by the conciliar decisions of other Churches, but has received the primacy by the evangelic voice of our Lord and Saviour, who says …

Roman bishop?? I do not see how that is relevant to the question of how the Eastern Church defined “primacy,” and I was speaking to the question of how the Eastern Church defined “primacy.”

The first see, therefore, is that of Peter the Apostle, that of the Roman Church, which has neither stain or blemish nor anything like it.

(cough cough) sex scandals (cough cough)
We’re all on the same team here. We’re friends. You don’t have to say fake stuff like that here.

As to how the Church (Scripture and Tradition) defined Petrine/Roman primacy:

1. He was chief bishop, primate and leader of the whole Church of Christ on Earth.

1. He had/has episcopal jurisdiction over all members of the Church.

1. All conciliar decisions had to be confirmed by the Pope before they were made into law, i.e., he had the last say.

1. The pope could revoke decisions made by councils, i.e…, because he had the last say.

1. The pope could intervene on matters of faith and morals throughout the whole Church because he had care over all the churches.

1. To be in communion with Rome was/is to be in communion with the Church of Christ.

From an Orthodox perspective I believe #1 and #3 and #5 are true, with the caveat that we might get into an argument over how far the Roman patriarch can intervene outside his jurisdiction. I suppose #4 is the corollary to #3. However, #2 is flatly false and grossly insulting. #6 is true but not all inclusive. The Orthodox Churches are also the Church of Christ. You really should learn to walk in the other guy’s shoes. It’s a growth experience, you know. It makes the heart bigger and the world smaller. It’s good.

Moreover, Pope Benedict is not acknowledging that the Roman Catholic Church has “changed” its position over time as this would imply innovation not development, i.e., development only delineates a doctrine over time (you might want to read “Called to Communion” by Pope Benedict as it will help you to know where he stands on Catholic ecclesiology vis a vis the Orthodox). And you are mistaken if you think that the Pope is acknowledging that Orthodox Churches have not “changed”, i.e., he does not delve into what or how the Orthodox portray the primacy in the first millenia to acknowledge anything of the sort. Moreover, it’s hard to “change” when you cannot develop doctrine via ecumenical councils.

We’ll never agree on the interpretation of that Benedict quote. You should read books from the Eastern side. It’d be good.

Later.

 

[scottm]

Councils? Then list the councils which placed Rome first and Constantinople second? If I recall it was at the Council of 381 where the eastern bishops placed Constantinople second over other ancient Sees.

Yes, I think it was the 2nd of the seven Councils that ordered the five ancient sees, with Rome first and Constantinople second, and so on. I can’t remember if the first Council put Rome first or not. Whether the ranking was established by one Council or five really doesn’t matter. We both know that at least one of them did it.

 

[Nine_Two]

Roman bishop?? I do not see how that is relevant to the question of how the Eastern Church defined “primacy,” and I was speaking to the question of how the Eastern Church defined “primacy.”

It is also worthy of note here that the term “Roman church” doesn’t mean a whole lot when talking about the ancient sees, since the term for quite a long time referred to the Churches of the Roman Empire, as opposed to those outside it - in Armenia and Georgia. If you visit Antioch today you’ll find the church has a sign saying “Rum Ortodox” outside it.

 

[scottm]

It is also worthy of note here that the term “Roman church” doesn’t mean a whole lot when talking about the ancient sees, since the term for quite a long time referred to the Churches of the Roman Empire, as opposed to those outside it - in Armenia and Georgia. If you visit Antioch today you’ll find the church has a sign saying “Rum Ortodox” outside it.

Fine. Make it “Patriarch of Rome” or “Bishop of Rome.” I think my point was pretty clear: quoting such a person does not speak to how the Eastern Church defined “primacy.”