What is the Orthodox opinions on Pope?

[josie_L]

There is nothing remarkable about Boniface, Archbishop of Rome, attempting to exercise authority over Illyricum, an area over which he traditionally had jurisdiction. It is in fact as unremarkable as the Archbishop of Alexandria attempting to exercise his own jurisdiction over Africa. Pope Boniface at that time was facing a crisis in Illyricum. In fact, a party of Illyrian bishops managed, just a year later in 421, to have the Eastern Emperor, Theodosius II, transfer jurisdiction over Illyricum from Rome to Constantinople. It was only through the intervention of the Western Emperor, Honorius, that Pope Boniface convinced Theodosius II to reverse his decree.

Let me recall what Michael had said in order to put into context what I said:

“Bishops of Rome did not name bishops outside of their own synod (central Italy, basically). Selection of bishops was a primarily local affair.”

It is not true that “selection of bishops was primarily a local affair” or that popes “did not name bishops outside of their own synod (central Italy basically)”, as the case of Pope St. Boniface and the bishops of Thessaly demonstrate, i.e., the affirmation/confirmation of Rufus, a representative of the pope, was needed in order that the bishop in question be recognized by the Pope.

In the East he zealously maintained his jurisdiction over the ecclesiastical provinces of Illyricurn, of which the Patriarch of Constantinople was trying to secure control on account of their becoming a part of the Eastern empire. The Bishop of Thessalonica had been constituted papal vicar in this territory, exercising jurisdiction over the metropolitans and bishops. By letters to Rufus, the contemporary incumbent of the see, Boniface watched closely over the interests of the Illyrian church and insisted on obedience to Rome. In 421 dissatisfaction expressed by certain malcontents among the bishops, on account of the pope’s refusal to confirm the election of Perigines as Bishop of Corinth unless the candidate was recognized by Rufus, served as a pretext for the young emperor Theodosius II to grant the ecclesiastical dominion of Illyricurn to the Patriarch of Constantinople (14 July, 421). Boniface remonstrated with Honorius against the violation of the rights of his see, and prevailed upon him to urge Theodosius to rescind his enactment.

newadvent.org/cathen/02658a.htm

I still don’t understand how within that quote that was given, you could have missed this:

**The institution of the Universal Church took its beginning from the honour bestowed on blessed Peter, in whom its Government and Headship reside. For from him, as its Source, did ecclesiastical discipline flow over all the churches, when the culture of religion had begun to make progress. The precepts of the Synod of Nicea bear no other testimony; insomuch that that Synod did not attempt to make any regulations in his regard, as it saw that nothing could be conferred that was superior to his won dignity (merit); it knew, in fine, that everything had been bestowed on him by the Word of the Lord. It is, therefore, certain that this Church is to the churches spread over the whole world, as the Head is to its own members; from which Church whoso has cut himself off becomes an alien from the Christian religion, whereas he has begun not to be in the same bonds of fellowship. **Now I hear that certain Bishops, the Apostolic right despised, are attempting a novelty which is in direct opposition to the special injunctions of Christ, seeing that they are trying to separate themselves from communion, or, to speak more correctly, from the communion of the Apostolic See; seeking aid from men to whom the regulations of the Church have never given their sanction that they should be of superior authority. . . . Receive, therefore, from us an admonition, and a rebuke, of which we offer one to the Prelates (who side with us), the other to the separatists (quoting 1 Cor. iv.21) . . . For you know that both are in blessed Peter’s power, - to rebuke, that is, with meekness the meek, and the proud with a rod. Wherefore, show to the Head the honour due to it; for we would not have the members at variance with each other, as the strife between them reaches unto us, when our brother and fellow-bishop, Rufus, is accounted by you a person to be condemned . . . It is not becoming in the brethren to feel galled at another’s power. Assuredly, as the Apostolic See holds the princedom for this, that it may receive the lawful complaints of all, if in anything his correction seemed to be excessive, it became you, by sending an embassy to appeal to us, upon whom you may see the charge of everything devolves, , , Let this novel presumption cease. Let everyone who accounts himself a bishop, obey our ordinance. Let no one presume to ordain Bishops throughout Illyricum, without our fellow Bishop Rufus privy to it,"

Bishop Rufus (Thessalonica) acted as the vicar of the Bishop of Rome (Pope Boniface)

 

[josie_L]

St. Athanasius certainly did not think himself an innovator. The controversy over the homoousion was at its heart centered around the question of which interpretation of a universally accepted set of Scriptural affirmations about the Word was correct. So inimical was the idea of a developing faith to the fourth century Christians, that even the Arians and Eunomians claimed that their interpretations of the Scriptures were the true ones which had been believed since the beginning.

By “developed” I don’t mean inventing something new, i.e., adding/subtracting/changing the deposit of faith. I mean simply that our understanding of things grew more pronounced with time. I would imagine that is one of the functions of theology.

 

[josie_L]

Let me recall what Michael had said in order to put into context what I said:

It is not true that “selection of bishops was primarily a local affair” or that popes “did not name bishops outside of their own synod (central Italy basically)”, as the case of Pope St. Boniface and the bishops of Thessaly demonstrate, i.e., the affirmation/confirmation of Rufus, a representative of the pope, was needed in order** that the bishop in question** be recognized by the Pope.

By “Bishop in question” I mean that bishop whom Rufus was or was not to confirm (Peregines).

 

[Marybeloved]

St. Athanasius certainly did not think himself an innovator. The controversy over the homoousion was at its heart centered around the question of which interpretation of a universally accepted set of Scriptural affirmations about the Word was correct. So inimical was the idea of a developing faith to the fourth century Christians, that even the Arians and Eunomians claimed that their interpretations of the Scriptures were the true ones which had been believed since the beginning.

Cavaradossi, your use of the term ‘innovator’ here is very misleading. Josie has clearly argued that the beliefs in papal prerogatives, just like Holy scripture, the Trinity, hypostatic union, was always believed though the intricacies and full implications of them not always clearly understood. Your intimating that she’s trying to establish grounds to justify that we are permitted to innovate and even fancy ourselves innovators is misplaced. Saying that there were different beliefs of the Trinity is true, which is what we are saying of the papacy. Unless you’re trying to say and I dont see how, that there’s absolutely no evidence of primitive forms of this belief in the prerogatives of Roman Bishops among several other beljefs, even contradicting it, I dont see how your comment addresses the points Josie was making about the development of all those doctrines.

 

[GaryTaylor]

Right which is what Bl Newman explains in his “Development of Christian Doctrine.”

 

[josie_L]

I would like to quote Adrian Fortesque in his book “The Early Papacy: to the Synod of Chalcedon of 451” to put into perspective “development of doctrine”:

"Has the papacy grown? In a sense it has, just as every dogma of the Church may be said to have grown. We come here to that question of the development of doctrine, of which much might be said. At any rate, let us understand clearly that there is no special question of the papacy here. If you say that the papacy has grown, you must equally say that the doctrine of the real presence has grown since the definition of transubstantion in 1215, that the doctrine of the Trinity grew by the decision of 325. That is to say, when a point of faith is disputed, when some new heresy arises, the Church makes her mind clear by defining more explicitly what she has always held. She forbids a false interpretation of the faith, and so she makes it more definite. Hence vague statements, harmless before controversy began, become impossible after the definition. But we do not admit that this development means any real addition to the faith; it is only a more explicit assertion of the old faith, necessary in view of false interpretations. A conspicuous case of this is the declaration of papal infallibility by the First Vatican council. The early Church recognized that the pope has the final word in matters of faith, no less than in those of discipline, that she herself is protected by God against heresy. Put that together, and you have, implicitly, what the Council defined.

 

[josie_L]

The Council’s response is equally elucidating. After Lucentius finished listing this charge—a charge which was unfounded, as it was in fact Emperor Theodosius II who had called Ephesus II, not Dioscoros

Firstly, you misunderstood the quote and that can be attributed to the word “make”, i.e.,

It is necessary that he give an account for his judgment, because, although it was not his place to act as judge, he presumed and dared to make a synod without the authority of the Apostolic See, which was never lawful [and] was never done. [ACO II, Vol. 3, Pt. 1, 40]

The papal legate does not mean that he summoned the (“ecumenical”) council, but rather that he maintained control of the council without allowing the legates who were present at that council to talk or to read “the epistolica dogmatica” written by Pope St. Leo I (the epistle that was sent to poor St. Flavius of Constantinople prior to the council), in fact, when I was reading up on the Acts of the Council of Chalcedon on the Fordham site, it used the word “hold” rather than “make”:

Lucentius, the most reverend bishop having the place of the Apostolic See, said: Let him give a reason for his judgment. For he undertook to give sentence against one over whom he had no jurisdiction. And he** dared to hold a** synod without the authority of the Apostolic See, a thing which had never taken place nor can take place. (2)

In light of what I just said this would make sense because he did dare to hold a synod without following the necessary procedures that are usually reserved for universal councils, i.e., by barring the papal legates from speaking with the authority vested by them by the Apostolic see (not to mention the sentence he placed on several members of that council which he had no jurisdiction over). The Robber council, a term coined by Pope Leo I was in fact named so because Dioscorus did everything in his power to control the council by use of force:

"In 449, a council which was ecumenical in its composition assembled at Ephesus. The whole Eastern church was represented. The legates of Pope Leo were also present, but were not allowed to preside over the council. Dioscorus, guarded by the imperial officers [courtesy of the emperor who sided with Dioscorus] and attended by his Egyptian bishops and a mob of clerics armed with staffs, presided like a king holding court. . .

The orthodox bishops were given tablets on which nothing was written and to which they were compelled to put their signatures, knowing that a heretical formula would be immediately inscribed to sign with certain reservations, but the Egyptian clergy tore the tablets from their hands, breaking their fingers with blows from their staffs. Finally, Dioscorus rose and in the name of the council pronounced sentence of condemnation against Flavian, who was deposed, excommunicated, and handed over to the secular arm. Flavian tried to protest, but Dioscorus’ clerics fell on him and handled him so roughly that he died within two days.

It was only the papal legate, Hilary, the deacon of the Roman Church, that cried out "Contradicitur! ("it is contradicted), thereby, resulting in the assembling of the true ecumenical council of Chalcedon two years later.

and because Pope Leo in fact acquiesced to the will of Theodosius II, despite his objections, just as Pope Leo acquiesced to the will of Emperor Marcian, despite his objections to the council convening in Chalcedon

Now I have a couple of qualms with this because it seems a little truncated and somewhat lacking in context. According to the Catholic Encyclopedia:

Theodosius II, who sympathized with Eutyches, approved these violent deeds; Leo I, on the other hand, when fully informed of the occurrences at Ephesus, condemned, in a Roman synod and in several letters, all the Acts of the so-called council. He refused also to recognize Anatolius as lawful Bishop of Constantinople, at least until the latter would give satisfaction concerning his belief. At the same time he requested the emperor to order the holding of a new council in Italy, to right the wrongs committed at Ephesus. As a special reason for the opportuneness, and even necessity, of the new council, he alleged the appeal of the deposed Flavian of Constantinople. Theodosius, however, positively declined to meet the wishes of the pope. At this stage the sudden death of the emperor (28 July, 450) changed at once the religious situation in the East. Theodosius was succeeded by his sister, Pulcheria, who offered her hand, and with it the imperial throne, to a brave general named Marcian (450-57). Both Marcian and Pulcheria were opposed to the new teaching of Dioscurus and Eutyches; and Marcian at once informed Leo I of his willingness to call a new council according to the previous desire of the pope.

Now the article doesn’t mention whether Pope St. Leo I “acquiesed” to Theodosius II with regard to the Council of Ephesus, but it certainly states that after this robber council, Leo most certainly requested another council to be held (in Rome), although Theodosius II refused, Marcian the new emperor did not, in fact, there is a letter highlighting this mentioned in the Catholic Encyclopedia:

As soon as he was crowned he wrote a very friendly and respectful letter to Pope Leo I (440-461), whom he calls the guardian of the Faith, asking for his prayers, and declaring himself anxious to support the council proposed by the pope (soû a’uthentoûntos) in order to settle the question raised by Eutyches, Dioscurus, and their friends (ep. lxxiii among St. Leo’s letters; Mansi, VI, 99). Pulcheria also wrote; she too says that the council shall be summoned by the pope’s authority.

Now the letter in question I do not have in full (however you can download it), but it must be to this letter that the Catholic Encyclopedia is referring to:

Byzantine Emperor St. Marcian (February 17 EO) says in 450 [Letter 73 to Pope St. Leo I the Great of Rome in Mansi VI:93AB]: “In all that concerns the Catholic religion and the faith of Christians, we have thought it right to approach in the first place Your Holiness who is overseer and guardian of the divine faith.”

Byzantine Empress St. Pulcheria (September 10) says in 450 [Letter 77 to Pope St. Leo I the Great of Rome in Mansi VI:101D] that she is confident that the Ecumenical Council of Chalcedon “will define the Catholic belief by your authority, as Christian faith and piety require.”

catholicpatristics.blogspot.ca/ (scroll down the page until you come to his quote)

Pope St. Leo did have a change a mind over holding a council but due to Rome’s precarious position with the invasion of the Huns, and the acceptance of Pope St. Leo’s epistle by the bishops of the East (he sent out letters) thereby summoning an ecumenical council (which was difficult to put together) unnecessary:

In the meantime conditions had changed. Anatolius of Constantinople, and with him many other bishops, condemned the teaching of Eutyches and accepted the dogmatic epistle of Pope Leo. Any new discussions concerning the Christian Faith seemed therefore superfluous. Western Europe, moreover, was in a state of turmoil owing to the invasion of the Huns under Attila, for which reason most of the Western bishops could not attend a council to be held in the East. Leo I therefore protested repeatedly against a council and wrote in this sense to the Emperor Marcian, the Empress Pulcheria, Anatolius of Constantinople, and Julian of Cos;** all these letters bear the date of 9 June, 451. Meanwhile, 17 May, 451, a decree was issued by Marcian — in the name also of the Western Emperor Valentinian III (425-55)** — ordering all metropolitan bishops with a number of their suffragan bishops to assemble the following September at Nicaea in Bithynia, there to hold a general council for the purpose of settling the questions of faith recently called in doubt.newadvent.org/cathen/03555a.htm

Notice that the date which Pope St. Leo wrote on the 9 of June 451 never reached Marcian until after his decree of May 17 451.

the senate continued to press the papal legates for a specific charge against Dioscoros, indicating that they did not accept this particular accusation. It was not until Lucentius pointed out that it would be inappropriate for one who was summoned to be charged with crimes (he wrote: ‘We will not tolerate so great an outrage both to you and to us as to have this person taking his seat when he has been summoned to judgement.’), that the senate bid Dioscoros to be seated in the center of the council so that charges against him, written by those whom he allegedly had wronged, could be read out.

I don’t know if they did not accept this particular accusation but they most certainly were not aware of what had happened at the Robber Council in Ephesus, I say this because during session 2 of the Council, the members reply as such:

. . . This is the true faith. Those of us who are orthodox thus believe. This is the faith of the fathers. Why were not these things read at Ephesus * ? These are the things Dioscorus hid away.*

Everything I have read concerning Pope St. Leo I all the way up to Chalcedon leads to one conclusion, that Pope St. Leo I was able to reinstate bishops outside of his supposed jurisdiction, that he was appealed to by all members of the Church, including patriarchs, noting that he could set right the wrongs that were made, and that this sentence would be final. He or rather his office was made the last court of appeal for any who sought it out be it the orthodox or heretic.

 

[Cavaradossi]

Firstly, you misunderstood the quote and that can be attributed to the word “make”, i.e.,

The papal legate does not mean that he summoned the (“ecumenical”) council, but rather that he maintained control of the council without allowing the legates who were present at that council to talk or to read “the epistolica dogmatica” written by Pope St. Leo I (the epistle that was sent to poor St. Flavius of Constantinople prior to the council), in fact, when I was reading up on the Acts of the Council of Chalcedon on the Fordham site, it used the word “hold” rather than “make”:

In light of what I just said this would make sense because he did dare to hold a synod without following the necessary procedures that are usually reserved for universal councils, i.e., by barring the papal legates from speaking with the authority vested by them by the Apostolic see (not to mention the sentence he placed on several members of that council which he had no jurisdiction over). The Robber council, a term coined by Pope Leo I was in fact named so because Dioscorus did everything in his power to control the council by use of force:

It was only the papal legate, Hilary, the deacon of the Roman Church, that cried out "Contradicitur! ("it is contradicted), thereby, resulting in the assembling of the true ecumenical council of Chalcedon two years later.

Yes, but what gives you justification for reading the charge made by Lucentius in this manner? The interpretation I gave is the interpretation given in the edition of the Acts of Chalcedon translated by Richard Price. He writes in his footnote on the matter: Ephesus II was in fact called by Theodosius II. He summoned Pope Leo to it, who responded, ‘I have exerted myself to obey your clemency’s commands in some measure by sending from here brethren of mine … who can represent me’ (ep. 37). Wholly similar was the way in which the Council of Chalcedon was convened contrary to Leo’s wishes but with his acquiescence in the imperial will (Documents before the Council 5–7). Lucentius’ charge was therefore unfounded.
Unless you have any additional scholarly interpretations to supply, or have access to the acts in the original language, I don’t see how we can go any further in ascertaining what Lucentius’ charge meant

Now I have a couple of qualms with this because it seems a little truncated and somewhat lacking in context. According to the Catholic Encyclopedia:

Now the article doesn’t mention whether Pope St. Leo I “acquiesed” to Theodosius II with regard to the Council of Ephesus, but it certainly states that after this robber council, Leo most certainly requested another council to be held (in Rome), although Theodosius II refused, Marcian the new emperor did not, in fact, there is a letter highlighting this mentioned in the Catholic Encyclopedia:

I think you are misinterpreting what I wrote. My meaning was that Pope Leo acquiesced to Emperor Theodosius’ demand to convene a council. He does so in his epistle 37. This is why Price writes that Lucentius’ charge against Dioscoros was unfounded

Now the letter in question I do not have in full (however you can download it), but it must be to this letter that the Catholic Encyclopedia is referring to:

We must not allow such florid honorific speech fool us. Pope Leo writes similarly deferential statements things back to the Emperor and Empress.

For example, he writes to Emperor Marcian: The subsequent synod in the aforesaid city [Ephesus] we cannot call a council, since it is clear that it was set in motion for the overthrow of the faith; your clemency, about to give assistance to Catholics through love of the truth, will annul it by determining otherwise, most glorious one.

Leo, ep. 90
He writes to Empress Pulcheria: That which we always presumed about your piety’s disposition, we have now fully discovered by experience – that, however varied the plots of wicked men by which it is assailed, nevertheless when you are present and equipped by the Lord for its defence the Catholic faith cannot be shaken. For God does not neglect either the mystery of his mercy or the deserts of your labour, by which you formerly expelled the crafty foe of holy religion from the very vitals of the church, when the Nestorian impiety was unable to maintain its heresy, for the reason that it did not escape the handmaid and pupil of the truth how much poison was poured into simple people by the specious lies of that glib man. It was a consequence of this trial of strength that through your solicitude the machinations of the devil contrived by means of Eutyches did not remain hid, and those who had embraced one or other side in this twinned impiety were laid low by the single power of the catholic faith. Your second victory was therefore the destruction of Eutyches’ error, which, if he had had any soundness of mind, he could easily have avoided, since it had been repulsed in its originators and long ago laid low, rather than trying to stir the fire into life from the buried ashes, in such a way as to share the lot of those whose example he followed, most glorious. We wish, therefore, to jump for joy and to fulfil appropriate vows to God for your clemency’s prosperity, for he has already bestowed on you a double palm and crown through all parts of the world where the gospel of the Lord is preached.

Your clemency’s religious solicitude, which you unceasingly devote to the catholic faith, I recognize in everything, and give thanks to God at seeing you taking such care of the universal church that I can confidently recommend what I think agreeable to justice and benevolence, in order that there may the more swiftly be brought to a welcome issue what through the favour of Christ has hitherto been unimpeachably achieved by the zeal of your piety, most glorious one.

Leo, ep. 95

Pope St. Leo did have a change a mind over holding a council but due to Rome’s precarious position with the invasion of the Huns, and the acceptance of Pope St. Leo’s epistle by the bishops of the East (he sent out letters) thereby summoning an ecumenical council (which was difficult to put together) unnecessary:

Notice that the date which Pope St. Leo wrote on the 9 of June 451 never reached Marcian until after his decree of May 17 451.

I’m not sure what you’re trying to say here. The Pope didn’t want for the council to be held in the East, but once Marcian sent letters out summoning the bishops to attend a council, he relented, and sent a legate to the council.

I don’t know if they did not accept this particular accusation but they most certainly were not aware of what had happened at the Robber Council in Ephesus, I say this because during session 2 of the Council, the members reply as such:

They were all aware of what had happened at Ephesus II by the second session. The first session served as a hearing of sorts, where they read sections of the minutes of Ephesus II to determine if the charges of the plaintiffs against Dioscoros were worthy of going to trial (the trial was held in the third session). But this particular charge that Dioscoros held the council without the approval of the bishop of Rome seemed only to be repeated by the papal legates, without receiving much traction with the Eastern bishops or the Senate. It would seem then that they did not regard this particular charge to be any sort of misconduct.

Everything I have read concerning Pope St. Leo I all the way up to Chalcedon leads to one conclusion, that Pope St. Leo I was able to reinstate bishops outside of his supposed jurisdiction, that he was appealed to by all members of the Church, including patriarchs, noting that he could set right the wrongs that were made, and that this sentence would be final. He or rather his office was made the last court of appeal for any who sought it out be it the orthodox or heretic.

But if this were true, why was the entire eighth session of the council dedicated to reinstating Theodoret? Should not have St. Leo’s authority been enough? Instead, the council demanded that he first anathematize Nestorius, and then when he anathematized Nestorius, they decided that his rejection of Nestorius and his communion with Pope Leo were grounds enough for him to be reinstated.

 

[mercytruth]

I would like to quote Adrian Fortesque in his book “The Early Papacy: to the Synod of Chalcedon of 451” to put into perspective “development of doctrine”:

It is very difficult for me to understand how there can be a development in expanding the jurisdiction of the papacy of Rome that is contrary to the agreement of the church of the East. Especially, when these original jurisdictional canons were pronounced as divine ordinances.

For example, we have Bishops Phileas, Hesychius, Pachomius and Theodorus of Egypt reproving their fellow Bishop Meletius of Lycopolis (who later was excommunicated for his insubordination) for ordaining bishops in other parishes (circa 305 AD):

We have not delayed, however, by a short statement to prove your practice wrong. There is the law of our fathers and forefathers, of which neither art thou thyself ignorant, established according to divine and ecclesiastical order; for it is all for the good pleasure of God and the zealous regard. of better things. By them it has been established and settled that it is not lawful for any bishop to celebrate ordinations in other parishes than his own; a law which is exceedingly important and wisely devised

In this joint epistle by these four bishops of Egypt to Bishop Meletius, they go on to write:

And what means will be left thee for justifying thyself with respect to these things? But perhaps thou wilt say: I did this to prevent many being drawn away with the unbelief of many, because the flocks were in need and forsaken, there being no pastor with them. Well, but it is most certain that they are not in such destitution: in the first place, because there are many going about them and in a position to act as visitors; and in the second place, even if there was some measure of neglect on their side, then the proper way would have been for the representation to be made promptly by the people, and for us to take account of them according to their desert

Bishop Phileas on behalf of the other three bishops of Egypt continues with these words to Bishop Melitus:

And if perchance some persuaded you to credit their story that it was all over with us,—a thing of which thou couldest not have been ignorant, because there were many passing and repassing by us who might visit you,—even although, I say, this had been the case, yet thou oughtest to have waited for the judgment of the superior father and for his allowance of this practice. But without giving any heed to these matters, I but indulging a different expectation, yea rather, indeed, denying all respect to us, thou hast provided certain rulers for the people. For now we have learned, too, that there were also divisions, because thy unwarrantable exercise of the right of ordination displeased many

The Epistle of the Same Phileas of Thmuis to Meletius, Bishop of Lycopolis
arthursclassicnovels.com/bible/anf06.htm
newadvent.org/cathen/10164a.htm

From the Canons of the Constitutions of the Apostles, Book VIII:

1. **The bishops of every country ought to know who is the chief among them, and to esteem him as their head, and not to do any great thing without his consent; but every one to manage only the affairs that belong to his own parish, and the places subject to it. But let him not do anything without the consent of all; for it is by this means there will be unanimity, and God will be glorified by Christ, in the Holy Spirit. **
2. **A bishop must not venture to ordain out of his own bounds for cities or countries that are not subject to him. But if he be convicted of having done so without the consent of such as governed those cities or countries, let him be deprived, both the bishop himself and those whom he has ordained. **

**Let these canonical rules be established by us for you, O you bishops; and if you continue to observe them, you shall be saved, and shall have peace; but if you be disobedient, you shall be punished, and have everlasting war one with another, and undergo a penalty suitable to your disobedience. **

newadvent.org/fathers/07158.htm

With these early church documents in mind, we should be endeavoring to restore the unity of the body of our Lord Jesus Christ.

God’s will be done on earth as it is in heaven.

 

[rinnie]

The problem is that view never existed in the early Church. Being a leader doesn’t mean the others are subordinate to you. You know, that is why Jesus washed the feet of the Apostles and all.

Yes, while I agree that Jesus did indeed serve the others, he was still the leader of them.

Now you said the view of leader never existed in the early church. Then why did Peter stand up and say brothers and sisters it is clear that God made his CHOICE among us it is through MY MOUTH acts 15:6

Now while I agree Peter found himself no better then the others, and considered himself an equal, we are all considered that way in the eyes of God.

But none of us being better then another in the eyes of God, truly has nothing to do with the Job Peter had placed upon him.

Does scripture say it is through MY MOUTH that the word is given to the gentiles. Is that not us? Are we not told to obey the teaching’s of Peter aka the Pope?

 

[josie_L]

It is very difficult for me to understand how there can be a development in expanding the jurisdiction of the papacy of Rome that is contrary to the agreement of the church of the East. Especially, when these original jurisdictional canons were pronounced as divine ordinances.

Mercytruth, Adrian Fortesque nor I are promulgating the idea that the development (of our understanding) of the papacy includes expanding his jurisdiction, Peter and his successors have always had universal jurisdiction as per Scripture and Tradition. We see this application of universal jurisdiction when heretics and orthodox alike come to Rome seeking out a sentence in their favor, i.e., Rome was in essence a last court of appeal (for all churches), and for it to be able to function effectively it had to have had universal jurisdiction so that those sentences could be upheld.

“To receive an appeal and revise a trial is the plainest possible case of [universal] jurisdiction. These canons became common law in the East and West. In the West they were incorporated into the Corpus iuris canonici; in the East they were confirmed by the Synod of Constantinople in Trullo (692).” [these would be the canons of Sardica in 344]

This does not mean that Rome could interfere **willy nilly ** into the affairs of other churches, but it was necessary for Rome to know what was going on in other Churches in order to ensure that the faith was being upheld (that is why newly ordained bishops, including the bishops of Constantinople (Anatolius) would send letters to Rome pronouncing their ordination and orthodoxy). The Greek Sozomenus said “Since the care [recollect the words of Christ to Peter] of all was his affair, because of the rank of his see, he gave back each his own Church.” He is referring to Pope St. Julius who when having received the appeal of Eastern bishops during the days of Arianism wrote, " Do you not know that this is the custom, that first you must write to us, and that here what is just shall be decreed", ‘again’: “it is not right to make laws for the Churches apart from the knowledge of the bishop of Rome.” Many fathers of the Church attest to this universal jurisdiction (without actually using the words “universal jurisdiction”) of the pope in Rome, one such case is St. Maximus the Confessor who, “in a letter to the governor of Syria and Palestine, who had written to ask whether the deposed patriarch of Constantinople, Pyrrhus, was a heretic. St. Maximus defers judgment to the pope and the Church of Rome.”

"[The authorities in Constantinople] have not conformed to the sense of the Apostolic See. And what is laughable — or rather lamentable, because it proves their ignorance — is that they have not hesitated to lie against the Apostolic See itself. . . Moreover, they have claimed the great [deceased Pope], Honorius to be on their side . . . What did the divine Honorius do, and after him the aged Severinus, and John who followed him? Yet, further what supplication has the blessed pope, who now sits, not made? Have not the whole East and West brought their tears, laments, and pleas, both before God in prayer and before men in their letters? If the Roman See recognizes [the former patriarch of Constantinople] Pyrrhus to be not only a reprobate but a heretic, it is certainly plain that everyone who rejects those who have rejected Pyrrhus, rejects the See of Rome itself – that is, he rejects the Catholic Church. I need hardly add that he excommunicates himself as well, if indeed he is in communion with the Roman See and the Church of God . . . It is not right that the one who has been condemned and cast out by the Apostolic See of the city of Rome for his wrong opinions should be named with any kind of honor, until he is received by her, having returned to her – no, to our Lord – by a pious confession and orthodox faith. Only by this can he receive holiness and the tide of holy . . .

** Let him hasten first of all to satisfy the Roman See, for if it is satisfied everyone will agree to call him pious and orthodox. For it is futile for anyone to try to persuade or entrap someone like me without trying instead to satisfy and implore the blessed pope of the most holy Church of the Romans. For that is the Apostolic See, which has received, from the incarnate Son of God himself, universal and supreme dominion authority, and the power of binding and loosing over all the holy churches of God.** This is confirmed by all holy synods , according to the holy canons and definitions, which are in the whole world. For with it the Word, who is above the celestial powers, binds and looses in heaven as well.

If [Pyrrhus] thinks he must satisfy others, but fails to implore the most blessed Roman pope, he is acting like a man who, when accused of murder or some other crime, wastes his time proving his innocence to private individuals, who have no power to acquit him, rather than to the judge appointed by law.

p.s. It was also pronounced at a universally accepted ecumenical council (Nicea) that Alexandria and Antioch (both Petrine sees) were to have 2nd and 3rd place within the Church, and yet that was changed.

 

[mercytruth]

Mercytruth, Adrian Fortesque nor I are promulgating the idea that the development (of our understanding) of the papacy includes expanding his jurisdiction, Peter and his successors have always had universal jurisdiction as per Scripture and Tradition. We see this application of universal jurisdiction when heretics and orthodox alike come to Rome seeking out a sentence in their favor, i.e., Rome was in essence a last court of appeal, and for it to be able to function properly it had to have had universal jurisdiction so that those sentences could be upheld.

“To receive an appeal and revise a trial is the plainest possible case of [universal] jurisdiction. These canons became common law in the East and West. In the West they were incorporated into the Corpus iuris canonici; in the East they were confirmed by the Synod of Constantinople in Trullo (692).” [these would be the canons of Sardica in 344]

This does not mean that Rome could interfere **willy nilly ** into the affairs of other churches, but it was necessary for Rome to know what was going on in other Churches in order to ensure that the faith was being upheld (that is why newly ordained bishops, including the bishops of Constantinople (Anatolius) would send letters to Rome pronouncing their ordination and orthodoxy). The Greek Sozomenus said “Since the care [recollect the words of Christ to Peter] of all was his affair, because of the rank of his see, he gave back each his own Church.” He is referring to Pope St. Julius who when having received the appeal of Eastern bishops during the days of Arianism wrote, " Do you not know that this is the custom, that first you must write to us, and that here what is just shall be decreed", ‘again’: “it is not right to make laws for the Churches apart from the knowledge of the bishop of Rome.” Many fathers of the Church attest to this universal jurisdiction (without actually using the words “universal jurisdiction”) of the pope in Rome, one such case is St. Maximus the Confessor who, “in a letter to the governor of Syria and Palestine, who had written to ask whether the deposed patriarch of Constantinople, Pyrrhus, was a heretic. St. Maximus defers judgment to the pope and the Church of Rome.”

p.s. It was also pronounced at a universally accepted ecumenical council (Nicea) that Alexandria and Antioch (both Petrine sees) were to have 2nd and 3rd place within the Church, and yet that was changed.

I fail to see how the apostolic succession of St. Peter was given to the Bishop of Rome.
According to the Epistles of Ignatius and the Constitutions of the Apostles, the teaching authority of the apostles was given to the presbyters, and they were considered as the ’ council of ‘Sanhedrin’ to the Bishop (High Priest). The Apostles were not presiding bishops, they were the teaching authority to the Bishops which they ordained amongst the churches that they established.

In addtition, Bishops were **chosen by the laity **according to Bishop & St.Clement’s epistle to the church of Corinth, Bishop & St.Cyprian’s 67th epistle, and Book VIII of the Constitutions of the Apostles which documentation I have posted elsewhere on this thread.

Also, in this VIII book of the Constitutions, it states that the apostle Paul ordained Linus as the first bishop of Rome. St. Paul writes his epistle to the church of Rome, not St. Peter. In addition, the apostle Paul’s ministry was to the Gentiles, and St. Peter’s ministry was to the Jews. St. Peter’s epistle is written to the Jewish diaspora.

I fail to see how the papacy of Rome could take it upon itself to choose bishops over other dioceses which is in clear violation of the divine ordinances established from the apostolic tradition of the church. (Canons 35 & 36) And according to Bishop Phileas’ epistle to Bishop Miletus.

newadvent.org/fathers/07158.htm
arthursclassicnovels.com/bible/anf06.htm

I fail to see the succession of bishops being legal when Emperors and nobility for many hundreds of years chose successors to the episcopal chair of Rome (as well as Constantinople). which is also in clear violation of the early canons of the church
(Canons 30 & 31).

newadvent.org/fathers/07158.htm

I fail to see how pronouncing ‘anathema’ on half the body of our Lord Jesus Christ for not accepting the universal jurisdiction of Roman papacy as an extension of St. Peter’s authority can be considered to be of the Spirit of our Lord Jesus Christ, or of St. Peter himself.

As one who was baptized and confirmed Catholic by my God-fearing parents, it is offensive to me that I have to silently submit to this declaration of ‘anathema’ without protest. The church of our Lord Jesus Christ is divided. Our Lord’s prayer for unity that he prayed on Passover evening is not being heeded.

with great sadness,

Micah.

 

[josie_L]

Yes, but what gives you justification for reading the charge made by Lucentius in this manner? The interpretation I gave is the interpretation given in the edition of the Acts of Chalcedon translated by Richard Price. He writes in his footnote on the matter: Ephesus II was in fact called by Theodosius II. He summoned Pope Leo to it, who responded, ‘I have exerted myself to obey your clemency’s commands in some measure by sending from here brethren of mine … who can represent me’ (ep. 37). Wholly similar was the way in which the Council of Chalcedon was convened contrary to Leo’s wishes but with his acquiescence in the imperial will (Documents before the Council 5–7). Lucentius’ charge was therefore unfounded.
Unless you have any additional scholarly interpretations to supply, or have access to the acts in the original language, I don’t see how we can go any further in ascertaining what Lucentius’ charge meant

What gives me the justification for reading the charge in the manner that I have, simply put, reason and history. The acts of Chalcedon of which I read off the Fordham site, uses the word “hold” (nevertheless even the words “dared to make” does not mean summon, i.e. nothing is interpreted out of context or in a vacuum), and if you look that word up, you will notice multiple ways in which it can be used, however, only a few definitions are applicable to this case:
a. To have and maintain in one’s possession: holds a great deal of property.
b. To have as a responsible position or a privilege: held the governorship for six years.
c. To have in recognition of achievement or superiority: holds the record for the one-mile race; holds the respect of her peers.
a. To maintain control over: Thieves held the stolen painting for ransom.
b. To maintain occupation of by force or coercion: Protesters held the embassy for a week.
c. To withstand the efforts or advance of (an opposing team, for example).
d. To maintain in a given condition, situation, or action: The storyteller held the crowd spellbound.

In light of the knowledge that we know, i.e., the historical facts concerning Ephesus or rather the Robber council (and it was only viewed as such because the Pope refused to confirm and/or ratify it despite the emperor’s backing), we know that Dioscorus refused to let the papal legates preside, read the letter which Pope St. Leo wrote to the council (a set of instructions), and the epistolica dogmatica which would have resolved the errors promulgated by Eutyches. Furthermore, knowing that Pope St. Leo acquiesed to Theodosius in summoning a council, do you not think that Lucentius was aware of this being that he was representing Pope St. Leo at Chalcedon, i.e., how could he have not known being that he was fully instructed by Pope St. Leo himself? It is ridiculous under the circumstances to interpret Lucentius’s words as meaning to say that Dioscorus summoned a council rather than what it truly means, i.e., to control or take by force a council.

Lucentius, the most reverend bishop having the place of the Apostolic See, said: Let him give a reason for his judgment. For he undertook to give sentence against one over whom he had no jurisdiction. And he dared to hold a synod without the authority of the Apostolic See, a thing which had never taken place nor can take place. (2)

Moreover, the council of Chalcedon was not summoned against Pope St. Leo’s wishes, as it was originally his idea to summon a council. That being said changes had occurred, i.e., the Huns were on the verge of attacking Rome, and Pope St. Leo’s Tome had been accepted by many in the East (he was in correspondence with the Bishop of Constantinople in regards to repentent bishops,) which made an ecumenical council unnecessary. The letters which were sent to Emperor Marcian stating this (who has I said earlier complied with the Pope on the matter of a council, but did not know that the pope had changed his mind) were dated June 9th of 451, and did not arrive until after the emperor had already summoned the bishops for a general council (decreed as of May 17). It was in other words a fait accompli, thus the Pope went along, instructing that he would have his legates presiding at the council (a letter dated June 26th to the emperor).

 

[Cavaradossi]

What gives me the justification for reading the charge in the manner that I have, simply put, reason and history. The acts of Chalcedon of which I read off the Fordham site, uses the word “hold” (nevertheless even the words “dared to make” does not mean summon, i.e. nothing is interpreted out of context or in a vacuum), and if you look that word up, you will notice multiple ways in which it can be used, however, only a few definitions are applicable to this case:
a. To have and maintain in one’s possession: holds a great deal of property.
b. To have as a responsible position or a privilege: held the governorship for six years.
c. To have in recognition of achievement or superiority: holds the record for the one-mile race; holds the respect of her peers.
a. To maintain control over: Thieves held the stolen painting for ransom.
b. To maintain occupation of by force or coercion: Protesters held the embassy for a week.
c. To withstand the efforts or advance of (an opposing team, for example).
d. To maintain in a given condition, situation, or action: The storyteller held the crowd spellbound.

In light of the knowledge that we know, i.e., the historical facts concerning Ephesus or rather the Robber council (and it was only viewed as such because the Pope refused to confirm and/or ratify it despite the emperor’s backing), we know that Dioscorus refused to let the papal legates preside, read the letter which Pope St. Leo wrote to the council (a set of instructions), and the epistolica dogmatica which would have resolved the errors promulgated by Eutyches. Furthermore, knowing that Pope St. Leo acquiesed to Theodosius in summoning a council, do you not think that Lucentius was aware of this being that he was representing Pope St. Leo at Chalcedon, i.e., how could he have not known being that he was fully instructed by Pope St. Leo himself? It is ridiculous under the circumstances to interpret Lucentius’s words as meaning to say that Dioscorus summoned a council rather than what it truly means, i.e., to control or take by force a council.

But none of this gives sufficient justification for your reading. You cannot resort to the definitions of the English word ‘hold’ because the acts were not written in English. Similarly, you cannot resort to history, because it is completely plausible that the legates were ignorant of what had happened at Ephesus II, or whether Leo had given his consent to Theodosius for the calling of a great council (the legates received very hurried instructions from Pope Leo). Again, some sort of scholarly interpretation of the acts (like the one I submitted) or providing the original language would be necessary for us to take this any further.

Moreover, the council of Chalcedon was not summoned against Pope St. Leo’s wishes, as it was originally his idea to summon a council. That being said changes had occurred, i.e., the Huns were on the verge of attacking Rome, and Pope St. Leo’s Tome had been accepted by many in the East (he was in correspondence with the Bishop of Constantinople in regards to repentent bishops,) which made an ecumenical council unnecessary. The letters which were sent to Emperor Marcian stating this (who has I said earlier complied with the Pope on the matter of a council, but did not know that the pope had changed his mind) were dated June 9th of 451, and did not arrive until after the emperor had already summoned the bishops for a general council (decreed as of May 17). It was in other words a fait accompli, thus the Pope went along, instructing that he would have his legates presiding at the council (a letter dated June 26th to the emperor).

Have you read the exchanges between Leo and Marcian before the council? Leo makes it clear that he wanted the council to be held in Italy with him presiding. Marcian wished to hold it in the East, inviting Leo to come preside. In the end, Marcian won out (or as you put it, presented Leo with a fait accompli), and Leo acquiesced, sending legates. It should also be pointed out that Leo’s legates did not preside over a majority of the council, despite Pope Leo’s demands.

 

[josie_L]

I think you are misinterpreting what I wrote. My meaning was that Pope Leo acquiesced to Emperor Theodosius’ demand to convene a council. He does so in his epistle 37. This is why Price writes that Lucentius’ charge against Dioscoros was unfounded

I did not misinterpret what you wrote, in fact, I only said that what you wrote was truncated and lacking in context, i.e., it did not divulge information about Pope St. Leo during the 2 years or so between Ephesus and Chalcedon (I did not deny that Pope St. Leo complied with Theodosius about summoning a council in Ephesus). However, I do not wish it to appear as if Pope St. Leo was a tool of the state who simply “acquiesed”, i.e., he very much was involved in having the last say in Ephesus by refusing to ratify it, and writing to Emperor Theodosius about having another council (several times), even writing to Pulcheria (his sister). When no response came, he got the support of Valentian (the Emperor of the West), his sister and mother, in order to get Theodosius to respond (he himself upheld Ephesus for political reasons), which worked.

To his imperial equals Theodosius had no choice but to reply. In April he blandly explained that the excellent work done at Ephesus, and especially the deposition of Flavian, had brought peace at last to the religious world. What need was there of another council?

christusrex.org/www1/CDHN/coun5.html

Theodosius thereby denied the need for a council, but soon after died (how providential).

And since I have already stated in what capacity Pope St. Leo “acquiesed” with regards to the new, and more importantly, orthodox Emperor Marcian we have a fuller account of what Pope St. Leo did.

 

[josie_L]

But none of this gives sufficient justification for your reading. You cannot resort to the definitions of the English word ‘hold’ because the acts were not written in English. Similarly, you cannot resort to history, because it is completely plausible that the legates were ignorant of what had happened at Ephesus II, or whether Leo had given his consent to Theodosius for the calling of a great council (the legates received very hurried instructions from Pope Leo). Again, some sort of scholarly interpretation of the acts (like the one I submitted) or providing the original language would be necessary for us to take this any further.

What word did Price use in his translation, so I can understand how he came by this interpretation? And how in all that’s holy could the papal legates have been ignorant of the goings on in Ephesus when this was the basis for the new council? Honestly, Cavaradossi you are grasping at straws. Moreover, the pope was in correspondence with the bishop of Constantinople, and in a letter dated June 9th he says:

III. Anatolius is requested to co-operate loyally with Leo’s delegates.

But concerning the address[7] presented to us by your clergy, beloved, there is no need to put my sentiments into a letter:** it is sufficient to entrust all to my delegates, whose words shall carefully instruct you on every point.** And so, dearest brother, do your endeavour with these brethren whom we have chosen as suitable agents in so great a matter faithfully and effectually to carry out what is agreeable to the Church of God: especially as the very nature of the case, and the promise of Divine aid incite you, and our most gracious princes show such holy faith, such religious devotion, that we find in them not only the general sympathy of Christians, but even that of the priesthood. Who assuredly in accordance with that piety, whereby they boast themselves to be servants of God, will receive all your suggestions for the benefit of the catholic Faith in a worthy spirit, so that by their aid also the peace of Christendom can be restored and wicked error destroyed. And if on any points more advice is needed, let word be quickly sent to us, that after investigating the nature of the case, we may carefully prescribe the rightful measures.
Dated 9th of June in the consulship of the illustrious Adelfius (451).

crossroadsinitiative.com/library_article/677/St._Leo_the_Great___Letters_60_173.html

This does not sound like they were given hurried instructions especially in light of the fact that Pope St. Leo had been wanting a council for awhile, that is, before he decided that under the circumstances it was no longer necessary.

Have you read the exchanges between Leo and Marcian before the council? Leo makes it clear that he wanted the council to be held in Italy with him presiding. Marcian wished to hold it in the East, inviting Leo to come preside. In the end, Marcian won out (or as you put it, presented Leo with a fait accompli), and Leo acquiesced, sending legates. It should also be pointed out that Leo’s legates did not preside over a majority of the council, despite Pope Leo’s demands.

RIng around the rosy, oh my goodness, I do not dispute that Pope St. Leo wanted the council to be held in Italy he said as much to Theodosius. And furthermore, Emperor Marcian did not win out (this was not a pissing contest between the head of state and the head of the church), he did indeed comply with Pope St. Leo’s wishes for a council (unlike his predecessor), but was unaware that the pope had changed his mind about having a council (that was in another letter (June 9th) written by Pope St. Leo which only arrived after he decreed the summoning (May 17th), so it was not a deliberate action on the part of the Emperor to disobey Pope St. Leo).

 

[Cavaradossi]

I did not misinterpret what you wrote, in fact, I only said that what you wrote was truncated and lacking in context, i.e., it did not divulge information about Pope St. Leo during the 2 years or so between Ephesus and Chalcedon (I did not deny that Pope St. Leo complied with Theodosius about summoning a council in Ephesus). However, I do not wish it to appear as if Pope St. Leo was a tool of the state who simply “acquiesed”, i.e., he very much was involved in having the last say in Ephesus by refusing to ratify it, and writing to Emperor Theodosius about having another council (several times), even writing to Pulcheria (his sister). When no response came, he got the support of Valentian (the Emperor of the West), his sister and mother, in order to get Theodosius to respond (he himself upheld Ephesus for political reasons), which worked.

Theodosius thereby denied the need for a council, but soon after died (how providential).

And since I have already stated in what capacity Pope St. Leo “acquiesed” with regards to the new, and more importantly, orthodox Emperor Marcian we have a fuller account of what Pope St. Leo did.

I am aware of all of that. Again, when I said that Leo acquiesced to Theodosius, it was only meant to convey that he acquiesced to his demand to holds a council in Ephesus. If you are not misinterpreting my words, then by this point, you are willfully misrepresenting their meaning, since I have now clarified twice what I meant in no unclear terms.

 

[josie_L]

I fail to see how the papacy of Rome could take it upon itself to choose bishops over other dioceses which is in clear violation of the divine ordinances established from the apostolic tradition of the church. (Canons 35 & 36) And according to Bishop Phileas’ epistle to Bishop Miletus.

newadvent.org/fathers/07158.htm
arthursclassicnovels.com/bible/anf06.htm

I never said that the papacy in Rome could take it upon itself to choose bishops over other dioceses, I said it received letters from other bishops upon their ordination in order to ensure that, one, the pope in Rome knew who was bishop of which diocese, and second, whether they were orthodox (he would accept their ordination once this was demonstrated). I think you misunderstand what universal jurisdiction means, i.e., it does not mean a pope can interfere wily nily into other domains, but that rather that he upholds orthodoxy and in the process strengthens his brethren. He is at their service as the “servant of the servants of God”.

p.s. You will have to excuse me but I will have to respond to your other qualms later on.

God bless you!

Josie

 

[Cavaradossi]

What word did Price use in his translation, so I can understand how he came by this interpretation? And how in all that’s holy could the papal legates have been ignorant of the goings on in Ephesus when this was the basis for the new council? Honestly, Cavaradossi you are grasping at straws. Moreover, the pope was in correspondence with the bishop of Constantinople, and in a letter dated June 9th he says:

No, it is you who are grasping at straws. You are doing nothing more than special pleading, asking if it would not be more fitting that the legates sent by Pope Leo would be well informed, and resorting to the meanings of English words. Such arguments are specious because what is more fitting is not always what is true, and translations cannot be subjected to the same sort of textual criticisms as one would use with original documents, owing to differences in the connotations and secondary meanings of words.

III. Anatolius is requested to co-operate loyally with Leo’s delegates.

But concerning the address[7] presented to us by your clergy, beloved, there is no need to put my sentiments into a letter:** it is sufficient to entrust all to my delegates, whose words shall carefully instruct you on every point.** And so, dearest brother, do your endeavour with these brethren whom we have chosen as suitable agents in so great a matter faithfully and effectually to carry out what is agreeable to the Church of God: especially as the very nature of the case, and the promise of Divine aid incite you, and our most gracious princes show such holy faith, such religious devotion, that we find in them not only the general sympathy of Christians, but even that of the priesthood. Who assuredly in accordance with that piety, whereby they boast themselves to be servants of God, will receive all your suggestions for the benefit of the catholic Faith in a worthy spirit, so that by their aid also the peace of Christendom can be restored and wicked error destroyed. And if on any points more advice is needed, let word be quickly sent to us, that after investigating the nature of the case, we may carefully prescribe the rightful measures.
Dated 9th of June in the consulship of the illustrious Adelfius (451).

This does not sound like they were given hurried instructions especially in light of the fact that Pope St. Leo had been wanting a council for awhile that is, before he decided that under the circumstances it was no longer necessary.

Pope Leo had wanted a council in Italy where he would preside. What use then, would he have for preparing legates when he himself would have expected to be the presiding bishop? Similarly, that bolded sentence is no guarantee the the legates were not ignorant of certain things. They were simply given instructions by Pope Leo which he urged the Eastern bishops to follow. I don’t see how any of this could be indicative of how well-prepared the legates were.

RIng around the rosy, oh my goodness, I do not dispute that Pope St. Leo wanted the council to be held in Italy he said as much to Theodosius. And furthermore, Emperor Marcian did not win out (this was not a pissing contest), he did indeed comply with Pope St. Leo’s wishes for a council (unlike his predecessor), but was unaware that the pope had changed his mind about wanting a council. That was in another letter June 9th) written by Pope St. Leo which only arrived after he decreed the summoning (May 17th), so it was not a deliberate action on the part of the Emperor to disobey Pope St. Leo.

That is not at all clear. It seems that Marcian had other motivations for calling a council. The idea that he had no intention of ‘disobeying’ pope Leo seems to be a rather anachronistic reading of the socio-political situation at the time of the council. So many emperors were guilty of ‘disobeying’ the bishop of Rome that it is hard to see how it could even be claimed that they believed that they owed him any obedience in the first place.

 

[ByzCathCantor]

I never said that the papacy in Rome could take it upon itself to choose bishops over other dioceses, I said it received letters from other bishops upon their ordination in order to ensure that, one, the pope in Rome knew who was bishop of which diocese, and second, whether they were orthodox (he would accept their ordination once this was demonstrated). I think you misunderstand what universal jurisdiction means, i.e., it does not mean a pope can interfere wily nily into other domains, but that rather that he upholds orthodoxy and in the process strengthens his brethren. He is at their service as the “servant of the servants of God”.

But the Pope today does indeed select bishops, and may freely exercise universal jurisdiction as he sees fit.

Yes, the goal is to defend orthodoxy and it is a ministry of service, but on paper it is far more than that. Even us Catholics need to fairly acknowledge the reality, as modern Popes themselves have done.