C
CatholicHere_Hi
Guest
I was reading some of the replies on Shameless Popery, and one really stood out to me.
“This is most clearly seen with the so-called Robber Council, “Second Ephesus” in 449. Formally, it looks like an Ecumenical Council, but it was rejected with a single word by the papal legate (contradicitur!). As a result, it was never accepted as a Council. ”
Not quite: the Ecumenical Council of Chalcedon had to be called to nullify it, as its Acts make clear (see for instance the ratification of the elevation of Jerusalem back to a Patriarchate and the division between it and Antioch-contrary to the Codex Canonum Ecclesiarum Orientalium). It convened when called by the Emperor, not the archbishop of Old Rome (who had been demanding one for two years by then), was held in the East, not the West (as Old Rome wanted) and not only issued its own Definition instead of adopting the Tome of the archbishop of Old Rome (as he wanted), but subjected said Tome to scrutiny to a committee of Fathers to be examined for Orthodoxy-i.e. that it was issued ex cathedra Romae didn’t validate its contents. Which brings me to your prior assertion in the same paragraph:
“papal acceptance was a crucial component in a Council being an accepted (and therefore, authoritative and binding) Council.”
And so the claim that the Second Ecumenical Council-presided over by St. Meletius of Antioch and not the rival supported by Old Rome, Paulinus (whose line died out, and isn’t claimed even by the “patriarchates”-all 4 o them-the Vatican has claimed for Antioch)-didn’t become Ecumenical until Chalcedon. This presents the problem that Eutyches was condemned for denying the Creed as the Fathers of the Second Ecumenical Council set their seal on it. If Constantinople II lacks Ecumenical character, then Pope Dioscoros and his Ephesus II stood in the right. However, the legate of Old Rome
“Paschasinus the most devout bishop said: ‘Look, in accordance with the will of God [and the Second Ecumenical Council, canon III] we give first place to the lord [Archbishop St.] Anatolius [of Constantinople, New Rome]. But they [Pope Dioscoros and the council of Ephesus II] put the blessed [Archbishop St.] Flavian [of Constantinople, New Rome] fifth.
“This is most clearly seen with the so-called Robber Council, “Second Ephesus” in 449. Formally, it looks like an Ecumenical Council, but it was rejected with a single word by the papal legate (contradicitur!). As a result, it was never accepted as a Council. ”
Not quite: the Ecumenical Council of Chalcedon had to be called to nullify it, as its Acts make clear (see for instance the ratification of the elevation of Jerusalem back to a Patriarchate and the division between it and Antioch-contrary to the Codex Canonum Ecclesiarum Orientalium). It convened when called by the Emperor, not the archbishop of Old Rome (who had been demanding one for two years by then), was held in the East, not the West (as Old Rome wanted) and not only issued its own Definition instead of adopting the Tome of the archbishop of Old Rome (as he wanted), but subjected said Tome to scrutiny to a committee of Fathers to be examined for Orthodoxy-i.e. that it was issued ex cathedra Romae didn’t validate its contents. Which brings me to your prior assertion in the same paragraph:
“papal acceptance was a crucial component in a Council being an accepted (and therefore, authoritative and binding) Council.”
And so the claim that the Second Ecumenical Council-presided over by St. Meletius of Antioch and not the rival supported by Old Rome, Paulinus (whose line died out, and isn’t claimed even by the “patriarchates”-all 4 o them-the Vatican has claimed for Antioch)-didn’t become Ecumenical until Chalcedon. This presents the problem that Eutyches was condemned for denying the Creed as the Fathers of the Second Ecumenical Council set their seal on it. If Constantinople II lacks Ecumenical character, then Pope Dioscoros and his Ephesus II stood in the right. However, the legate of Old Rome
“Paschasinus the most devout bishop said: ‘Look, in accordance with the will of God [and the Second Ecumenical Council, canon III] we give first place to the lord [Archbishop St.] Anatolius [of Constantinople, New Rome]. But they [Pope Dioscoros and the council of Ephesus II] put the blessed [Archbishop St.] Flavian [of Constantinople, New Rome] fifth.
