What was the point?

[Montalban]

Marduk:

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?

As noted, if a Pope makes a ruling the other churches go ahead and decide for themselves; hardly evidence of accepting the Pope’s decision as final. This shows a clear case that the African churches did not see Stephen as their ruler; else they’d have followed his line.

For your information (and it’s an interesting point here) neither party argued for rebaptism as such. Baptism is a sacrament that has to be performed in a valid way. What they differed over was whether or not a baptism by heretics was valid. Otherwise you’d have one or both of them arguing against the Nicene Creed (note “We believe in one baptism for the forgiveness of sins”).

For Stephen any baptism done in good faith was valid, and therefore the heretics didn’t need an Orthodox ceremony. Cyprian and his followers did not believe it was valid in the first place and thus believed that heretics would have to be baptised under the valid ceremony.

“The mind of the Church as to the necessity of serving the Trinitarian formula in this sacrament has been clearly shown by her treatment of baptism conferred by heretics. Any ceremony that did not observe this form has been declared invalid. The Montanists baptized in the name of the Father and the Son and Montanus and Priscilla (St. Basil, Ep. i, Ad Amphil.). As a consequence, the Council of Laodicea ordered their rebaptism.”
newadvent.org/cathen/02258b.htm
“Canon 47 of the Canons of the Holy Apostles of the Pedalion says:
If a Bishop or Presbyter baptize anew anyone that has had true baptism, or fail to baptize anyone that has been polluted by the impious, let him be deposed, on the ground that he is mocking the Cross and death of the Lord and failing to distinguish priests from pseudo-priests.”
quoted at
egoch.org/eng/papers/Rebaptism.htm
Thus a ‘heretic’ who was incorrectly baptised is not ‘rebaptised’. Thus "the Eunomian heretics used only one immersion and their baptism was held invalid by the First Council of Constantinople (canon 7).
newadvent.org/cathen/02258b.htm
Thus they would have agreed with Cyprian, that the baptisms of these heretics were invalid. In some cases the baptisms by some groups was seen as ‘valid’. For Cyprian and the Africans, none of these ‘baptisms’ were valid.

The African Church was steadfast in this belief. In 258 at the Council of Iconium, presided over by St. Firmilian of Neo-Caesarea, and attended by Fathers from Cappadocia, Lycea, Galatia and other parts of Asia. It rejected the teaching of Pope Stephen of Rome, and confirms the decrees of Carthage in regards to the rebaptism and re-ordination of converts baptized or ordained by heretics.

And c.419 at the Council of Carthage, presided over by Pope Aurelius of Carthage, and attended by 217 bishops all together it condemned Pelagianism (those who deny original sin and grace) and Donatism (who reject the ordination of those who had lapsed during the persecution), and denied the jurisdiction of the Pope of Rome in the African Church. Further it enumerated canon of Holy Scriptures (Old and New Testaments), and prohibited the rebaptism or re-ordination of those baptized or ordained by Donatists. (which of course depends on whether they were rightly ordained/baptised in the first place).

And thus the churches in Africa whilst in a minority of opinion believed as they did, despite the ‘ruling’ of the Pope. That is why I mentioned it because we find Cyprian calling his own council and his own churchmen deciding FOR THEMSELVES. Not only the African church, but also in the east Firmilian gave his support to Cyprian. Both these churches seem totally unaware of the ‘catholic’ doctrine of papal supremacy.

 

[Montalban]

Your case would be, I suppose, that the church as a whole, and in the long run came to agree with Stephen. I agree. However the churches that came to agree with him did so as independent churches that came to accept that his ideas made more sense; not that they were directed to do so. It is thus why I quoted Cyprian who denies the idea that a bishop of one area can rule over another (in case you missed it)…
“It remains, that upon this same matter each of us should bring forward what we think, judging no man, nor rejecting any one from the right of communion, if he should think differently from us. 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. But let us all wait for the judgment of our Lord Jesus Christ, who is the only one that has the power both of preferring us in the government of His Church, and of judging us in our conduct there.”
The Seventh Council of Carthage Under Cyprian
ccel.org/fathers2/ANF-05/anf05-124.htm

Cyprian was adamant that the Popes had no power over him.
”For neither did Peter, whom first the Lord chose, when Paul disputed with him afterwards about the circumcision, claim anything to himself insolently, nor arrogantly assume anything, so as to say that he held primacy, and that he out to be obeyed to novices and those lately come.”
Epistle LXX concerning the baptism of Heretics quoted in Whelton, p34 also at ccel.org/fathers2/ANF-05/anf05-95.htm#P6226_1969381.

Marduk:

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.

Thanks for the re-working of what I said.
I said that the Council of Sardica wasn’t wholly accepted. I evidenced this. Your colleague is a believer that because something was discussed in that council that it means Athanasius supported it. The ‘evidence’ he cited shows no such thing.

Marduk:

I can tell you are not an apostolic Christian (neither Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox nor Ancient Church of the East).

You can tell? Well you’re wrong.

Marduk:

So I can understand that you are not well read on Church history.

So you assume. But then much of your argument, as noted in posts above is based on innuendo. You pile up ‘just-so’ statements with appeals of emotion to just listen to the justice of your cause based as it is on undisclosed evidence.

Marduk:

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

Simply more of the same from you that adds nothing to the discussion. You’ve done nothing to address the fact his quote (re: Sardica) doesn’t appear on the Catholic site I cited.

Certainly this type of discussion is wearing me out; you make ‘just-so’ statements, I research and cite evidence.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

Indeed this was said. But by whom?
It was stated by the Papal legate, Philip the presbyter

It certainly was. And it was refuted by whom? If you expect anybody to be convinced that what he described was some supposed heterodox claim, and yet his claim was met with absolutely no refutation by the other bishops, then you are kidding yourself.

Montalban:

I actually dealt directly with things people raised, such as itsjustdave1988’s last post.

There’s “dealt with” and there’s dealt with *convincingly. *You have yet to do the latter. In fact, you have yet to even attempt to deal with Anatolius’ clear testimony as to Pope Leo’s jurisdictional primacy regarding the canons of Chalcedon.

I think it is clear that the only one you’ve succeeded in convincing here is yourself, because for the rest of us, the historical evidence supports a different conclusion. *I’m more convinced by Anatolius’ clear understanding of papal jurisdiction over Chalcedon than your later revisionist efforts. *

 

[Montalban]

Montalban:

Indeed this was said. But by whom?
It was stated by the Papal legate, Philip the presbyter

itsjustdave1988:

It certainly was. And it was refuted by whom? If you expect anybody to be convinced that what he described was some supposed heterodox claim, and yet his claim was met with absolutely no refutation by the other bishops, then you are kidding yourself.

Note that in Acts 15 when Peter speaks the Apostles are silent. When Paul speaks others are silent. The ‘procedures’ of a Council entail a person speaking and others listening. What ‘acts’ of the council were passed based on the Philip’s declaration? The Pope had prior to the Council at Ephesus (431) already condemned Nestroius. The Council met and Nestorius was still accorded the rank of Patriarch of Constantinople. He was only deposed after the Council had decreed that he was. That is, they ignored the excommunication of Celestine and judged him for themselves. Pope Pius XI tried to put a spin on this saying that they
merely ratified Celestine’s sentence. This is not so, as shown Nestorius was accepted with honour, until the sentence was passed. The Emperor himself had invited Nestorius “…In November the emperor, not regarding the papal condemnation as definitive, had already convoked a general council…”
Davis L.D., “The First Seven Ecumenical Councils (325-787) Their History and Theology”, Liturgical Press, Minnesota, 1990), p153.

The council itself makes no reference to the Pope in its judgment.

"The Holy Synod, gathered together in Ephesus, by the grace of God, in accordance with the decree of our most righteous and Christ-loving Emperors, to Nestorius, the new Judas.

Know that because of your wicked preaching and your disobedience of the canons, on this 22nd day of the present month of June in accordance with the ecclesiastical prescripts you have been deposed by the holy synod and excluded from all ecclesiastical dignity."

McGuckin, J, (2004), “Saint Cyril of Alexandria and the Christological Controversy”, (St Vladimir’s Seminary Press, NY), p378.

Further, the Roman Catholic historian Bishop Maret says “The Pope pronounced in the affair of Nestorius a canonical judgment clothed with all the authority of his see. He had prescribed its execution. Yet, however, three months after this sentence and before its execution, all the episcopate is invited to examine afresh and to decide freely the question in dispute…”
(Du Concile generale et de la paix religieuse - vol1, page 183, Bishop Henri Maret Paris, 1869).

quoted in Whelton, p60 (In fairness I should state that Bishop Maret was an oppenent of Papal Infalibity (See newadvent.org/cathen/15303a.htm)). He withdrew all his arguments once the council had ruled on Papal Infalibility (See ccel.org/ccel/schaff/creeds1.vi.xii.html)))

Thus after the Pope had made a ruling and despite a legate’s announcement (by your reckoning ‘confirming’ Papal power) the council still met and it was the one who decided on Nestorius’ fate.

Montalban:

I actually dealt directly with things people raised, such as itsjustdave1988’s last post.

itsjustdave1988:

There’s “dealt with” and there’s dealt with convincingly. You have yet to do the latter. In fact, you have yet to even attempt to deal with Anatolius’ clear testimony as to Pope Leo’s jurisdictional primacy regarding the canons of Chalcedon.

I think it is clear that the only one you’ve succeeded in convincing here is yourself, because for the rest of us, the historical evidence supports a different conclusion. I’m more convinced by Anatolius’ clear understanding of papal jurisdiction over Chalcedon than your later revisionist efforts.

So you say. I have evidenced work on Leo. You oppose this with an argument that’s at best an Appeal to Incredulity. Bottom of post #32 I offered some evidence, none of which you address at all, directly. But as noted the ‘opposition’ to my arguments is to simply waffle on indignantly.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

…the ‘opposition’ to my arguments is to simply waffle on indignantly.

You continue to dodge what Anatolius himself admitted in his letter to Leo. I can only presume it is because you don’t have a reason why the Patriarch of Constantinople admitted that canon 28 of Chalcedon had no force without the pope’s ratification. It seems “presides” means much more than simply “honor” but also veto power over canons dealing with the governance of the Church universal.

What was YOUR point of this thread? If it was to merely convince yourself you are right, but nobody else, you’ve succeeded wonderfully.

As for the rest of us, we rightly see your subterfugal argument for what its worth, ziltch. You’ve added nothing to an already old, worn out, and unconvincing Eastern Orthodox spin on history which is contrary to the clear evidence of history. You’ve made no converts here, because your argument is weak. You can pretend that the failure is not yours, but that too is unconvincing.

This summarizes the Catholic view of papal jurisdiction quite nicely: "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)

Until the Eastern Orthodox can convincingly explain why we should reject Patriarch Anatolius’ view of papal jurisdiction as evidenced by his letter to Leo, and instead accept your revisionist spin on history, then your polemics will be seen as nothing but a clanging cymbal.

 

[Montalban]

Following the expulsion of John Chrysostomon, the Pope sent his legates to the Emperor to seek a council to debate the matter.[1] The Emperor ignored this. Despite the fact that the Pope was “extremely indignant” [2]

itsjustdave1988:

This summarizes the Catholic view of papal jurisdiction quite nicely: “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)

Are you even aware of what this means? It recognises that the Canon was directed at the Pope, not that they were ‘confirmed by the Pope’. Anatolius is distancing himself from the findings of the council, I accept, but that still doesn’t undermine the fact that the Council had ruled on it, and had proclaimed that Constantinople was the New Rome which simply meant a reflection with the secular world; Constantine himself having made such a declaration [3]

Even this Catholic site [4] (which gives a more lengthy quote) recognises that the Council made this ruling (though they would say that the Council ‘failed’). But in short what you have is a Council that meets and ignoring the Pope raises Constantinople in status to reflect the secular status of the New Rome. Anatolius was personally blamed by Leo who wrote to the Emperor Marcian [5], and to Pulcheria [6] sister of the late Emperor, as well as to Anatolius himself [7].

Endnotes
[1]/[2] Hermias Sozomen “The Ecclesiastical History”, Book VIII Chapters XVIII and XXVI respectively
at ccel.org/fathers2/NPNF2-02/Npnf2-02-26.htm#P4491_2020411
[3] “This he carried into effect in other cities as well as in the city named after him, which being previously called Byzantium, he enlarged, surrounded with massive walls, and adorned with various edifices; and having rendered it equal to imperial Rome, he named it Constantinople, establishing by law that it should be designated New Rome.”
Socrates Scholasticus “Ecclesiastical History” Book 1. Chapter XVI
ccel.org/fathers2/NPNF2-02/Npnf2-02-06.htm#P173_39581
[4] "…Bishop Anatolius of Constantinople had to apologize to Pope Leo for the infamous Canon 28, writing,

As for those things which the universal Council of Chalcedon recently ordained in favour of the Church of Constantinople, let Your Holiness be sure that there was no fault in me, who from my youth have always loved peace and quiet, keeping myself in humility. It was the most reverend clergy of the Church of Constantinople who were eager about it, and they were equally supported by the most reverend priests of those parts, who agreed about it. Even so, the whole force of confirmation of the acts was reserved for the authority of Your Blessedness . Therefore, let Your Holiness know for certain that I did nothing to further the matter, knowing always that I held myself bound to avoid the lusts of pride and covetousness. -Patriarch Anatolius of Constantinople to Pope Leo, Ep 132 (on the subject of canon 28 of Chalcedon)."
catholic-legate.com/dialogues/sspxsacrament.html
Anatolius is writing to say it wasn’t he who over-stepped his jurisdiction. He is shifting ‘blame’ to the Council (without applying the same charge). In fact this is recognition that an Ecumenical Council viewed the Pope differently to the way Catholics do; because they are the ones who came up with the canon. Anatolius is simply saying he’s not to be blamed if his See is raised in stature.
[5] Letter 104
ccel.org/fathers2/NPNF2-12/Npnf2-12-104.htm#P1848_429576
[6] Letter 105
ccel.org/fathers2/NPNF2-12/Npnf2-12-105.htm#P1873_438004
Of interest this same Leo argued that the Nicene Creed was unalterable, something Catholics did some centuries later by adding the filioque.
[7] Letter 106
ccel.org/fathers2/NPNF2-12/Npnf2-12-106.htm#P1892_444556

And what happens next? Marcian writes to Leo to press him to confirm the Council
Letter CX
ccel.org/fathers2/NPNF2-12/Npnf2-12-110.htm#P1983_467837

 

[Montalban]

Thus despite the Papal Legates objections, the Imperial commissioners and the bishops acclaimed thei decision, and the Emperor went ahead and promulgated the decrees.
Davis L. D., (1990), “The First Seven Ecumenical Councils (325-787) Their History and Theology”, (Liturgical Press, Minnesota), p191

 

[itsjustdave1988]

…Are you even aware of what this means?

Yes, I’m aware of the implication of Anatolius submitting the already approved acts of the council to Leo for his ratification. It means “the whole force of confirmation of the acts [of Chalcedon] was reserved for the authority of [Pope Leo].” It means the Bishops of Chalcedon rightly “***yielded agreement to the Head” ***(Chalcedon to Pope Leo, Ep. 98), because they considered Pope Leo “**interpreter to all of the voice of blessed Peter.” **(ibid.)

From a Protestant source…

Letter CXXXII. From Anatolius, Bishop of Constantinople, to Leo.

(In which he complains of the intermission in their correspondence, maintains his allegiance to Rome, announces the restitution of Aetius, deprecates the charge of personal ambition, and remits the proceedings of Chalcedon for his approval.)

From: ccel.org/fathers2/NPNF2-12/Npnf2-12-131.htm#P2286_544844

While I find it rather odd that they don’t post the actual document but instead simply summarize it, CCEL seems to understand this letter as I do. Anatolius submitted the proceedings of Chalcedon to Pope Leo for his approval. He would not have done so if he didn’t think Leo’s approval was required for the acts to have “force.”

Consequently, Pope Leo ratified 27 canons, and vetoed canon 28. Anatolius’ request for ratification and admittance that the “whole force” depended upon Leo’s confirmation speaks quite clearly about the primacy of the Bishop of Rome.

…Constantinople was the New Rome which simply meant a reflection with the secular world

As for linking the importance of the See of Constantinople in the Church to the status of that city in the secular world, this is precisely why the canon was vetoed. It was an absurd assertion, and heterodox ecclesiology.

Using this logic, Constantinople only became important because it was the capital of the Byzantine empire–an empire THAT DOES NOT EXIST anymore. It follows then that NOW the See of Constantinople (today called Istanbul, Turkey) should have a demoted status, simply because in secular affairs, the city has almost no relative influence in the world. Same with Antioch. Same with Alexandria. NONE of these cities has a significant global influence when compared to other “new Romes” of the world.

It seems the logical conclusion that one would continue to transferring this supposed secular-linked primacy to the New New New Rome, and so forth. This is one of the many reasons Eastern Orthodox ecclesiology is completely unconvincing to me. The ever-changing “rankings” would be so fluid that such an ecclesiology is untenable. The Church’s authority is not built upon the ever-changing sands of the secular world. Instead it was built upon the rock of Peter, the primacy of Peter, which continues today in the primacy of the See of Peter, whose historical successor is Pope Benedict XVI.

It seems Eastern Orthodox were quite willing to use the unconvincing polemics of “secular world” dynamics in ther RISE of the See of Constantinople, but when the city fell in importance, and the Byzantine Empire disappeared, they remain oddly silent about their consequent FALL in importance…

In today’s secular affairs, which is the most dominant city who might justifiably consider itself “new new new new… new Rome?” Washington DC? Shouldn’t Constantinople (which isn’t even a city in any empire anymore) give up its supposed importance in the Church to the See of Washington DC? Who would be “second Rome?” Third?

Using this strange ecclesiology of mirroring secular importance, the Church would have to change her canons to match the ever-changing dynamics of the secular world. This is precisely why Chalcedon’s canon 28 was rejected by the See of Peter. Such an ecclesiology has no basis in Scripture or Tradition.

The See of Peter always had primacy, not because of secular affairs, but because of the primacy of Peter.

 

[Montalban]

itsjustdave1988, thanks for simply repeating your evidence, only highlighting the bits you think are important. It’s very helpful to do this and to ignore the evidence I cited from Davis (a Jesuit historian), and Runciman.

itsjustdave1988:

As for linking the importance of the See of Constantinople in the Church to the status of that city in the secular world, this is precisely why the canon was vetoed. It was an absurd assertion, and heterodox ecclesiology.

It wasn’t vetoed. It was accepted. Even by the western Church.

I’ve already listed the dates for it. You’re repitition of this mistake is simply strange.

Note too that Jerusalem was lower in ‘status’ though it was an earlier church than all others. Jerusalem was not an important city following the destruction of 70AD.

itsjustdave1988:

It seems Eastern Orthodox were quite willing to use the unconvincing polemics of “secular world” dynamics in ther RISE of the See of Constantinople, but when the city fell in importance, and the Byzantine Empire disappeared, they remain oddly silent about their consequent FALL in importance…

An absurdist argument. When the empire fell, the city still remained important. It was the chief city of the Ottoman Empire, an Empire that contained still a very large population of Orthodox.

It was never ‘unimportant’ to that Orthodox population. And, as the church grew in other lands, such as Russia, Moscow (a city that grew in importance) also grew in ‘status’.

Your whole position is based on an extremly flawed understanding of history.

To test our idea that we have understood them correctly we may examine the history of the early church; to see how the church interacted with each other. If there was an idea that the Roman See was first in not only honour, but in a real sense of power and headship we would expect to see the early church paying heed to the words of the Bishop of Rome in any controversies that arose. The first such test arises with Pope St. Victor.

Victor was Pope (189-199) when controversy arose amongst some churches regarding when Easter should be celebrated. The Church in Asia Minor celebrated Easter on a different day from the rest of the Christian churches, and although he initiated a synod to investigate, this was done by request, not command. Polycrates, Bishop of Ephesus wrote to St. Victor “Victor and the Roman Church”.[1] Not “Victor head of the whole church” (in other words he’s acknowledging Victor as head of his own diocese).

Eusebius further says “There is extant to this day a letter from those who attended a conference in Palestine presided over by Bishop Theophilus of Caesarea and Narcissus of Jerusalem; and from those at Rome a similar one, arising out of the same controversy, which names Victor as bishop. There are others from the Pontic bishops, presided over by Palmas as the senior; from the Gallic province, over which Irenaeus was archbishop, and from the bishops in Osrhoene and the cities of that region. There are personal letters from Bishop Bacchyllus of Corinth and very many more, who voiced the same opinion and judgment and gave the same vote. All these laid down one single rule the rule already stated.” [2]

 

[Montalban]

Thus the decree came from the conference, not from the Pope. However, Polycrates disputed the council findings. Eusebius wrote…

“Thereupon Victor, head of the Roman Church attempted at one stroke to cut off from the common unity all the Asian diocese, together with the neighboring churches, on the ground of heterodoxy.” [3]

Note here it states that Victor attempted. He failed because “…this was not to the taste of all the bishops: they replied with a request that he would turn his mind to the things that make for peace and unity and love towards his neighbours. We still possess the words of these men who very sternly rebuked Victor. Among them was Irenaeus, who wrote on behalf of the Christians for whom he was
responsible for in Gaul.”[4] This hardly suggest universal over-lordship as understood by the early church. In fact it argues very much against this; one bishop sought to exert his authority outside of his See and was either ignored or sternly rebuked.

Even when the churches were reconciled it was done in a manner that does not suggest Papal overlordship…

16 And when the blessed Polycarp was at Rome in the time of Anicetus, and they disagreed a little about certain other things, they immediately made peace with one another, not caring to quarrel over this matter. For neither could Anicetus persuade Polycarp not to observe what he had always observed with John the disciple of our Lord, and the other apostles with whom he had associated; neither could Polycarp persuade Anicetus to observe it as he said that he ought to follow the customs of the presbyters that had preceded him.[5]

That is, two bishops met and came to a mutual agreement. It was in no way where the Pope ordered and Polycarp obeyed.

In short the only people who seem to have understood ‘Papal Supremacy’ were some Popes. The rest of the church, nay, the whole empire just went ahead with proulgating councils, etc. Celestine condemns Nestorius. A church council’s called by an Emperor, where they still accord him the honour of his position (because he’s still ‘innocent’). They judge the evidence and they call him heretic. They pass their findings on to all the Sees to have it ratified. Leo demands that the canon get removed. The emperor says he should ratify it, and does so himself.

Roman Catholic historian Bishop Maret says “The Pope pronounced in the affair of Nestorius a canonical judgment clothed with all the
authority of his see. He had prescribed its execution. Yet, however, three months after this sentence and before its execution, all the episcopate is invited to examine afresh and to decide freely the question in dispute…” [7]

The First Ecumenical Council states that Bishops in Alxeandria are to have rights in relation to the other churches in Egypt as Rome has with its churches [7], that is Rome’s authority is local to it. The Second Ecumenical Council states that bishops have no power over other bishops. [8]

ENDNOTES

---

[1] Eusebius – v. 24, quoted in Whelton, p45.

[2] Ibid, p45.

[3] Ibid, pp46-47.

Note that the Catholic Church regards Eusebius as the “Father of Church History” (newadvent.org/cathen/05617b.htm)

[4] Whelton, Ibid.

[5] Eusubius, Book V Chapter XXIV quoted at ccel.org/fathers2/NPNF2-01/Npnf2-01-10.htm#P2729_1313445

[6] (Du Concile generale et de la paix religieuse - vol1, page 183, Bishop
Henri Maret Paris, 1869). quoted in Whelton, p60

[7] canon 6 members.aol.com/DSeraphim/1.html

[8] Canon 2 ccel.org/fathers/NPNF2-14/3Const1/Canon2.htm Note, it doesn’t draw distinction of a special role for the Bishop of Rome

 

[itsjustdave1988]

…It wasn’t vetoed. It was accepted.

Pope Leo I: “we dismiss as without legal effect… By the authority of the blessed apostle Peter we quash it utterly by a general sentence.” [Letter of Leo, May 22, 452, cited in *The Church in Crisis: A History of the General Councils: 325-1870, by Phillip Hughes, ch. 4]

According to even Fr Ambrose: “Yes, he rejected Canon 28 but…the Pope was ignored.”

You seem to be using the same worn-out polemic that since the pope was ignored by some, this somehow disproved his primacy of jurisdiction.

However, that too is not convincing. For example, the non-Chalcedonian Eastern Churches rejected Chalcedon. Does that make them orthodox in doing so? Does that disprove the jurisdictional authority of Ecumenical Councils?

In the final analysis, the EO polemics remain unconvincing. What you’ve attempted to “prove” brings nothing new to the discussion. I’ve looked at EO claims and they remain uncongruent with the evidence. Citing Trullo as your “evidence” of acceptance of canon 28 did bring a chuckle, however. Thanks.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

That canon 28 was vetoed by Leo is confirmed in that it was not included by Johannes Scholasticus–patriarch of Constantinople from 565 to 577–in his Collection of fifty titles.

Fr. Ambrose cited a source by Milton V. Anastos which claimed…

the Vatican itself did not recognize the twenty-eighth canon until the Fourth Lateran Council

Yet, here is what the Fourth Lateran Council actually stated…

[from Canon V.] Renewing the ancient privileges of the patriarchal sees, we decree with the approval of the holy and ecumenical council, that after the Roman Church, which by the will of God holds over all others pre-eminence of ordinary power as the mother and mistress of all the faithful, that of Constantinople shall hold first place, that of Alexandria second, that of Antioch third, and that of Jerusalem fourth, the dignity proper to each to be observed; so that after their bishops have received from the Roman pontiff the pallium, which is the distinguishing mark of the plenitude of the pontifical office, and have taken the oath of fidelity and obedience to him, they may also lawfully bestow the pallium upon their suffragans, receiving from them the canonical profession of faith for themselves, and for the Roman Church the pledge of obedience. They may have the standard of the cross borne before them everywhere, except in the city of Rome and wherever the supreme pontiff or his legate wearing the insignia of Apostolic dignity is present. In all provinces subject to their jurisdiction appeals may be taken to them when necessary, saving the appeals directed to the Apostolic See, which must be humbly respected.

Although this arrangement is a renewal of “ancient priviledges,” one should note the lack of reference to canon 28 of Chalcedon. There are critical differences between canon 5 above and canon 28 from Chalcedon. Here’s what canon 28 of Chalcedon attempted to make law:

CANON XXVIII. Following in all things the decisions of the holy Fathers, and acknowledging the canon, which has been just read, of the One Hundred and Fifty Bishops beloved-of-God (who assembled in the imperial city of Constantinople, which is New Rome, in the time of the Emperor Theodosius of happy memory), we also do enact and decree the same things concerning the privileges of the most holy Church of Constantinople, which is New Rome. For the Fathers rightly granted privileges to the throne of old Rome, because it was the royal city. And the One Hundred and Fifty most religious Bishops, actuated by the same consideration,** gave equal privileges** to the most holy throne of New Rome, justly judging that the city which is honoured with the Sovereignty and the Senate, and enjoys equal privileges with the old imperial Rome, should in ecclesiastical matters also be magnified as she is, and rank next after her; so that, in the Pontic, the Asian, and the Thracian dioceses, the metropolitans only and such bishops also of the Dioceses aforesaid as are among the barbarians, should be ordained by the aforesaid most holy throne of the most holy Church of Constantinople; every metropolitan of the aforesaid dioceses, together with the bishops of his province, ordaining his own provincial bishops, as has been declared by the divine canons; but that, as has been above said, the metropolitans of the aforesaid Dioceses should be ordained by the archbishop of Constantinople, after the proper elections have been held according to custom and have been reported to him.

If the bishops of Chalcedon had written canon 28 without linking ecclesiology to secular affairs, the canon might have had a better chance at being ratified by Leo I. However, it’s error was that it claimed primacy was caused by secular influence, which is rubbish.

“Russians think Moscow Patriarchate is leader of Orthodoxy not just avtokephalnaja like Serbian, Bulgarian, etc.” (posted by Volodymyr, who lives in Kharkiv). Is Russia’s claim as “New New Rome” just as valid? Do other EOs see the Moscow Patriarchate the as “first among equals?”

It seems clear to me that EO suffers from what Russian Orthodox author, Nicholas Afanassieff asserts, “Orthodox theology has not yet built up any systematic doctrine on Church government. … In modern times, the unity of the Orthodox Church is becoming a sort of abstract ideal, with no means of manifesting itself in the real life of the Church.” [Nicholas Afanassieff, “The Church Which Presides in Love,” Primacy of Peter, John Meyendorff, ed., *St. Vladimier’s Seminary Press, 1992, chapter 4]

continued…

 

[itsjustdave1988]

continued…

Nicholas Afanassieff continues, "Anyone who regards the pan-Orthodox or Ecumenical Council as an organ manifesting the Church’s unity is just putting things in the wrong order, consequences before foundation. In fact, the pan-Orthodox Council should be the consequence of Orthodox Church unity; it should be guided by a church or a bishop; and it cannot be a foundation for this unity." (ibid.)

Note that is it “by the will of God” that Rome holds the primacy, according to Lateran IV, whereas the claims of canon 28 stated that it was because of the secular importance of the city of Rome, thereby making it’s case for Constantinople due the secular importance of the city of Constantinople. This is erroneous.

Consequently, canon 28 of Chalcedon is still rejected by the Catholic Church, as it was in the 5th century, contrary opinions notwithstanding. Lateran IV gives primacy after Rome to the patriarch of Constantinople, but does NOT do so due to claims linked to secular influence of the city of that See.

The See of Peter has primacy in the universal Church, by the eternal “will of God,” not the temporal will of empires long since fallen.

 

[Montalban]

Pope Leo I: “we dismiss as without legal effect… By the authority of the blessed apostle Peter we quash it utterly by a general sentence.” [Letter of Leo, May 22, 452, cited in *The Church in Crisis: A History of the General Councils: 325-1870

, by Phillip Hughes, ch. 4]

According to even Fr Ambrose: “Yes, he rejected Canon 28 but…the Pope was ignored.”

You seem to be using the same worn-out polemic that since the pope was ignored by some, this somehow disproved his primacy of jurisdiction.

However, that too is not convincing. For example, the non-Chalcedonian Eastern Churches rejected Chalcedon. Does that make them orthodox in doing so? Does that disprove the jurisdictional authority of Ecumenical Councils?

In the final analysis, the EO polemics remain unconvincing. What you’ve attempted to “prove” brings nothing new to the discussion. I’ve looked at EO claims and they remain uncongruent with the evidence. Citing Trullo as your “evidence” of acceptance of canon 28 did bring a chuckle, however. Thanks.

No problem. There’s something odd with someone who finds ‘evidence’ amusing - in many it might cause them to actually stop and think, especially when such comes from Catholic sources

I’d already mentioned this ‘fact’ several times. Then I cited evidence (post #40). Then I reminded you of it. You continue to dismiss it out of hand, and then draw attention to yourself by saying that this catholic encyclopedia is laughable

"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

Let’s just pretend it doesn’t exist

 

[Montalban]

Consider that this post supersedes the post above

Pope Leo I: “we dismiss as without legal effect… By the authority of the blessed apostle Peter we quash it utterly by a general sentence.” [Letter of Leo, May 22, 452, cited in *The Church in Crisis: A History of the General Councils: 325-1870

, by Phillip Hughes, ch. 4]

According to even Fr Ambrose: “Yes, he rejected Canon 28 but…the Pope was ignored.”

You seem to be using the same worn-out polemic that since the pope was ignored by some, this somehow disproved his primacy of jurisdiction.

However, that too is not convincing. For example, the non-Chalcedonian Eastern Churches rejected Chalcedon. Does that make them orthodox in doing so? Does that disprove the jurisdictional authority of Ecumenical Councils?

In the final analysis, the EO polemics remain unconvincing. What you’ve attempted to “prove” brings nothing new to the discussion. I’ve looked at EO claims and they remain uncongruent (sic; incongruent?) with the evidence. Citing as your “evidence” of acceptance of canon 28 did bring a chuckle, however. Thanks.

No problem. There’s something odd with someone who finds ‘evidence’ amusing - in many it might cause them to actually stop and think, especially when such comes from Catholic sources

I’d already mentioned this ‘fact’ several times. Then I cited evidence (post #40). Then I reminded you of it. You continue to dismiss it out of hand, and then draw attention to yourself by saying that this catholic encyclopaedia is laughable

"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

Let’s just pretend it doesn’t exist. The issue was that the papacy rejected the canon. They didn’t.

Then, laughably, instead of a defence of the Papacy, you try an attack on Orthodoxy (it’s organisation). :bigyikes:

Rounding that off, you then acknowledge that the Canon was accepted :whacky: but only disagreeing on ‘why’ it was. It accepted that Constantinople should be second in status. End of story. If you can hold to a single argument, that would be really helpful, and egad, a Roman forum declaring in favour of itself as directed to be so by God. That’s hard hitting evidence; (circular more likely as for you the Papacy proves itself). That doesn’t matter the issue was that the church accepted that Constantinople should be second to Rome. Why was Constantinople’s status raised at all? It was not as ancient a See as the others it went higher than; viz. Alexandria, Jerusalem and Antioch. And please continue to ignore the historical evidence from Socrates Scholasticus which entitled Constantinople “New Rome”.

None of your retort addresses the fact that Emperor urged that all the canons be accepted by everyone. As noted, the church as a whole seems totally oblivious to Papal Supremacy.

 

[Montalban]

So you ignore the way the Church acted, hone in instead on Leo indignantly not wishing to lose any of his own privileges. Ignore that the Church didn’t obey him as if he were leader. Zero in on the fact that he didn’t accept that Constantinople could be raised; even though centuries later the Catholic Church accepted this, but of course saying that Rome was the first city - when the only evidence you’ve presented to this effect is Rome’s opinion of itself. BUT at the same time, ignore the very fact that Constantinople could be raised above cities that had a longer standing (in terms of Apostolic Sees)! I note also you completely ignored the evidence to do with Pope St. Victor

Even the first Christian writer to use the term ‘Catholic’ makes reference to each church headed by a bishop, not a bishop of bishops, or even a bishop in communion with Rome.
The Epistle of Ignatius to the Smyrnaeans
"Chapter VIII.-Let Nothing Be Done Without the Bishop.

See that ye all follow the bishop, even as Jesus Christ does the Father, and the presbytery as ye would the apostles; and reverence the deacons, as being the institution of God. Let no man do anything connected with the Church without the bishop. Let that be deemed a proper Eucharist, which is [administered] either by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude [of the people] also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church. It is not lawful without the bishop either to baptize or to celebrate a love-feast; but whatsoever he shall approve of, that is also pleasing to God, so that everything that is done may be secure and valid"
ccel.org/fathers2/ANF-01/anf01-21.htm#P2123_357530

Ignatius too seems totally unaware of the special place of Rome :nope:

 

[itsjustdave1988]

The Emporer often urged the church to Arianism, Nestorianism, Monophysitism, Monothetilism, and Iconoclasm. Yet, Catholics don’t agree with your insistence upon caesaropapism.

We instead we hold fast to the “chair of Peter” (St. Cyprian), because “If someone does not hold fast to this unity of Peter, can he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he [should] desert the chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, can he still be confident that he is in the Church?” (St. Cyprian, The Unity of the Catholic Church 4; 1st edition [A.D. 251]). As Catholics, we maintian our agreement with the Church of Rome, the church that “because of its superior origin, all the churches must agree, that is, all the faithful in the whole world, and it is in her that the faithful everywhere have maintained the apostolic tradition” (St. Irenaeus, Against Heresies 3:3:2 [A.D. 189]).

As for St. Ignatius (AD 50-110)…“Ignatius . . . to the church also which holds the presidency, in the location of the country of the Romans…I desire only that what you have enjoined in your instructions may remain in force” (ibid., 3:1).***" ***(Letter to the Romans 1:1; 3:1 [A.D. 110]).

Yet, you claim…

Ignatius too seems totally unaware of the special place of Rome

According to Eastern Orthodox authors:“Let us turn to the facts. We know that the Church of Rome took over the position of ‘church-with-priority’ at the end of the first century.” (THE PRIMACY OF PETER : Essays in Ecclesiology and the Early Church edited by John Meyendorff, St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 1992, page 124)…“Speaking of the Church of Rome, Ignatius [AD 110] uses the phrase ‘which presides’ in two passages. … The term ‘which presides’ [Greek given] needs no discussion; used in the masculine it means the bishop, for he, as head of the local church, sits in the ‘first place’ at the eucharistic assembly, that is, in the central seat. He is truly the president of his church…[Ignatius] pictured the local churches grouped, as it were, in a eucharistic assembly, with every church in its special place, and the church of Rome in the chair, sitting in the ‘first place.’ So, says Ignatius, the Church of Rome indeed has the priority in the whole company of churches united by concord…In his period no other church laid claim to the role, which belonged to the Church of Rome.” (page 126-127)Just like St. Ignatius (AD 50-110), we find decades later in St. Irenaeus’ works (AD 189) what the “presidency” of the Church of Rome means…

From the same Eastern Orthodox source…"…Irenaeus [AD 189] insists that anyone looking for the truth can find it in the Tradition of the Apostles, which every local church has preserved. So we must suppose he thought that ***the Apostolic Tradition and the Faith proclaimed to mankind were preserved in the Roman Church more fully than in others, or, at least, in a more manifest way. ***" (ibid)

This understanding of the unity of the Catholic Church with the chair of Peter is also expressed by St. Cyprian, according to this same Eastern Orthodox text…"…according to [Cyprian’s] doctrine there should have really been one single bishop at the head of the Universal Church…According to Cyprian, every bishop occupies Peter’s throne (the Bishop of Rome among others) but the See of Peter is Peter’s throne-par excellence-. The Bishop of Rome is the direct heir of Peter, whereas the others are heirs only indirectly, and sometimes only by the mediation of Rome. Hence Cyprian’s insistence that the Church of Rome is the root and matrix of the Catholic Church [Ecclesiae catholicae matricem et radicem]. The subject is treated in so many of Cyprian’s passages that there is no doubt: to him, the See of Rome was -ecclesia principalis unde unitas sacerdotalis exorta est- [the Principal Church from which the unity of the priesthood/episcopacy has its rise]." (ibid)continued…

 

[itsjustdave1988]

continued…

Catholics continue to assert, as ancient Greek historian Socrates Scholasticus in his history of the fourth-century Church attested: “An ecclesiastical canon commands that the churches shall not make any ordinances against the opinion of the bishop of Rome” (*The Ecclesiastical History *II, 8).

As it stands, this thread has become quite repetitive and boring, too boring for me to bother with it any longer.

For others who would like a better understanding of the historical evidence, I recommend the following book by Russian Orthodox scholar…

Russia and the universal church
byVladimir Sergeyevich Solovyov

I also recommend this article from *This Rock, *which gives a good summary of Vladimir Solovyov’s understanding of the papacy…

An Eastern Voice Crying in the Wilderness
By Ray Ryland

 

[Montalban]

itsjustdave1988:

According to Eastern Orthodox authors:
“Let us turn to the facts. We know that the Church of Rome took over the position of ‘church-with-priority’ at the end of the first century.” (THE PRIMACY OF PETER : Essays in Ecclesiology and the Early Church edited by John Meyendorff, St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 1992, page 124)…

What do you think that this means? Does it not acknowledge that ‘primacy’ was not there from the start? Is this what you are hoping to say?

“Speaking of the Church of Rome, Ignatius [AD 110]
uses the phrase ‘which presides’ in two passages. … The term ‘which presides’ [Greek given] needs no discussion; used in the masculine it means the bishop, for he, as head of the local church, sits in the ‘first place’ at the eucharistic assembly, that is, in the central seat. He is truly the president of his church…[Ignatius] pictured the local churches grouped, as it were, in a eucharistic assembly, with every church in its special place, and the church of Rome in the chair, sitting in the ‘first place.’ So, says Ignatius, the Church of Rome indeed has the priority in the whole company of churches united by concord…In his period no other church laid claim to the role, which belonged to the Church of Rome.” (page 126-127)
Just like St. Ignatius (AD 50-110), we find decades later in St. Irenaeus’ works (AD 189) what the “presidency” of the Church of Rome means…

Rather than simply repeat all your evidences, I’ll address the two given as they are in essence containing what it is we need to discuss.

For you ‘preside’ (as in ‘president of…’) means ruler of. For us ‘preside’ means being the ‘chairman’ of a group of equal bishops. At best you’re arguing here that Rome assumed that role only at the end of the first century; an odd claim to be making - unless you disagree with your own citation. Does Ireneaus mean ‘preside’ as you hope to have him say?

Asides from ignoring the example I gave of Pope St. Victor (which shows that the early church considered Rome’s authority as limited to Italy), you must ignore the contextual statements of Ignatius as well. Ignatius
Ignatius of Antioch thus addresses a letter to the Romans as a church in charge of local affairs. He begins his Epistle “…to the Church that is in charge of affairs in Roman quarters.”
earlychristianwritings.com/text/ignatius-romans-lightfoot.html

Note he doesn’t say ”To the church that is in charge everywhere throughout the Christian world”, but limits this to the church that is in charge of the affairs within its own area. He stated explicitly that a bishop in charge of his own church makes a ‘Catholic’ church.

“Ignatius, who is also Theophorus, unto her that hath found mercy in the bountifulness of the Father Most High and of Jesus Christ His only Son; to the church that is beloved and enlightened through the will of Him who willed all things that are, by faith and love towards Jesus Christ our God; even unto her that hath the presidency in the country of the region of the Romans, being worthy of God, worthy of honour, worthy of felicitation, worthy of praise, worthy of success, worthy in purity, and having the presidency of love, walking in the law of Christ and bearing the Father’s name; which church also I salute in the name of Jesus Christ the Son of the Father; unto them that in flesh and spirit are united unto His every commandment, being filled with the grace of God without wavering, and filtered clear from every foreign stain; abundant greeting in Jesus Christ our God in blamelessness.”
earlychristianwritings.com/text/ignatius-romans-lightfoot.html

 

[Montalban]

Again note… ‘to the presidency in the country of the region of the Romans’, that is, to the area around Rome! Note also ‘to the church that is beloved…’ not ‘to the church that is MOST beloved…’

Irenaeus, in his Against Heresies, (written between A.D. 180-199), says further, in what has been preserved only in the ancient Latin: “But since it would be too long to enumerate in such a volume as this the successions of all the Churches, we shall…[point] out here the successions of the bishops of the greatest and most ancient Church known to all, founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious Apostles, Peter and Paul, the Church which has the tradition and the faith which comes down to us after having been announced to men by the Apostles. For with this Church, because of its superior origin, all Churches must agree, that is, all of the faithful in the whole world; and it is in her that the faithful everywhere have maintained the Apostolic tradition” [3,3,2]. (p.90).
saveourchurch.org/faithfather.html

The quote by Irenaeus of Lyons has this interesting footnote…
The Latin text of this difficult but important clause is, “Ad hanc enim ecclesiam propter potiorem principalitatem necesse est omnem convenire ecclesiam.” Both the text and meaning have here given rise to much discussion. It is impossible to say with certainty of what words in the Greek original “potiorem principalitatem” may be the translation. We are far from sure that the rendering given above is correct, but we have been unable to think of anything better. [A most extraordinary confession. It would be hard to find a worse; but take the following from a candid Roman Catholic, which is better and more literal: “For to this Church, on account of more potent principality, it is necessary that every Church (that is, those who are on every side faithful) resort; in which Church ever, by those who are on every side, has been preserved that tradition which is from the apostles.” (Berington and Kirk, vol. i. p. 252.) Here it is obvious that the faith was kept at Rome, by those who resort there from all quarters. She was a mirror of the Catholic World, owing here orthodoxy to them; not the Sun, dispensing her own light to others, but the glass bringing their rays into a focus. See note at end of book iii.] A discussion of the subject may be seen in chap. xii. of Dr. Wordsworth’s St. Hippolytus and the Church of Rome.
ccel.org/fathers2/ANF-01/footnote/fn73.htm#P7320_1946616

“St. Irenaeus, in his Against Heresies, continues: “The blessed Apostles [Peter and Paul], having founded and built up the Church [of Rome], they handed over the office of the episcopate to Linus. [Paul makes mention of this Linus in the Epistle to Timothy]. To him succeeded Anencletus; and after him, in the third place from the Apostles, Clement was chosen for the episcopate. He had seen the blessed Apostles and was acquainted with them. It might be said that He still heard the echoes of the preaching of the Apostles, and had their traditions before his eyes. And not only he, for there were still many remaining who had been instructed by the Apostles… [After Clement] Evaristus…Alexander…Then, sixth after the Apostles, Sixtus was appointed…[then] Telesphorus…Then Hyginus; after him, Pius; and after him, Anicetus. Soter succeeded Anicetus, and now, in the twelfth place after the Apostles, the lot of the episcopate has fallen to Eleutherus. In this order, and by the teaching of the Apostles handed down in the Church, the preaching of the truth has come down to us. Polycarp…was also appointed bishop of the Church in Smyrna…He always taught those things which he had learned from the Apostles, and which the Church had handed down…” [3,3,3; 3,3,4]. (p.90). “It is not necessary to seek among others the truth which is so easily obtained from the Church. For the Apostles, like a rich man in a bank, deposited with her most copiously everything which pertains to the truth; and everyone who soever wishes draws from her the drink of life. For she is the entrance to life…cherishing with the utmost diligence…the tradition of truth”[3,4,1]. (p.90, 91).”
saveourchurch.org/faithfather.html