Universal Jursidiction

[AveChriste11]

But they all come from Catholicism

To a degree, we still have an immense stumbling block: Discernment.

Who and how do we discern the fruit of the Holy Spirit?

What do we do when we “make” the Holy Spirit contradict Himself?

Indeed.

Peter Gillquist? Do you know of any others? I would like to read more, thanks.

Here’s a little behind the dialogue:
orthodoxresearchinstitute.org/articles/ecumenical/issa_bishop_raphael_part3.htm

St. Tikhon of Moscow took many elements from the Book of Common Prayer, to establish a Liturgy named after him.

ancientfaith.com/specials/in_the_footsteps_of_tikhon_and_grafton/the_history_of_anglican_orthodox_relations

Dialogue has been ongoing with the Protestant sects, including the Lutherans. helsinki.fi/~risaarin/lutort.html
and angelfire.com/ny4/djw/lutheran-orthodox.html

As to the relationship of the talks between the OO, and the EO… this can tell you a little about how that dialogue has been on-going through the years. suscopts.org/resources/literature/161/the-agreed-statements-oriental-orthodox-responses/

 

[Isaiah45_9]

Here’s a little behind the dialogue:
orthodoxresearchinstitute.org/articles/ecumenical/issa_bishop_raphael_part3.htm

St. Tikhon of Moscow took many elements from the Book of Common Prayer, to establish a Liturgy named after him.

ancientfaith.com/specials/in_the_footsteps_of_tikhon_and_grafton/the_history_of_anglican_orthodox_relations

Dialogue has been ongoing with the Protestant sects, including the Lutherans. helsinki.fi/~risaarin/lutort.html
and angelfire.com/ny4/djw/lutheran-orthodox.html

As to the relationship of the talks between the OO, and the EO… this can tell you a little about how that dialogue has been on-going through the years. suscopts.org/resources/literature/161/the-agreed-statements-oriental-orthodox-responses/

Danke schön!

 

[SanctusPeccator]

I have read that defense, but it frankly is a very weak defense. It does not explain how the immediate and extraordinary jurisdiction of the pope does not undermine the episcopal monarchy other than basically saying that it doesn’t, a circular tautology. If papal extraordinary jurisdiction is lesser in power than the ordinary jurisdiction of a bishop, then the pope’s extraordinary jurisdiction would not really be immediate. If the pope’s extraordinary jurisdiction is equal in power to the ordinary jurisdiction of the bishops, then the episcopal monarchy would actually be a diarchy. If the pope’s extraordinary jurisdiction is greater in power than the ordinary jurisdiction of the bishops, then it is not an episcopal monarchy, but a papal monarchy.

Some of these statements are remarkably similar to those of Chancellor Otto von Bismarck published in the 29 December 1874 issue of the Deutschen Reichs-Anzeiger und Königlich Preußischen Staats-Anzeiger. Utilized as a pretext to undermine the Catholic Church in Prussia during the midst of the Kulturkampf, the Fulda Conference of Bishops issued their Collective Declaration of the German Episcopate on the Circular of the Imperial German Chancellor Concerning the Next Papal Election as a detailed response to refute these various assertions. Evidently the bishops of the German Empire (the vast majority of whom also attended Vatican I) perceived no conflict between two concurrent jurisdictions when correctly interpreted in light of the official relationes from Bishops Federico Maria Zinelli and Vincenz Ferrer Gasser?

 

[Randy_Carson]

Some of these statements are remarkably similar to those of Chancellor Otto von Bismarck published in the 29 December 1874 issue of the Deutschen Reichs-Anzeiger und Königlich Preußischen Staats-Anzeiger. Utilized as a pretext to undermine the Catholic Church in Prussia during the midst of the Kulturkampf, the Fulda Conference of Bishops issued their Collective Declaration of the German Episcopate on the Circular of the Imperial German Chancellor Concerning the Next Papal Election as a detailed response to refute these various assertions. Evidently the bishops of the German Empire (the vast majority of whom also attended Vatican I) perceived no conflict between two concurrent jurisdictions when correctly interpreted in light of the official relationes from Bishops Federico Maria Zinelli and Vincenz Ferrer Gasser?

Geez, I was about to say that.

 

[Peter_J]

SPH1:
To elaborate a bit on my earlier statement, “I definitely believe that there is some merit to SPH’s argument”, I mean that it’s a good answer to extremists who “demonize” the papacy.

Of course, presumably everyone participating on this thread knows that there’s more than one kind of extremist out there.

 

[LionHeart777]

I am going on vacation tomorrow, so I will try to keep this as short as possible.

They do not refer to a primacy of divine right here, because all pastors are appointed with custody and guardianship of the vineyard by the Savior (or do bishops not have the authority to protect their flocks?), and Pope Leo, being the first ranking among them, had this custody in a principal manner. That they mean it in this sense is confirmed by what they write immediately after: “In addition to all this he extended his fury even against him who had been entrusted with guarding the vineyard by the Saviour, we mean your sacredness, and intended excommunication against the person who had shown eagerness to unite the body of the church.” (this translation differs, because I am pulling this from Richard Price’s excellent translation of the entire council of Chalcedon and certain conciliar documents, this letter being one of them).

In the Orthodox understanding, the first bishop guards the vineyard of the church in a unique fashion, in that he becomes a locus of communion for the other bishops and churches, and thus guards also the unity of the Church. But his guardianship of the Church, and the charism which he has been granted in order to do so (that is, the episcopate), is one with all of the other bishops, and thus he is not set above them by divine mandate (as a bishop is set above a priest), but rather he carries out the same Christ-given guardianship as they do, but manifests it in a different fashion as a consequence of being reckoned as the most senior bishop.

Pope Leo in fact affirms in his letter to Marcian after the council that the privileges of the churches were bestowed by the canons of the Holy Fathers, writing: For the privileges of the churches, having been bestowed by the canons of the holy fathers and defined by the decrees of the venerable council of Nicaea, cannot be overturned by any unscrupulousness or changed by any innovation. In the faithful performance of this task with the help of Christ I am obliged to render perseverant service, because it is a stewardship that has been entrusted to me, and it brings guilt upon me if the rules of the fathers’ enactment, which were drawn up under the direction of God’s Spirit at the council of Nicaea for the government of the whole church, are violated with my connivance (which God forbid), and if the wishes of a single brother weigh more with me than the common good of the entire house of the Lord.

It is in fact most indicative of Pope Leo’s understanding of his own primacy that he declares the 28th canon null not by the power of his disapproval, but by the authority of the canons of the holy fathers and the enactments of Nicaea…

I disagree that the Fathers who address Pope St. Leo don’t believe that his Primacy was by Divine Right. I would argue that you have cited of from Price only reaffirms this, which was the case the S. Herbert Scott made which I gave in a recent post. The difference is you (and apparently the Eastern Orthodox) have a different interpretation of what those words mean. I would argue that by citing Scott (whom from all info I can find on the net on him was an Anglican—the work I’m citing of his also containing no Catholic Ecclesiastical approbation), I have brought in a more neutral party. This will be the case to I see as we will see for Pope St. Leo.

The Anglican historian wrote of Pope St. Leo and his view on the Papacy:

“’An energetic and purposeful pontiff, Leo infused all his policies and pronouncements, especially his anniversary sermons, with his conviction that supreme and universal authority in the church, bestowed originally by Christ on Peter, had been transmitted to each subsequent bishop of Rome as the Apostle’s heir. As such, he assumed Peter’s functions, full authority, and privileges; and just as the Lord bestowed more power on Peter than on the other apostles, so the pope was ‘the primate of all the bishops’, the Apostle’s mystical embodiment.

Leo confidently asserted his authority everywhere in the west… (pg 43).’”

Source: J.N.D. Kelly, “The Oxford Dictionary of Popes”, (Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press, ©1986)

As found at: reformation500.com/2013/03/04/pope-leo-the-great/

I cite Kelly as a hostile witness as he was an Anglican who rejected my thesis. So if your claim is that Pope St. Leo didn’t believe that he held the Primacy by virtue of his being the successor of St. Peter, and that this was by Divine Right, then we disagree. Also at the link I just cited (apparently a Protestant) is a quote by J. Michael Miller (A Catholic I believe), from his “The Divine Right of the Papacy in Recent Ecumenical Theology”:

“In his theological presentation, Leo taught the dominical institution [the direct institution by Christ] of the papacy in a way which had a great influence on subsequent tradition. His theory explaining the relationship between Christ and Peter, and between Peter and the pope, was at the basis of the classical Catholic understanding of Roman primacy iure divino [by divine right].

Leo based his theory of papal primacy ex institutione divina on the evidence of Scripture: Peter enjoyed a primacy within the apostolic college. Even before Leo’s appeal to the Petrine texts as a justification for Roman primacy, other ecclesiastical writers had already drawn attention to Peter’s leadership role among the apostles.”

He also writes:

“Protestant and Catholic theologians agree that Leo the Great (+464) [sic] drew together the threads of a theory on Roman primacy which had been in the process of formation for at least two centuries.”

Continued…

 

[LionHeart777]

Continued…

I completely disagree with you on your interpretation on Pope St. Leo’s letter to the emperor Marcian. Leo is in no way saying that Roman primacy was established merely by the Church canonically. First, I would argue that the “churches” which he refers to are Antioch and Alexandria whose positions he was concerned with and went to great length to defend. Far from proving your point, I argue that Leo’s letter to Marcian actually undermines it. This will be a lengthy citation, but I feel it worth citing:

“Prof. d’Herbingy quotes the Orthodox Russian writer, A. Pavlov, who discovered a Slav MS. Of the twelfth century and published the text in the Vizantiiskii Vremennik of 1897 (t. iv, pp. 150-2) which gives an account of the answer of S. Methodius, the Byzantine apostle of the Slavs, about this XVIIIth Canon:

‘It is necessary to know that this decision was not accepted by the blessed Pope Leo. . . . And it is not true, as this canon affirms, that the holy fathers have accorded the primacy and honour to old Rome because it was the capital of the empire. But it is from on high that it began, it is of grave divine that this primacy has derived its origin. Peter, the most exalted of the apostles, heard from the mouth of our Lord these words (Matt. xvi. 17). This is why he possesses among the hierarchs pre-eminent rank and the first see. It is notorious, besides, that, although emperors have dwelt at Milan and Ravenna, and that their palaces are found there to our own day, these cities have not received on that account the primacy. For the dignity and the pre-eminence of the priestly hierarchy have not been established by the favour of civil power, but by Divine choice and by apostolic authority. . . . How would it be possible, because of an earthly emperor, to displace divine gifts and apostolic privileges and to introduce innovations into the prescriptions of the immaculate faith. Immovable, indeed, unto the end are the privileges of old Rome. So, in so far as being set over all the Churches, the Pontiff of Rome has no need to betake himself to all the holy ecumenical councils, but without his participation manifested by the sending of some of his subordinates, ever ecumenical council is non-existent and it is he who renders legal everything that has been decided in the council.’

Methodius, the writer, is a Byzantine, and he concludes:

‘If there is anyone who appears opposed to what we say, let him examine well what the same most holy Pope Leo wrote to Marcian and Pulcheria of pious memory, what he wrote also to the Bishop of Constantinople, the above-named Anatolius and he will be convinced of the truth of these things.’”

I have already quoted what Pope Leo wrote to Pulcheria:

“’As for the resolution of the bishops which is contrary to the Nicene decree,* I declare it to be invalid and annul it by the authority of the holy Apostle Peter.*’” (Ep. , 105) (Ibid.)

I also disagree that St. Leo’s arguing on a Canonical basis somehow disproves that his Primacy is by Divine Right; this is a non-sequitor. The above quote to the empress (the wife of the one he addresses in your citation) is indicative of the fact that Primacy by Divine Right and appeals to Canons are not mutually exclusive, but rather, harmonious.

…Yes, they united with Peter because the type of Peter is most especially present in him who is reckoned to be first. But the type of Peter is proposed to all pastors of the Church, according to St. Leo (Sermon 4). The Roman See in fact cannot be said to be unique in its descent from the apostle Peter, nor can it claim an unique Petrine succession, since while Peter the Apostle chose and ordained Linus to the Episcopate, it has never been the custom for the bishop of Rome to choose and ordain his successor with a special rank of Petrine succession, but rather his successor has always been by the members Roman Church (even today, this is so, even if only nominally, since all cardinals technically are clergy of the Roman Church) and has always been ordained as a bishop not by those who received any unique Petrine succession, but rather by bishops who received succession from the entire apostolic choir in general.

I am going to also disagree (big surprise I know) with your take on the meaning and value of the Presbyter Philip’s (the Papal Legate) words at the Council of Ephesus. Vatican I’s “Pastor Aeternus” actually cites them in the section entitled: “On the permanence of the primacy of blessed Peter in the Roman pontiffs”

Source: fisheaters.com/pastoraeternus.html

I’ll try to get to your comments about the 5th Ecumenical Council and perhaps the other stuff here later.

 

[LionHeart777]

I realize this thread may not be still active (it’s not expired though), but I did want to respond to some of what you have written in your last couple of posts. I decided to break them up by topic.

The Fifth Ecumenical Council is unrelated to the 28th Canon. It is damaging to your thesis because the Council excommunicated the first bishop (Vigilius of Rome) with the justification that he had officially espoused the Nestorian heresy in his dogmatic First Constitution (in which he upheld the orthodoxy of Theodoret’s anti-Cyrillian writings and the Letter of Ibas to Mari the Persian, declaring that anybody who anathematized these writings should be deprived of his clerical status), something which should have been impossible, were your thesis correct, because if the primacy were given by divine right, such a decision could never have been valid, nor would any council of right-believing bishops dare to think so, for such a decision could not then have been made without the assent of the very bishop they were excommunicating. But their decree of excommunication was followed de jure, and it appeared to be successful in changing Pope Vigilus’ mind, insofar as months after the council concluded, Pope Vigilius annulled his First Constitution, admitted that he had been in error, and affirmed the teachings of the Council…

This is not the “smoking gun” you believe it to be; this is merely your interpretation of the events/related documents, etc. regarding Constantinople II. Nothing about these events/documents disproves my thesis.

When responding to a question about Vigilius’ alleged excommunication, Dr. William Carroll responded:

“Pope Vigilus was not excommunicated. I have made an exhaustive study of Pope Vigilius, which you will find summarized in my volume THE BUILDING OF CHRISTENDOM… - Dr. Carroll”

Source: ewtn.com/vexperts/showmessage.asp?number=330883&Pg=&Pgnu=&recnu=

(I put this book on my Amazon wish list )

The “Catholic Encyclopedia” says:

“The pope was always correct as to the doctrine involved, and yielded, for the sake of peace, only when he was satisfied that there was no fear for the authority of Chalcedon, which he at first, with the entire West, deemed in peril from the machinations of the Monophysites.”

Source: Shahan, Thomas. “Second Council of Constantinople.” The Catholic Encyclopedia. Vol. 4. New York: Robert Appleton Company, 1908. 9 Sept. 2013 http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04308b.htm.

But for argument’s sake, even if Vigilius was “…excommunicated…with the justification that he had officially espoused the Nestorian heresy in his dogmatic First Constitution…” as you say (a point I am not conceding), then this would not be damaging to my thesis either, according to what is, if I’m not mistaken, an acceptable Catholic theologoumenon. I’ll explain. St. Robert Bellarmine, a Doctor of the Catholic Church, considered 5 Theological opinions in response to the hypothetical situation of a heretical Pope. One of these opinions was:

“…the Pope who is manifestly a heretic ceases by himself to be Pope and head, in the same way as he ceases to be a Christian and a member of the body of the Church; and for this reason he can be judged and punished by the Church. This is the opinion of all the ancient Fathers, who teach that manifest heretics immediately lose all jurisdiction, and outstandingly that of St. Cyprian (lib. 4, epist. 2) who speaks as follows of Novatian, who was Pope [antipope] in the schism which occurred during the pontificate of St. Cornelius: ‘He would not be able to retain the episcopate, and, if he was made bishop before, he separated himself from the body of those who were, like him, bishops, and from the unity of the Church.’ (De Romano Pontifice, Book II, Chapter 30)

Source: fisheaters.com/bellarmine.html

The author of the Catholic Encyclopedia’s entry “Heresy”, seems to take this position when he writes:

“Heretical clerics and all who receive, defend, or favour them are ipso facto deprived of their benefices, offices, and ecclesiastical jurisdiction. The pope himself, if notoriously guilty of heresy, would cease to be pope because he would cease to be a member of the Church.”

Source: Wilhelm, Joseph. “Heresy.” The Catholic Encyclopedia. Vol. 7. New York: Robert Appleton Company, 1910. 10 Sept. 2013 http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07256b.htm.

The bottom line is, the events surrounding the 5th Ecumenical Council are not damaging to my thesis, and the Fathers at Vatican I well understood that. Surely they were not unaware of what we are discussing.

Regarding Pope Vigilius’ change of mind, the “Encyclopedia Britannica” gives the following reason(s) for it:

“Vigilius’ Constitutum (‘Resolution’) of May 24, 553, withheld ratification of the council’s decision. Succumbing to lassitude, to the appeals of the Romans for his return, and to the ill treatment to which Justinian was subjecting him, however, Vigilius decided to revoke his first Constitutum and sign a second on Feb. 23, 554, which gave pontifical approbation to the council’s verdict.”

Source: britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/628662/Vigilius

The “Catholic Encyclopedia” says the following:

“The change in his * position is to be explained by the fact that the condemnation of the writings mentioned was justifiable essentially, yet appeared inopportune and would lead to disastrous controversies with Western Europe.”

Source: Kirsch, Johann Peter. “Pope Vigilius.” The Catholic Encyclopedia. Vol. 15. New York: Robert Appleton Company, 1912. 9 Sept. 2013 http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15427b.htm.*

 

[Cavaradossi]

I realize this thread may not be still active (it’s not expired though), but I did want to respond to some of what you have written in your last couple of posts. I decided to break them up by topic.

This is not the “smoking gun” you believe it to be; this is merely your interpretation of the events/related documents, etc. regarding Constantinople II. Nothing about these events/documents disproves my thesis.

When responding to a question about Vigilius’ alleged excommunication, Dr. William Carroll responded:

“Pope Vigilus was not excommunicated. I have made an exhaustive study of Pope Vigilius, which you will find summarized in my volume THE BUILDING OF CHRISTENDOM… - Dr. Carroll”

Source: ewtn.com/vexperts/showmessage.asp?number=330883&Pg=&Pgnu=&recnu=

The acts themselves say that the emperor decreed that Vigilius should be struck from the diptychs, and the bishops agreed to do so. Richard Price, who not only studied the acts of this council extensively but also translated them from Latin (for a scholarly work published by the university of Liverpool press) understood precisely that Pope Vigilius was struck from the diptychs (that is, excommunicated) in retaliation for his First Constitutum.

The “Catholic Encyclopedia” says:

“The pope was always correct as to the doctrine involved, and yielded, for the sake of peace, only when he was satisfied that there was no fear for the authority of Chalcedon, which he at first, with the entire West, deemed in peril from the machinations of the Monophysites.”

Source: Shahan, Thomas…

That is a tortured reading of the events. Even Pope Vigilius conceded that he was in doctrinal error, claiming that he came to his first (incorrect) conclusion out of zeal and haste. In his letter to Eutychius of Constantinople (in which he annulled his First Constitutum), he wrote (as part of a preamble in which he justified the about-face he was about to perform in his letter): Therefore, if indeed in every matter the dictate of wisdom requires the revision of what has been investigated, and if there should be no shame when out of zeal for the truth what was at first overlooked is subsequently discovered and published, how much more is it appropriate for this to be observed in ecclesiastical matters? For it is manifest that our fathers, and especially the most blessed Augustine, the teacher of Roman eloquence who shone forth in sacred literature, revised his own writings, corrected his statements, and added what had been overlooked and subsequently discovered. We likewise, following these examples in the matter of the afore-mentioned Three Chapters, never discontinued our search for what relating to the afore-mentioned Three Chapters could be discovered in the writings of our fathers that was more true.

But for argument’s sake, even if Vigilius was “…excommunicated…with the justification that he had officially espoused the Nestorian heresy in his dogmatic First Constitution…” as you say (a point I am not conceding), then this would not be damaging to my thesis either, according to what is, if I’m not mistaken, an acceptable Catholic theologoumenon. I’ll explain. St. Robert Bellarmine, a Doctor of the Catholic Church, considered 5 Theological opinions in response to the hypothetical situation of a heretical Pope. One of these opinions was:

“…the Pope who is manifestly a heretic ceases by himself to be Pope and head, in the same way as he ceases to be a Christian and a member of the body of the Church; and for this reason he can be judged and punished by the Church. This is the opinion of all the ancient Fathers, who teach that manifest heretics immediately lose all jurisdiction, and outstandingly that of St. Cyprian (lib. 4, epist. 2) who speaks as follows of Novatian, who was Pope [antipope] in the schism which occurred during the pontificate of St. Cornelius: ‘He would not be able to retain the episcopate, and, if he was made bishop before, he separated himself from the body of those who were, like him, bishops, and from the unity of the Church.’ (De Romano Pontifice, Book II, Chapter 30)

Source: fisheaters.com/bellarmine.html

The author of the Catholic Encyclopedia’s entry “Heresy”, seems to take this position when he writes:

“Heretical clerics and all who receive, defend, or favour them are ipso facto deprived of their benefices, offices, and ecclesiastical jurisdiction. The pope himself, if notoriously guilty of heresy, would cease to be pope because he would cease to be a member of the Church.”

Source: Wilhelm, Joseph. “Heresy.” The Catholic Encyclopedia. Vol. 7. New York: Robert Appleton Company, 1910. 10 Sept. 2013 http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07256b.htm.

But that reduces papal infallibility to meaninglessness because every bishop then, and indeed even every layman speaks infallibly and truthfully when he is not an heretic. But this defense does little for any defender of the First Vatican Council, because if the pope could be judged for heresy by an ecumenical council (not to mention the later depositions of Simoniacal Popes performed by the West alone after the schism) then this indicates that the primacy of the Roman Pontiff in the first millennium (and even in the early second) was understood firstly as a primacy of mediate jurisdiction (in contradiction of the primacy of immediate jurisdiction claimed by the First Vatican Council), and that the infallible doctrinal decisions of the papacy (which Bishop Gasser numbered in the thousands) are in fact in some sense contingent upon the consent of the Church, because with the body of the Church lies the power to determine if a Pope is an heretic (by your own admission).

 

[LionHeart777]

…

That quotation indeed is from the supposed Letter to Peter (surely you are not telling me that you are quoting something attributed to St. Maximus without first having checked what work it comes from). It is suspected to be spurious, because as I remember, it exists only in fragments, and only in Latin (i.e., not in the Confessor’s native tongue), and furthermore, nowhere else in his extant works does St. Maximus ever write such things about the Roman See or it’s supreme authority. The document’s state of preservation and the absence of similar claims from St. Maximus’ writings makes it bad evidence.

In fact, the claim made in that passage attributed to St. Maximus, that, The Roman Church, “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.” is manifestly false, because no such canon or definition granting the Church of Rome such things exists in the canons of the holy fathers. It bears in that manner, much resemblance to the forgeries of Pseudo-Isidore, which make similar claims.

Please see my post #366. Also, speaking of the actual “Letter to Peter”, none of the 2 works (both scholarly works–albeit dated) mention any doubt about it’s authenticity as I recollect. The only source(s) I have seen yet who doubt it are Orthodox posters on forums, if memory serves. Can you cite a scholarly source that backs up your claim that the “Letter to Peter” is spurious or of doubtful authenticity even? But again, my case doesn’t rest on an author here or an author there, and I don’t believe I ever cited the "Letter to Peter originally.

That other decree which you quote, attributed to Pope St. Damasus is equally unreliable, for it is not actually known to have been written by Pope St. Damasus. It was originally thought to have been a decree of Pope Gelasius, and now it is also suspected to be spurious, because it attributes to Pope Damasus a decree which anachronistically quotes St. Augustine. Furthermore, the tenor of the decree directly contradicts the behavior of his successor Pope Siricius, who declined to rule on the doctrine of a bishop Bonosus, claiming not to have the right to do so, and instead preferring to wait for the judgment of a synod (see Pope Siricius Epistle IX, Ad Anysium).

Again, I would like to see your source for your assertions made here. This came up in another thread,a MarcoPolo wrote:

Originally Posted by MarcoPolo
the Gelasian decree does not debunk Damasus’ decree as he asserts. Here is the pertinent excerpt from Jurgens’ Faith of the Early Fathers: Volume 1, page 404:

The first part of this decree has long been known as the Decree of Damasus, and concerns the Holy Spirit and the seven-fold gifts. The second part of the decree is more familiarly known as the opening part of the Gelasian Decree, in regard to the canon of Scripture: De libris recipiendis vel non recipiendis. It is now commonly held that the part of the Gelasian Decree dealing with the accepted canon of Scripture is an authentic work of the Council of Rome of 382 A.D. and that Gelasius edited it again at the end of the fifth century, adding to it the catalog of the rejected books, the apocrypha. It is now almost universally accepted that these parts one and two of the Decree of Damasus are authentic parts of the Acts of the Council of Rome of 382 A.D.

The assertion from Wiki that this decree of Damasus is a fraud is cross-referenced to an article which in turn cites a Ernst von Dobschutz. The reason he says the decree of Damasus is false is because within it is a quotation from Augustine from 416. He does not provide the quote or the context, but he therefore concludes that the entire decree cannot be attributed to Damasus. Wiki’s, and in turn RD’s entire allegation, are based on von Dobschutz’ claim.

But as you can see from Jurgens, the document did indeed undergo an edit after Augustine would have made his quote available to the world. This edit would in no way discredit the prior portions that were the authentic parts of Damasus’ Decree.

In summary the timeline would go like this.
382 - Pope Damasus makes his decree, lists the authentic canon (which would make sense in light of his order to Jerome to translate the canon)
416 - Augustine makes his comments.
ca. 490 - Gelasius takes Damasus’ decree, and edits it, adding to it

Von Dobschutz speciously takes the edits by Gelasius to discredit what was originally Damasus’. Given Damasus’ concern with the canon, the repeat of his canon at Hippo and Carthage, what Jurgens wrote of his decree is by far the more plausible explanation. And this is probably why, as Jurgens stated, the almost universally accepted position is that Damasus authored the parts on the canon at the Council of Rome.

Continued…

 

[LionHeart777]

Continued…

From Jurgens’ same work where that citation is found, as I posted in another thread in response to you, I wrote:

“‘In regard to the third part [which is the part I quoted from regarding Pope St. Damasus’ view on Rome’s Primacy]…opinion is still divided. C.H. Turner’s work failed to convince everyone, and while little has been written on the subject in most recent years, it must be pointed out that some still prefer to regard this part three as pertaining peculiarly to the Gelasian Decree, and in no way to the Decree of Damasus. We ourselves are satisfied by its manuscript attributions to Damasus, and by what seems to be strong internal evidence in favor of authenticity. Certainly, the explicit statement that Rome’s primacy is not based upon conciliar concession from other Churches would seem to be Damasus’ answer to Canon 3 of First Constantinople…’ (Jurgens, Williams A. ‘The Faith of the Early Fathers Volume 1’, The Liturgical Press. Collegeville, Minnesota: 1970. Pg. [406])”

 

[Cavaradossi]

Please see my post #366. Also, speaking of the actual “Letter to Peter”, none of the 2 works (both scholarly works–albeit dated) mention any doubt about it’s authenticity as I recollect. The only source(s) I have seen yet who doubt it are Orthodox posters on forums, if memory serves. Can you cite a scholarly source that backs up your claim that the “Letter to Peter” is spurious or of doubtful authenticity even? But again, my case doesn’t rest on an author here or an author there, and I don’t believe I ever cited the "Letter to Peter originally.

I already gave my reasons for its doubtful authenticity. It does not survive in Greek, and it is thus impossible to tell through stylistic analysis if the letter is genuine, or if the fragments which have been preserved are free of interpolations.

Again, I would like to see your source for your assertions made here. This came up in another thread,a MarcoPolo wrote:

That is a rather specious form of argumentation. Perhaps then we should argue that the Donation of Constantine is partially genuine and that some later Latin compiler edited it and added anachronisms which were not present in the original text. In fact, any document which has been shown to be of doubtful authenticity through textual and historical criticism could be defended in this fashion, that is by saying that “the general tenor of the text is authentic, even if interpolated passages are found in it which cast doubts upon its authenticity.” By this sort of defense, we could even defend the forged Decretals of Pseudo-Isidore from all textual and historical criticism. I could even forge a document today and defend it from any doubts as to its authenticity with that type of defense.

 

[Cavaradossi]

Continued…

From Jurgens’ same work where that citation is found, as I posted in another thread in response to you, I wrote:

“‘In regard to the third part [which is the part I quoted from regarding Pope St. Damasus’ view on Rome’s Primacy]…opinion is still divided. C.H. Turner’s work failed to convince everyone, and while little has been written on the subject in most recent years, it must be pointed out that some still prefer to regard this part three as pertaining peculiarly to the Gelasian Decree, and in no way to the Decree of Damasus. We ourselves are satisfied by its manuscript attributions to Damasus, and by what seems to be strong internal evidence in favor of authenticity. Certainly, the explicit statement that Rome’s primacy is not based upon conciliar concession from other Churches would seem to be Damasus’ answer to Canon 3 of First Constantinople…’ (Jurgens, Williams A. ‘The Faith of the Early Fathers Volume 1’, The Liturgical Press. Collegeville, Minnesota: 1970. Pg. [406])”

That is his opinion, and there are plenty of scholars who hold the opposite opinion but he does not answer for why there is an anachronous interpolation within a text attributed to Pope St. Damasus. If the text has been tampered with, and we cannot find any version without the interpolation, how can we be sure what if any part of it is genuine?

 

[SanctusPeccator]

The acts themselves say that the emperor decreed that Vigilius should be struck from the diptychs, and the bishops agreed to do so. Richard Price, who not only studied the acts of this council extensively but also translated them from Latin (for a scholarly work published by the university of Liverpool press) understood precisely that Pope Vigilius was struck from the diptychs (that is, excommunicated) in retaliation for his First Constitutum.

It would seem the elephant in the room is whether your assertion (à la Richard Price’s The Acts of the Council of Constantinople of 553) correct that one’s name being struck from the diptychs necessarily signifies they are essentially excommunicated?

That is a tortured reading of the events. Even Pope Vigilius conceded that he was in doctrinal error, claiming that he came to his first (incorrect) conclusion out of zeal and haste. In his letter to Eutychius of Constantinople (in which he annulled his First Constitutum), he wrote (as part of a preamble in which he justified the about-face he was about to perform in his letter): Therefore, if indeed in every matter the dictate of wisdom requires the revision of what has been investigated, and if there should be no shame when out of zeal for the truth what was at first overlooked is subsequently discovered and published, how much more is it appropriate for this to be observed in ecclesiastical matters? For it is manifest that our fathers, and especially the most blessed Augustine, the teacher of Roman eloquence who shone forth in sacred literature, revised his own writings, corrected his statements, and added what had been overlooked and subsequently discovered. We likewise, following these examples in the matter of the afore-mentioned Three Chapters, never discontinued our search for what relating to the afore-mentioned Three Chapters could be discovered in the writings of our fathers that was more true.

This purported problem of a pope retracting decisions regarding posthumous judgments of those who had formerly died at peace with the Church does seem to have been needlessly complicated by unwanted polemical considerations? While the moral character of Vigilius remains much debated, rather difficult to refute his retraction – after six months of being banished into close captivity on the desolate island of Prokonnesos in the Sea of Marmara – was ultimately made under duress?

But that reduces papal infallibility to meaninglessness because every bishop then, and indeed even every layman speaks infallibly and truthfully when he is not an heretic. But this defense does little for any defender of the First Vatican Council, because if the pope could be judged for heresy by an ecumenical council (not to mention the later depositions of Simoniacal Popes performed by the West alone after the schism) then this indicates that the primacy of the Roman Pontiff in the first millennium (and even in the early second) was understood firstly as a primacy of mediate jurisdiction (in contradiction of the primacy of immediate jurisdiction claimed by the First Vatican Council), and that the infallible doctrinal decisions of the papacy (which Bishop Gasser numbered in the thousands) are in fact in some sense contingent upon the consent of the Church, because with the body of the Church lies the power to determine if a Pope is an heretic (by your own admission).

If Vigilius was actually excommunicated [as a heretic], not sure why he would not have been explicitly anathematized by name, as per Honorius I in 680?

 

[Cavaradossi]

It would seem the elephant in the room is whether your assertion (à la Richard Price’s The Acts of the Council of Constantinople of 553) correct that one’s name being struck from the diptychs necessarily signifies they are essentially excommunicated?

Yes. The diptychs in ancient times were (and still to the present day are in Orthodoxy) the list of commemorations that bishops and priests read out during the liturgy. For one intentionally to strike a bishop’s name from the diptychs means that he has gone into schism from that particular bishop, considering him excommunicate. This is why Justinian in his edict to the council declared that Vigilius’ name was “alien to all Christians.”

This purported problem of a pope retracting decisions regarding posthumous judgments of those who had formerly died at peace with the Church does seem to have been needlessly complicated by unwanted polemical considerations? While the moral character of Vigilius remains much debated, rather difficult to refute his retraction – after six months of being banished into close captivity on the desolate island of Prokonnesos in the Sea of Marmara – was ultimately made under duress?

But one cannot simply excuse his retraction for the reason that it was perhaps made under duress. If one excuses his retraction saying that he was under duress, then his First Constitution is in fact still in force, meaning that the entire Fifth Ecumenical Council, which anathematized Theodore of Mopsuestia is under anathema according to Pope Vigilus’ First Constitution (which anathematized anybody who would anathematize those who died at peace with the church posthumously). Who are we to follow when a Council which claims to be Ecumenical has anathematized the theological position of a Pope (i.e., his defense of the person of Theodore of Mopsuestia, the anti-Cyrillian writings of Theodoret, and the letter to Mari), and the Pope has anathematized that council?

If Vigilius was actually excommunicated [as a heretic], not sure why he would not have been explicitly anathematized by name, as per Honorius I in 680?

Because excommunication is a less grave act that anathematizing somebody. When one is excommunicated, the hope is that he will see that he is in error and repent (as Pope Vigilius did when he recanted of his erroneous First Constitution). Pope Honorius was anathematized (along with Sergius and the other monothelites) because he, being dead, obviously could not repent.

 

[ufamtobie]

Did not forget-1978.

The pope should name his successor. The Vicar of Christ, who better? If the Pope is head of the Universal Church, why doesn’t he. We trust him to lead the church but not to name his successor?

Krazy Kat,

The Holy Spirit actually picks the new Pope, through the college of Cardinals. God Does the Choosing, not man, because the Catholic Church, is not a man made / invented Church.

This question to you here should give you a clue. Who Chose the 12 Apostles, was it man or Jesus Christ? If your answer is Jesus Christ, then you have answered your own question above, because, Jesus Christ is the “who better”

John 14: 18 I will not leave you orphans, I will come to you.

Ufam Tobie

 

[cath4alltime]

Krazy Kat,

The Holy Spirit actually picks the new Pope, through the college of Cardinals. God Does the Choosing, not man, because the Catholic Church, is not a man made / invented Church.

This question to you here should give you a clue. Who Chose the 12 Apostles, was it man or Jesus Christ? If your answer is Jesus Christ, then you have answered your own question above, because, Jesus Christ is the “who better”

John 14: 18 I will not leave you orphans, I will come to you.

Ufam Tobie

I was on another Catholic forum and they were talking about the election of the Holy Father and I quipped that the Holy Spirit chooses who is Pope and I was soundly told that I had no idea what I was talking about and that man do it only.

 

[SanctusPeccator]

SanctusPeccator;11195855:

It would seem the elephant in the room is whether your assertion (à la Richard Price’s The Acts of the Council of Constantinople of 553

) correct that one’s name being struck from the diptychs necessarily signifies they are essentially excommunicated?
Yes. The diptychs in ancient times were (and still to the present day are in Orthodoxy) the list of commemorations that bishops and priests read out during the liturgy. For one intentionally to strike a bishop’s name from the diptychs means that he has gone into schism from that particular bishop, considering him excommunicate. This is why Justinian in his edict to the council declared that Vigilius’ name was “alien to all Christians.”

If Vigilius was supposedly excommunicated, then it is most puzzling as to why he would not have been consequently deposed during the seventh and/or eighth session of Constantinople II?

SanctusPeccator;11195855:

This purported problem of a pope retracting decisions regarding posthumous judgments of those who had formerly died at peace with the Church does seem to have been needlessly complicated by unwanted polemical considerations? While the moral character of Vigilius remains much debated, rather difficult to refute his retraction – after six months of being banished into close captivity on the desolate island of Prokonnesos in the Sea of Marmara – was ultimately made under duress?

But one cannot simply excuse his retraction for the reason that it was perhaps made under duress. If one excuses his retraction saying that he was under duress, then his First Constitution is in fact still in force, meaning that the entire Fifth Ecumenical Council, which anathematized Theodore of Mopsuestia is under anathema according to Pope Vigilus’ First Constitution (which anathematized anybody who would anathematize those who died at peace with the church posthumously). Who are we to follow when a Council which claims to be Ecumenical has anathematized the theological position of a Pope (i.e., his defense of the person of Theodore of Mopsuestia, the anti-Cyrillian writings of Theodoret, and the letter to Mari), and the Pope has anathematized that council?

“Perhaps” is it? Are there any primary sources stating Vigilius’ confinement on Prokonnesos was undertaken of his own free will then? Further, why did the Byzantine Emperor Justinian I refuse to release Vigilius if he were already excommunicated? Appears securing the personal approval [for the condemnation of the Three Chapters] by an excommunicant would be a non sequitur?

SanctusPeccator;11195855:

If Vigilius was actually excommunicated [as a heretic], not sure why he would not have been explicitly anathematized by name, as per Honorius I in 680?

Because excommunication is a less grave act that anathematizing somebody. When one is excommunicated, the hope is that he will see that he is in error and repent (as Pope Vigilius did when he recanted of his erroneous First Constitution). Pope Honorius was anathematized (along with Sergius and the other monothelites) because he, being dead, obviously could not repent.

Since none of the fourteen condemnations from the conciliar decrees specifically mention Vigilius, rather skeptical how he could still be considered guilty of heresy?

 

[Cavaradossi]

If Vigilius was supposedly excommunicated, then it is most puzzling as to why he would not have been consequently deposed during the seventh and/or eighth session of Constantinople II?

This line of questioning is specious. It is a fact that in the Seventh Session of the Council, Pope Vigilius’ name was struck from the sacred diptychs and declared to be alien to all Christians. The Eight and final session was only carried out a week later. It is likely that there simply was not enough time to take motions against Pope Vigilius before the close of the council. Price’s analysis is that a deposition indeed would have followed, had Vigilius not changed his mind so quickly.

But beyond that, it was also more complicated of a matter than you give it credit for being (from a political and diplomatic perspective), because it would be a bit hasty to depose a bishop without involving the clergy and bishops from his own synod (and Pope Vigilius’ own synod certainly was not represented there at the Second Council of Constantinople). See, for example, the messy aftermath of the Council of Ephesus (eventually leading to the formula of union), when two separate and competing councils deposed several bishops without any representation from their respective synods (the formula of union, by the way, annulled several of these depositions, with the Cyrillian party contenting itself with the deposition and exile of Nestorius, and the Antiochene party contenting itself with the approval of dyophysite language). It is likely that Justinian, an ever crafty statesman, wanted to avoid an ecclesiastical crisis like the one after the First Council of Ephesus.

“Perhaps” is it? Are there any primary sources stating Vigilius’ confinement on Prokonnesos was undertaken of his own free will then?

You are dodging the question. If he reversed his earlier decision under duress, then this reversal should be invalid, meaning that Pope Vigilius’ anathema against the those who would posthumously anathematize people who died at peace with the Church (an act committed by both the Fifth and Sixth Ecumenical Councils) still stands. Who then was correct, Pope Vigilius or the Fifth and Sixth Ecumenical Councils?

Further, why did the Byzantine Emperor Justinian I refuse to release Vigilius if he were already excommunicated?

Perhaps he wished to do to Pope Vigilius what Belisarius did to Pope Silverius. Or perhaps he wished to keep Vigilius confined as a bargaining chip with the Roman Church, in order to convince them to elect a new bishop of Rome who would be more amenable to his religious policy. For Justinian, I have no doubt that, it was about statecraft, but I am no time-traveling mind-reader, so for you to ask me such questions is perhaps a bit unreasonable, is it not?

Appears securing the personal approval [for the condemnation of the Three Chapters] by an excommunicant would be a non sequitur?

That assumes to much. You assume that Justinian kept him confined in order to secure his approval. It is possible that Justinian kept Pope Vigilius banished and confined in order to begin negotiations with the clergy in Rome for his deposition.

Since none of the fourteen condemnations from the conciliar decrees specifically mention Vigilius, rather skeptical how he could still be considered guilty of heresy?

The council anathematized anybody who would defend the Three Chapters and the person of Theodore of Mopsuestia (and they did this knowing that Pope Vigilius had done both). Pope Vigilius did both in his First Constitution, and in return, also anathematized anybody who would posthumously anathematize the those who died at peace with the Church. The council, according to Vigilius’ Constitution not only fell under anathema but was completely null and void. Vigilius, in return, according to the eight session of the Council, fell under anathema, since he defended the person of Theodore of Mopsuestia and the Three Chapters. One need not name those who fall under an anathematism in order for the anathematism to apply to them.

 

[SanctusPeccator]

SanctusPeccator;11196412:

If Vigilius was supposedly excommunicated, then it is most puzzling as to why he would not have been consequently deposed during the seventh and/or eighth session of Constantinople II?

This line of questioning is specious. It is a fact that in the Seventh Session of the Council, Pope Vigilius’ name was struck from the sacred diptychs and declared to be alien to all Christians. The Eight and final session was only carried out a week later. It is likely that there simply was not enough time to take motions against Pope Vigilius before the close of the council. Price’s analysis is that a deposition indeed would have followed, had Vigilius not changed his mind so quickly.

How so? Seems the excommunication of such a prominent bishop purportedly guilty of heresy would be basically meaningless unless he were also promptly deposed from his see? As the extant acts from Constantinople II manifest no particular desire of Justinian I to conclude the conciliar proceedings within some preconceived time frame, “there simply was not enough time to take motions against Pope Vigilius before the close of the council” appears to be speculative conjecture?

But beyond that, it was also more complicated of a matter than you give it credit for being (from a political and diplomatic perspective), because it would be a bit hasty to depose a bishop without involving the clergy and bishops from his own synod (and Pope Vigilius’ own synod certainly was not represented there at the Second Council of Constantinople). See, for example, the messy aftermath of the Council of Ephesus (eventually leading to the formula of union), when two separate and competing councils deposed several bishops without any representation from their respective synods (the formula of union, by the way, annulled several of these depositions, with the Cyrillian party contenting itself with the deposition and exile of Nestorius, and the Antiochene party contenting itself with the approval of dyophysite language). It is likely that Justinian, an ever crafty statesman, wanted to avoid an ecclesiastical crisis like the one after the First Council of Ephesus.

Then where is the evidence [from the primary sources] to conclusively establish Justinian I had similar qualms exerting imperial pressure for deposing Vigilius’ predecessor (i.e., Pope Silverius in 537) or nominating his successor (i.e., Pelagius I in 556)?

SanctusPeccator;11196412:

“Perhaps” is it? Are there any primary sources stating Vigilius’ confinement on Prokonnesos was undertaken of his own free will then?

You are dodging the question. If he reversed his earlier decision under duress, then this reversal should be invalid, meaning that Pope Vigilius’ anathema against the those who would posthumously anathematize people who died at peace with the Church (an act committed by both the Fifth and Sixth Ecumenical Councils) still stands. Who then was correct, Pope Vigilius or the Fifth and Sixth Ecumenical Councils?

Not sure how one can infer any attempted evasion when no statement has been made contradicting these conciliar enactments? Apparently Vigilius’ primary concern was that the condemnation of the Three Chapters could tacitly be acknowledged to undermine the doctrinal authority of Chalcedon? Although Vigilius’ own retraction evidently speaks for itself with regard to your questions, the subsequent schism that occurred in the West strongly demonstrates his apprehension appears valid?

SanctusPeccator;11196412:

Further, why did the Byzantine Emperor Justinian I refuse to release Vigilius if he were already excommunicated?

Perhaps he wished to do to Pope Vigilius what Belisarius did to Pope Silverius. Or perhaps he wished to keep Vigilius confined as a bargaining chip with the Roman Church, in order to convince them to elect a new bishop of Rome who would be more amenable to his religious policy. For Justinian, I have no doubt that, it was about statecraft, but I am no time-traveling mind-reader, so for you to ask me such questions is perhaps a bit unreasonable, is it not?

If Vigilius has been truly excommunicated, how would he then have possessed any moral standing to have been manipulated by Justinian I for the future election of the next pope? Besides, posing such valid questions ought to be expected when one engages in personal conjecture beyond the stated facts, is it not?

SanctusPeccator;11196412:

Appears securing the personal approval [for the condemnation of the Three Chapters] by an excommunicant would be a non sequitur?

That assumes to much. You assume that Justinian kept him confined in order to secure his approval. It is possible that Justinian kept Pope Vigilius banished and confined in order to begin negotiations with the clergy in Rome for his deposition.

Given the fact Vigilius was only released from close confinement upon subscribing to the condemnation of the Three Chapters in his Second Constitutum, appears any speculation that his detention was somehow related to some hypothetical future deposition does appear rather tenuous?