What was the point?

[Ghosty]

Actually I’ve already mentioned that one met without his consent. Later it was given. And there have been no Ecumenical Councils without the consent of the whole church hence the word ‘ecumenical’.
The Council of Constantinople I (553) also met despite the wishes of the Pope (Vigilius)

That doesn’t indicate a lack of consent. The consent and affirmation is formative AFTER the Council, not prior. If it was prior, you’d have a point, but the fact is that even in the Western Councils called directly by the Pope it is final consent, not opening consent, that makes an Ecumenical Council (see the Council of Basel for example).

“It was presided over at first by St. Meletius, the bishop of Antioch who was bishop not in communion with Rome”
ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf…ii.html?bcb=0

That assertion is simply in error. The contemporary accounts indicate that St. Meletius and Paulianus agreed to share the See, on the impetus of St. Meletius himself. Read the link I put in my last post. It cites three ancient sources for this fact. That the Protestant “scholars” who compiled the work you’re citing overlooked this widely attested fact isn’t suprising, but it is disappointing.

Peace and God bless!

 

[Ghosty]

No, Councils were ratified by all the church to become ecumenical.

This is factually incorrect. A whole third of the Church did not ratify Chalcedon, but was cast out for not accepting it even though they were NOT heretics. That indicates that it did not require whole Church approval in order to be binding.

This is a common Eastern Orthodox assertion that is quite simply without any merit, and also a relatively recent idea.

What you see here is a Council coming to a decision. They then wish to inform the Pope of that decision and hope, for the sake of Church unity he agrees. But they are the one’s who made the decision.

Please, please, please go back and read the letters I linked to. Pope Leo did NOT agree to all the Canons, and vetoed the 28th one. It was stricken and not enacted.

Peace and God bless!

 

[Montalban]

This is factually incorrect. A whole third of the Church did not ratify Chalcedon, but was cast out for not accepting it even though they were NOT heretics. That indicates that it did not require whole Church approval in order to be binding.

No, you are incorrect. New “Orthodox” jurisdictions were raised in those areas, which is why there’s an Orthodox head in Alexandria, as well as the Coptic. What you’re doing here is using a part-truth. The Roman Church didn’t right away bless all Ecumenical Councils. The first (Nicea 325) had no Papal representatives, and met without the Popes knowledge. It doesn’t therefore matter when a church agrees to it, but that they do. So likewise those churches in Egypt and the east that ‘split away’ doesn’t negate it, because the whole remaining church agrees.

The Council of Constantinople (381) wasn’t declared ecumenical until 451(by the Council of Chacledon).

This is a common Eastern Orthodox assertion that is quite simply without any merit, and also a relatively recent idea.

So you say. But that’s most of your argument ‘just-so’ statements.

Please, please, please go back and read the letters I linked to. Pope Leo did NOT agree to all the Canons, and vetoed the 28th one. It was stricken and not enacted.

Peace and God bless!

Are you arguing that because of this that council is not ecumenical?

You seem unable to hold an argument together. First you’re saying Papal approval is a must, then you admit he’s not wholly approving of an Ecumenical Council’s decision.

And as mentioned to you on another thread that canon was finally agreed to by the Catholic Church in the 1200’s.

 

[Montalban]

Montalban:

Actually many Popes have made expressions on dogma that were then debated. Your ‘Tome’ being one… it is considered an authoritative statement on Christological and Trinitarian doctrine. The moment it was issued/read it should have ended debate. It did not.

Ghosty:

You’re confusing a theological teaching by a Pope with an infallible statement. There is nothing in the Tome of Leo that indicates an ex cathedra statement of any kind. You’re expanding the definition of Papal infallibility beyond the bounds recognized by the Catholic Church, so you’re merely erecting a strawman.

No, the tome was agreed as being Orthodox teachings.

Montalban:

So you’re arguing that after the Pope made a decision he’s called together a council to debate his decision?
“It was the emperor Marcian who, after the “robber” council of Ephesus (449), commanded this council to meet. Pope Leo I was opposed to it. His view was that all the bishops should repent of their ways and individually sign his earlier dogmatic letter to Flavian, patriarch of Constantinople, and so avoid a new round of argument and debate.”
ewtn.com/library/COUNCILS/CHALCEDO.HTM

Ghosty:

My mistake. He still approved it and sent legates. Again, he doesn’t have to convoke a Council for it to be Ecumenical, he merely must approve it.

I don’t mean to sound incredulous, but…
A council can meet against his wishes, debate over something he doesn’t want to debate, and then make their own decision only to force him to agree to it, to be ecumenical?

Montalban:

This was not just ‘tacked on’ at all. And as I noted in another thread, the Catholic Church approved of it in the 1200s.

Montalban:

You must read the actual letters from the time. I recommend you go back and do so if you haven’t (it seems you may not have). I posted them on your other thread. They were most certainly not accepted at the time. Whether or not the change in status between Alexandria and Constantinople was ratified in the 1200s is immaterial. The fact remains that the change was vetoed at the time of Chalcedon.

That is material. As I noted elsewhere the first Ecumenical Council wasn’t declared Ecumenical until the third. It does matter that the Catholic Church accepted this canon! The Pope didn’t approve of it when it sat. Obviously the Emperor Constantine wasn’t aware of the need to defer to the Pope at all.

You are again having an argument both ways. Some Popes didn’t approve of a council, but later popes did, thus it’s 'ecumenical by your own argument. But on the other hand if certain churches didn’t immediately approve the council, then you think that this is significant… that was, after-all, your main objection to someone saying that to be ‘ecumenical’ it needed approval by the whole church.

You need to pick a debate and stick to it. Likewise with canon 28, which itself wasn’t approved of in the East right away, either. The Council was in 451 but it wasn’t accepted until 690 at Trullo. It wasn’t ‘tacked on’ at all, but approved (eventually) by both churches. And it had opposition from other churches.
The Catholic historian, Davis says:
“…the fathers proclaimed “The Bishop of Constantinople shall have primacy of honor after the Bishop of Rome because Constantinople is the New Rome.” Nothing was said of Constantinople at the Council of Nicea because the Emperor Constantine had not yet begun to turn the old Greek town of Byzantium into the great new eastern capital of the empire. Now this metropolis, only fifty years old, was placed ahead of Alexandria and Antioch, just behind Old Rome. Future bishops of Alexandria would labor to keep the upstart capital in its place to the great detriment of the eastern Church. Though the canon was not directed against Rome, no notice was taken of the claim of its bishop to a primacy among bishops based on his succession from Peter, head of the Apostles.”
Davis L. D., (1990), “The First Seven Ecumenical Councils (325-787) Their History and Theology”, (Liturgical Press, Minnesota), p128 (emphasis added)

 

[Montalban]

Montalban:

Yes, you are correct. The Council at Ephesus itself met after the Pope condemned Nestorius. It still doesn’t help your case

Ghosty:

Again you’re confusing the meaning of ex cathedra statements and Papal Infallibility. If you’re going to argue against Papal Infallibility, it behoves you to argue against the real thing, and not your own creation. I repeat: theological dissertations by the Pope are not automatically infallible, and personal condemnations are NEVER infallible, not even by an Ecumenical Council, they are merely disciplinary. Only the condemnations of the heresy itself can be infallible.

The problem with this is as most Popes weren’t aware of their own infallibility a teaching of one could, according to you be said not to be infallible… when it suits you

Montalban:

No, it’s a case of the Tome being sent to a Council and then the Council debating it and saying that it and the teachings of St. Cyril were ‘Orthodox’. Again, if the Pope was the supreme head of all the church, there’d have been no need for debate, further they’d not be comparing his words on par with St. Cyril

Ghosty:

The Tome was a theological treatise sent to Patriarch Flavian in 449 to address the ideas of Eutyches. It was not an ex cathedra statement, nor did it give any authoritative directions. It was simply Leo’s understanding of the issue, and his argument against Eutyches, and his support of Flavian’s position. It was a personal letter. You can read it yourself here. It doesn’t meet a single criterion for Papal Infallibility. In fact, the recent Papal Encyclical (also not Infallible) fits more criteria for an ex cathedra statement than the Tome of Leo

See above re: Pope’s being aware of infallibility

Montalban:

That there are rebels doesn’t make your ‘just-so’ true. Just as because there are heretics doesn’t mean there’s not ‘orthodoxy’.

Ghosty:

No, but the Pope doesn’t have the real power to act as a dictator in such matters. He has extraordinary power in extreme circumstances, but in day to day affairs it is impossible to exercise despotically. The Papal prerogatives of supreme jurisdiction are protected, but that hardly means they’re constantly enforced in any kind of overt manner. Just like the U.S. having the legal capability of engaging in military law doesn’t make it a police state and the President a dictator.

Then you deny your own example! You accept that he’s able to make dogmatic statements but in other issues he could potentially be disagreed with.

 

[mardukm]

Dear Montalban,

What was the point of the first seven ecumenical councils if the Pope had already made a ruling?

Why did they even bother to debate, and then vote on something if the Pope was the head of the church and had already decided/declared what was doctrine?

Well, this one’s easy (I admit I haven’t read anyone else’s response).

Have you ever read Apostolic Canon 34?

“The bishops of every nation must acknowledge him who is first among them and account him as their head, and do nothing of consequence without his consent; but each may do those things only which concern his own parish, and the country places which belong to it. But neither let him (who is the first) do anything without the consent of all; FOR SO THEIR WILL BE UNANIMITY, AND GOD WILL BE GLORIFIED THROUGH THE LORD IN THE HOLY SPIRIT.”

Simple enough, I think. Like Ghosty said, the papacy is not a dictatorship. The Council provides a divinely instituted means for the Church as a whole to discuss and debate and agree, by which UNITY will be achieved.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Montalban]

Dear Montalban,

Well, this one’s easy (I admit I haven’t read anyone else’s response).

Have you ever read Apostolic Canon 34?

“The bishops of every nation must acknowledge him who is first among them and account him as their head, and do nothing of consequence without his consent; but each may do those things only which concern his own parish, and the country places which belong to it. But neither let him (who is the first) do anything without the consent of all; FOR SO THEIR WILL BE UNANIMITY, AND GOD WILL BE GLORIFIED THROUGH THE LORD IN THE HOLY SPIRIT.”

Simple enough, I think. Like Ghosty said, the papacy is not a dictatorship. The Council provides a divinely instituted means for the Church as a whole to discuss and debate and agree, by which UNITY will be achieved.

Blessings,
Marduk

Who is ‘the head’? You assume it is the Pope. Orthodox don’t believe so.

or Orthodoxy the truth that a synod affirms thus makes the synod an authority in the life of the Church; the basis of its primacy is derived from this as binding for the historical life of God’s Church. The primacy of the synod cannot, however, be conceived as power over the local church but rather as a charismatic instrument through which the churches of God witness and express their ontological unity in the truth of the gospel. The primacy of the synod, through which the local churches witness and express their unity in the salvific truths of Christ, does not exclude the primacy of the first bishop or the metropolitan. In regional synods, in which all the bishops of the area must participate, the primacy of the first bishop must be acknowledged and respected as the famous 34 Apostolic Canon states: “The bishops of every nation must acknowledge him who is first among them and account him as their head, and do nothing of consequence without his consent… but neither let him (who is the first) do anything without the consent of all; for so there will be unanimity…” From this canon, it is thus evident that the regional primacy can be conceived not as power or jurisdiction but only as an expression of the unity and unanimity of all the bishops, and consequently of all the churches, of an area.

goarch.org/en/ourfaith/articles/article8523.asp

They would do that without having to meet in council. Secondly, they wouldn’t ‘debate’ the issue. All it would take is for all churches who agree that the Pope is the head to give their assent by not disagreeing.

If you’d have read the next Canon, you’d have saved yourself some ebarrassment

“Let not a bishop dare to ordain beyond his own limits, in cities and places not subject to him. But if he be convicted of doing so, without the consent of those persons who have authority over such cities and places, let him be deposed, and those also whom he has ordained”

home.comcast.net/~woca/Canons.htm

NO BISHOP, not even the Bishop of Rome can annoint someone beyond the limits of his own diocese.

Funny that they would bury papal supremacy (as you see it) so far down the order, and by golly, they don’t mention the Pope at all!

Had you read earlier, you’d notice that bishops (all) are on a parity…

Canon VI.

Let the ancient customs in Egypt, Libya and Pentapolis prevail, that the Bishop of Alexandria have jurisdiction in all these, since the like is customary for the Bishop of Rome also. Likewise in Antioch and the other provinces, let the Churches retain their privileges. And this is to be universally understood, that if any one be made bishop without the consent of the Metropolitan, the great Synod has declared that such a man ought not to be a bishop. If, however, two or three bishops shall from natural love of contradiction, oppose the common suffrage of the rest, it being reasonable and in accordance with the ecclesiastical law, then let the choice of the majority prevail.

(Ibid.)

Canon III which your mate Ghosty must reject* states

The Bishop of Constantinople, however, shall have the prerogative of honor after the Bishop of Rome; because Constantinople is New Rome.

(Ibid.)

In short a document that doesn’t single the Pope out for signs of leadership you take to believe does. It is only the head ‘bishop’ in his area (and only in matters administrative) that has a ‘rank’ above other bishops.

*as he believes this sort of thing to be ‘tacked-on’.

 

[Montalban]

Another case where bishops met post facto and decided for themselves involves Cyprian…

Cyprian, when he heard Pope Stephen condemn the African church over the issue of baptism of heretics didn’t acknowledge the Pope as ‘master’ but convened another council. See - Concerning the Baptism of Heretics. The Judgment of Eighty-Seven Bishops on the Baptism of Heretics. ccel.org/fathers2/ANF-05/anf05-124.htm Note that all the bishops assemebled give a judgment despite what the Pope has ruled.

Bishops were heads of their own jurisdictions. This administration of the church tended to follow the pre-existing lines of Roman provincial administration. And likewise the conclaves followed the Roman pattern…“Bishops adopted for many of their councils the official senatorial formulae of convocation. Like the Senate the council was a deliberate assembly, each bishop having equal rights in the discussion.”

Davis L. D., (1990), “The First Seven Ecumenical Councils (325-787) Their History and Theology”, (Liturgical Press, Minnesota), p23.

Bishops have equal rights with other bishops. There’s no ‘bishop of bishop’.

“In disputes with the bishop of Rome, Cyprian asserted that the people and their bishop constituted the church, that there was no “bishop of bishops” in Rome, that all bishops equally possessed the Holy Spirit, and that their consensus expressed the church’s unity.”*

concise.britannica.com/ebc/article-9362117/Cyprian

This was because… “each local church was under the complete authority of its bishop, elected for life by the clergy and representatives of the laity of the see, with the consent of the neighboring bishops, one of whom would consecrate him, so that the apostolic succession from Christ’s disciples would be maintained. The charismatic equality of all bishops has never been challenged in Eastern Christendom; but in the later part of the third century, in the period between the persecutions of Valerian and of Diocletian, when the number of Christians rose sharply, it became the custom of bishops to meet now and then in conclave in the local metropolis, under the presidency of the metropolitan bishop, who thus gradually obtained an undefined administrative and even spiritual authority over his fellows.”

Runciman, S., (1977), “The Byzantine Theocracy”, (Cambridge University Press), p8.
“For neither does any of us set himself up as a bishop of bishops, nor by tyrannical terror does any compel his colleague to the necessity of obedience; since every bishop, according to the allowance of his liberty and power, has his own proper right of judgment, and can no more be judged by another than he himself can judge another”

Cyprian - Address to the Council of Carthage

ccel.org/fathers2/ANF-05/anf05-124.htm#P9402_2932994

 

[itsjustdave1988]

Right back at ya

I think Anatolius, Patriarch of Constantinople in his letter to Pope Leo explains the primacy of the Bishop of Rome quite clearly, thanks.

"Even so, the whole force of confirmation of the acts [of Chalcedon] was reserved for the authority of Your Blessedness." (Patriarch Anatolius of Constantinople to Pope Leo, Ep 132, on the subject of canon 28 of Chalcedon)

 

[itsjustdave1988]

Who is ‘the head’?

St. Athanasius, described the Council of Sardica: “the great Council” (Defense Against the Arians, 1) and “the Holy Synod” (Letter to the People of Antioch, 5). Take note of what that council, which St. Athanasius was a member, in fact affirmed in a letter to the Pope Julius (AD 342):

“So it seems to us right and altogether fitting that priests of the Lord from each and every province should report to their HEAD, that is, to the See of Peter, the Apostle”

(Council of Sardica, To Pope Julius, as cited by prominent historian James T. Shotwell and Louise Ropes Loomis, The See of Peter (New York:Columbia, 1927), pp.527-528.)

From the Acts of the Council of Ephesus:

There is no doubt, and in fact it has been known in all ages, that the holy and most blessed Peter, prince and head of the Apostles, pillar of the faith, and foundation of the Catholic Church, received the keys of the kingdom from our Lord Jesus Christ, the Saviour and Redeemer of the human race, and that to him was given the power of loosing and binding sins: who down even to to-day and forever both lives and judges in his successors. The holy and most blessed pope Coelestine, according to due order, is his successor and holds his place (Acts of the Council of Ephesus, session 3 [A.D. 431]).

Chalcedon too, called Pope Leo the “head.” That you now deny that which the ancient orthodox professed is clear from the evidence of history.

 

[Montalban]

Montalban:

Who is ‘the head’?

itsjustdave1988:

St. Athanasius, described the Council of Sardica: “the great Council” (Defense Against the Arians, 1) and “the Holy Synod” (Letter to the People of Antioch, 5). Take note of what that council, which St. Athanasius was a member, in fact affirmed in a letter to the Pope Julius (AD 342):
Quote:“So it seems to us right and altogether fitting that priests of the Lord from each and every province should report to their HEAD, that is, to the See of Peter, the Apostle”

Emphasis mine.
This is a rather misleading sentence. It supposes
a) he agreed with the all the findings
and
b) he was a member the whole sitting.
“However, fearing domination of the council by Western bishops, many Eastern bishops left the council to hold another council in Philippopolis. As a result, the Council of Sardica failed to universally represent the church and is not one of the official Ecumenical Councils.”
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Council_of_Sardica

‘Great Council’ means big.
“First of all, it was tried in my own country in an assembly of nearly one hundred of its Bishops ; a second time at Rome, when, in consequence of letters from Eusebius, both they and we were summoned, and more than fifty Bishops met ; and a third time in the great Council assembled at Sardica by order of the most religious Emperors Constantius and Constans, when my enemies were degraded as false accusers, and the sentence that was passed in my favour received the suffrages of more than three hundred Bishops”
Defence against the Arians 1.1
ccel.org/fathers2/NPNF2-04/Npnf2-04-30.htm#TopOfPage
(note I find the references you and others give here very time-consuming to check).

“Holy Synod”???
Is that where he mentions Sardica under the title
5. “The Creed of Sardica Not an Authorised Formula”
Tome or Synodal Letter to the People of Antioch
ccel.org/fathers2/NPNF2-04/Npnf2-04-66.htm#P7723_3105490

Then I go to the Canons of Sardica at the Catholic Encylopedia
newadvent.org/fathers/3815.htm
To look for your quote, and can’t find it.
What is the meaning of these miniscule quotes?

A ‘big meeting’ which added nothing to Nicea, which wasn’t even agreed to by all the church promulgates a idea of Peter as head??? Is that your argument. I waded through an awful lot to web-space to get to this point… and it doesn’t even say what you quote it as saying. And even if it did, it’s not approved of by the whole church. It’s a bit like your papal legate quote below.

End part One

 

[Montalban]

itsjustdave1988:

From the Acts of the Council of Ephesus:
Quote:There is no doubt, and in fact it has been known in all ages, that the holy and most blessed Peter, prince and head of the Apostles, pillar of the faith, and foundation of the Catholic Church, received the keys of the kingdom from our Lord Jesus Christ, the Saviour and Redeemer of the human race, and that to him was given the power of loosing and binding sins: who down even to to-day and forever both lives and judges in his successors. The holy and most blessed pope Coelestine, according to due order, is his successor and holds his place (Acts of the Council of Ephesus, session 3 [A.D. 431]).

Indeed this was said. But by whom?
It was stated by the Papal legate, Philip the presbyter
Extracts from Session III
ccel.org/fathers2/NPNF2-14/Npnf2-14-79.htm#P4490_861140
Wow. A papal representative in discussions on the floor proposing that his master is the head of the church. Did the Council then just hear what Celestine had ruled and then agree, or did they go on to debate? What you’re doing here is grossly misrepersenting the evidence, which is of ‘debate’, not of ‘conclusion’. It’s like as if I cited a pro-abortionist senator making a speech in congress to then claim that this is what congress supports

Odd then that when they wrote to the Pope, their letter concludes
“And we all were of the same mind, holding them deposed. And that you may know in full all things that have been done, we have sent you a copy of the Acts, and of the subscriptions of the Synod. We pray that you, dearly beloved t and most longed for, may be strong andmindful of us in the Lord”
The Letter of the Synod to Pope Celestine.
ccel.org/fathers2/NPNF2-14/Npnf2-14-85.htm#P4669_911144
Note that the Council holds Nestor deposed. Pope Celestine held a synod in Rome in which he condemned Nestorius. He then wrote to Cyril informing him of this decision. Importantly, Cyril convened a council in Alexandria to discuss the issues raised in the Pope’s letter, and they too discussed the issue and then also condemned Nestorius. This is important, because even though the Pope had ruled on this, and had informed Cyril, Cyril did not just follow the Pope’s lead, but instead called a council of those in his own See. This was because as Cyril understood it, he was the chief of his own area. What was ruled in Rome did not affect him. Surely, it did influence him, but the findings in Rome did not mean that the whole church immediately thought the issue was settled.

itsjustdave1988:

Chalcedon too, called Pope Leo the “head.” That you now deny that which the ancient orthodox professed is clear from the evidence of history.

Another claim resurfaces, one that centres around the Council of Chalcedon

“Bishop Paschasinus, guardian of the Apostolic See, stood in the midst [of the Council Fathers] and said, ‘We received directions at the hands of the most blessed and apostolic bishop of the Roman city [Pope Leo I], who is the head of all the churches, which directions say that Dioscorus is not to be allowed to sit in the [present] assembly, but that if he should attempt to take his seat, he is to be cast out. This instruction we must carry out” (Acts of the Council, session 1 [A.D. 451]).
catholic.com/library/Authority_of_the_Pope_Part_2.asp

That is the claim. (I note again your ‘references’ are appalling, so I give a Catholic cite that makes such a claim)
Canon XXVIII shows up claims for papal power.
ccel.org/fathers2/NPNF2-14/Npnf2-14-105.htm#P5349_1101598
That is, a council decided what honours should be attained by a particular bishopric, and they decided Constantinople, which was then as important a city as Rome, should receive THE SAME HONOURS as Rome

Well let’s look at the text and how it reads in context “After reading of the forgoing epistle (Pope Leo’s), the most reverend bishops cried out: “This is the faith of the fathers, this is the faith of the Apostles. So we all believe, thus the orthodox believe. Anathema to him who does not thus believe. Peter has spoken thus through Leo. So taught the Apostles. Piously and truly did Leo teach, so taught Cyril. Everlasting be the memory of Cyril. Leo and Cyril taught the same thing, anathema to him who does not so believe. This is the true faith. Those of us who are orthodox thus believe.”
ccel.org/fathers2/NPNF2-14/Npnf2-14-95.htm#P4844_991182

That is, they welcome the teachings of Leo, because they are the truth, as are the teachings of Cyril. They are not saying ‘these are the teachings of our leader’, otherwise they wouldn’t have put Cyril on the same footing as Leo.

I half expect you simply rely on some Catholic Apologetics source, whereas I, although primarily reliant on such as Whelton, track down these quotes for myself to check them, and check the context of them.

 

[Ghosty]

I thought I was having deja vu with this thread, I just didn’t realize it was from the exact same poster. Seeing as nothing new is being presented by Montalban, and the tactic of strawman arguments hasn’t changed in over a year, I’m not really that enthusiastic in personally continuing this discussion much.

Anyone who wants to see version 1.0 of this exact same discussion, check out this thread.

Peace and God bless!

 

[Montalban]

I thought I was having deja vu with this thread, I just didn’t realize it was from the exact same poster. Seeing as nothing new is being presented by Montalban, and the tactic of strawman arguments hasn’t changed in over a year, I’m not really that enthusiastic in personally continuing this discussion much.

Odd that you’ve added nothing to this discussion with that comment.

If you’d had noticed I actually dealt directly with things people raised, such as itsjustdave1988’s last post. I guess if people here are intent to simply quote-mine apologetics sites without researching the facts for themselves it passes as ‘discussion’ amongst some.

Odd too you can do so and still add Peace and God bless! at the end of your post. By rote?

I answered you directly when you said

Who says that the Pope had necessarily made a decision prior to the Councils?

I gave you examples. You’ve still not really addressed this.

 

[mardukm]

Dear Montalban

Who is ‘the head’? You assume it is the Pope. Orthodox don’t believe so.

Both Orthodox and Catholics wish to go back to the standard of the first millenium. In that first millenium the bishop of Rome was the head bishop of all the other bishops of all other nations. Naturally, if Orthodox wish to go back to that standard, they will have to admit the bishop of Rome is first. I guess you have never read some of the more recent Catholic-Orthodox colloquies. Thereby you would know that the Orthodox would be willing to have the Biship of Rome as the head bishop once again. The only issue is how he will exercise that headship. May I suggest you read up on the more recent developments?

or Orthodoxy the truth that a synod affirms thus makes the synod an authority in the life of the Church; the basis of its primacy is derived from this as binding for the historical life of God’s Church. The primacy of the synod cannot, however, be conceived as power over the local church but rather as a charismatic instrument through which the churches of God witness and express their ontological unity in the truth of the gospel…

This is only part of the equation. Orthodox fool themselves if they believe Synods and Councils do not have authority over their particular Churches or the Church as a whole, respectively. Such a view is not the patristic standard. Read up on the documents of the Councils, Montalban, if you believe the Councils ever imagined local Synods and the Ecumenical Council itself to not have any juridical authority over their respective spheres of influence. May I suggest you stick to primary sources for your arguments?

They would do that without having to meet in council. Secondly, they wouldn’t ‘debate’ the issue. All it would take is for all churches who agree that the Pope is the head to give their assent by not disagreeing.

Well, I guess you have never read the documents of Vatican II, if you think the Catholic Church needs a council for unity to occur. It does not need a Council, but collegiality must at the very least be satisfied. You are simply arguing for the Catholic position here. And if you think debate does not go on in a Council or a Synod… well…let’s just say you need to do a little more reading.

If you’d have read the next Canon, you’d have saved yourself some ebarrassment.
“Let not a bishop dare to ordain beyond his own limits, in cities and places not subject to him. But if he be convicted of doing so, without the consent of those persons who have authority over such cities and places, let him be deposed, and those also whom he has ordained”

I believe this is called putting the proverbial foot in your mouth. The Bishop of Rome has never anointed anyone outside his jurisdiction. It is simply that most of what is known as the “New World” has traditionally been considered a part of the Western Patriarchate. I don’t know where you get the idea that he does. May I further suggest you restrict your reading to the facts instead of anti-Catholic polemics?

Funny that they would bury papal supremacy (as you see it) so far down the order, and by golly, they don’t mention the Pope at all!

What are you talking about here?

(continued)

 

[mardukm]

(continued)

Had you read earlier, you’d notice that bishops (all) are on a parity…
Canon VI.
Let the ancient customs in Egypt, Libya and Pentapolis prevail, that the Bishop of Alexandria have jurisdiction in all these, since the like is customary for the Bishop of Rome also. Likewise in Antioch and the other provinces, let the Churches retain their privileges. And this is to be universally understood, that if any one be made bishop without the consent of the Metropolitan, the great Synod has declared that such a man ought not to be a bishop. If, however, two or three bishops shall from natural love of contradiction, oppose the common suffrage of the rest, it being reasonable and in accordance with the ecclesiastical law, then let the choice of the majority prevail.

You must have a drastically skewed view of Catholicism if you think this Canon contradicts any canons of the Catholic Church! The prerogatives of Rome are used only extraordinarily. ORDINARILY, each Patriarch or Metropolitan (i.e., head bishop) has full jurisdiction over their sphere of influence, as this very canon states. That the head bishop in extraordinary circumstances (primarily, when something will affect the ENTIRE Church beyond the boundaries of each Patriarch, Metropolitan, or bishop’s territory) can affect laws in particular Churches not his own is a prerogative given in Apostolic Canon 34. Note that the same Canon states exactly what I have states - that in NORMAL circumstances, each bishop cares for his own Church and cannot interfere in the affairs of other Churches.

Canon III which your mate Ghosty must reject* states

The Bishop of Constantinople, however, shall have the prerogative of honor after the Bishop of Rome; because Constantinople is New Rome.

Actually, just to give you the heads up: the only part of this canon that brother Ghosty rejects is the clause that says “because Constantinople is New Rome.” I know this is his view because we have discussed this before. And just FYI, when the Council of Trullo (ratified by the Sixth Ecumenical Council) renewed this canon, this very clause to which Ghosty objects was stricken from the text. Something for you to think about.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

Dear Montalban,

It’s funny that you bring up St. Cyprian. The First Ecumenical Council sided with Pope St. Stephen on the issue of rebaptism of heretics. So St. Cyprian was wrong. What was your point?

And it’s funny you appeal to the Eastern bishops that left the Council of Sardica. The only Eastern bishops that left the Council of Sardica were the ARIANS. Why are you siding with heretics? And are you saying that St. Athanasius was an Arian? OF COURSE St. Athanasius agreed with everything the Council of Sardica decreed, including its heady statements regarding the Pope. Your anti-Catholicism has simply blinded you to obvious facts of history.

I can tell you are not an apostolic Christian (neither Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox nor Ancient Church of the East). So I can understand that you are not well read on Church history. Your error is that you are trying to read early Church history as a polemic against the Catholic Church. You will always stumble if you do that because early Church history IS the history of the Catholic Church. It’s like trying to prove that the number 2 is not the number 2.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Montalban]

mardukm:

Both Orthodox and Catholics wish to go back to the standard of the first millennium. In that first millennium the bishop of Rome was the head bishop of all the other bishops of all other nations.

That’s not true. Certainly Orthodox believe in a type of ‘primacy’ of Rome.

a) it was often the centre of Orthodox teaching

b) it was the capital of the Empire and most important city

c) it was intimately associated with two great Apostles; Peter AND Paul.

But that ‘primacy’ did not mean any governorship over the other bishops. It is possible to have allowed, for the sake of a united front, it to speak on behalf of the whole church, but never without the rest of the church. Nor, as its leader.

See post #24 where I quote ‘primacy of honor’ and post #27 where I cite an Orthodox site about primacy.

mardukm:

Naturally, if Orthodox wish to go back to that standard, they will have to admit the bishop of Rome is first. I guess you have never read some of the more recent Catholic-Orthodox colloquies. Thereby you would know that the Orthodox would be willing to have the Bishop of Rome as the head bishop once again. The only issue is how he will exercise that headship. May I suggest you read up on the more recent developments?

May I suggest you do the same for you vastly misrepresent the idea of ‘primacy’ as it is understood by the Orthodox church.

mardukm:

This is only part of the equation. Orthodox fool themselves if they believe Synods and Councils do not have authority over their particular Churches or the Church as a whole, respectively.

As they were made up by those very churches then I don’t see what your point is. It’s like a Senate both being a group of senators, and a body unto itself.

mardukm:

Such a view is not the patristic standard. Read up on the documents of the Councils, Montalban, if you believe the Councils ever imagined local Synods and the Ecumenical Council itself to not have any juridical authority over their respective spheres of influence. May I suggest you stick to primary sources for your arguments?

May I suggest you decease in simply referring to some other source somewhere else. That’s not much of a discussion. In effect you’re alluding to some great source(s) out there somewhere, and suggesting that if I just keep researching I’ll somewhere find evidence that proves YOUR ARGUMENT. Not very convincing in the slightest.

 

[Montalban]

mardukm:

Well, I guess you have never read the documents of Vatican II, if you think the Catholic Church needs a council for unity to occur.

I don’t argue this at all. Your colleagues are doing this. They’re arguing that the council simply meets to reaffirm united approaches to dogma. It is my stance that the councils meet to discuss dogma regardless of a Papal ruling. It is the core of the argument against the idea of papal supremacy. If the church existed as Catholics believe then the councils desire to meet AFTER the Pope has ruled, in order to discuss, debate, and weigh-up the evidence would be a totally futile event.

mardukm:

It does not need a Council, but collegiality must at the very least be satisfied. You are simply arguing for the Catholic position here. And if you think debate does not go on in a Council or a Synod… well…let’s just say you need to do a little more reading.

There’s a fine point here. I’m not arguing that ‘dissent’ alone is an issue. I’m arguing that it’s akin to a judge finding someone guilty, and then a jury convening to hold a trial to come up with their own decision… or in some cases a jury meeting without the knowledge of the judge.

Montalban:

If you’d have read the next Canon, you’d have saved yourself some embarrassment.

mardukm:

I believe this is called putting the proverbial foot in your mouth. The Bishop of Rome has never anointed anyone outside his jurisdiction.

Actually this is you again making an assumption, of assuming that the Bishop of Rome’s jurisdiction is the whole church. This simply is not the case. If you read Post #7 above and look to the case of Pope St. Victor you will find that the early church regarded the jurisdiction of the Pope as to be Italy and some other areas only, for Victor attempted to impose a decision on the Asiatic churches and was rebuked for over-stepping his bounds.

mardukm:

It is simply that most of what is known as the “New World” has traditionally been considered a part of the Western Patriarchate. I don’t know where you get the idea that he does. May I further suggest you restrict your reading to the facts instead of anti-Catholic polemics?

More emotive appeals to some other evidence somewhere else.

Montalban:

Funny that they would bury papal supremacy (as you see it) so far down the order, and by golly, they don’t mention the Pope at all!

mardukm:

What are you talking about here?

He claims a particular canon confirms Papal Supremacy. It’s not only low down on the list, it doesn’t even mention the Pope.

In short most of your argument is a weak dismissal of any evidence I’ve presented, countered by a ‘just-so’ belief you hold, backed up by evidence that’s just ‘out there’ somewhere.

mardukm:

You must have a drastically skewed view of Catholicism if you think this Canon contradicts any canons of the Catholic Church! The prerogatives of Rome are used only extraordinarily. ORDINARILY, each Patriarch or Metropolitan (i.e., head bishop) has full jurisdiction over their sphere of influence, as this very canon states. That the head bishop in extraordinary circumstances (primarily, when something will affect the ENTIRE Church beyond the boundaries of each Patriarch, Metropolitan, or bishop’s territory) can affect laws in particular Churches not his own is a prerogative given in Apostolic Canon 34. Note that the same Canon states exactly what I have states - that in NORMAL circumstances, each bishop cares for his own Church and cannot interfere in the affairs of other Churches.

The canon makes no such proviso for an ‘extraordinary’ circumstance and an ‘ordinary’ one. It deals with any bishop not having jurisdiction over any other bishop FULL STOP.

 

[Montalban]

mardukm:

Actually, just to give you the heads up: the only part of this canon that brother Ghosty rejects is the clause that says “because Constantinople is New Rome.” I know this is his view because we have discussed this before. And just FYI, when the Council of Trullo (ratified by the Sixth Ecumenical Council) renewed this canon, this very clause to which Ghosty objects was stricken from the text. Something for you to think about.

Blessings,
Marduk

stricken out; so you say. You fail to note that I’ve already discussed this point in relation to the western church accepting this in the 1200s.

Even Catholic sites acknowledge this…

"Baronius wrongly maintained the non-authenticity of this canon…At the Eighth General Council in 869 the Roman legates (Mansi, XVI, 174) acknowledged Constantinople as second in patriarchal rank. In 1215, at the Fourth Lateran Council (op. cit., XXII, 991), this was formally admitted for the new Latin patriarch, and in 1439, at the Council of Florence, for the Greek patriarch (Hefele-Leclercq, Hist. des Conciles, II, 25-27). The Roman correctores of Gratian (1582), at dist. xxii, c. 3, insert the words: “canon hic ex iis est quos apostolica Romana sedes a principio et longo post tempore non recipit.”

newadvent.org/cathen/04308a.htm

Here’s another Catholic apologist of old…

" However, the bishops of Constantinople, sustained by the authority of the Emperors, usurped to themselves the second place among the patriarchs, and this at length was granted to them for the sake of peace and tranquillity, as Pope Innocent III. declares (in cap. antiqua de privileg."

synaxis.org/ecf/volume37/ECF37THE_SECOND_ECUMENICAL_COUNCILTHE.htm

“Tillemont goes on: “It would be very difficult to justify St. Leo, if he meant that the Roman Church had never known that the Bishop of Constantinople took the second place in the Church, and the first in the East, since his legates, whose conduct he entirely approves, had just themselves authorized it asa thing beyond dispute, and Eusebius of Dorylaeum maintained that St. Leo himself hadproved it.” The simple fact is, that, exceedingly unwilling as the Bishops of Rome were to sanction it, from this time, 381, to say the least, the Bishop of Constantinople appears uniformly as first bishop of the East.”

searchgodsword.org/his/ad/ecf/pos/sevenecumenicalcouncils/view.cgi%3ffile=npnf2-14-61.htm%26number=2

But I expect your evidence to the contrary is just out there for me to find