Whom founded the Orthodox Church?

[Hiskid1973]

Hey be nice you two…Just stick to the topic…
Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that ye may know how ye ought to answer every man…
Let nothing be done through strife or vainglory; but in lowliness of mind let each esteem other better than themselves

 

[Nine_Two]

Come on. Is Islam Christian?

Interesting. Make an argumentum ad populum, and then when it backfires just limit who can be included.

By interesting I mean dishonest.

If popular approval marks the truth of the faith, why isn’t everyone allowed to vote for the Pope?

 

[John_Larocque]

I am going to enter a couple of fairly long posts but I want there to be no errors in understanding or comprehension, deliberate or not. I will ask and attempt to answer what St. Cyprian means by “Chair of Peter” and then lead back to “Bishop Eucharist Church”.

In a previous thread, aa poster cited Catholic apologist Mark Bonocore who explained what the Cathedra of Peter means according to the ecclesiology of St. Cyprian.

“While Cyprian clearly did believe in the primacy of Rome, when the great bishop and martyr of Carthage spoke of the “Chair of Peter,” he usually was referring, not to the Papacy, but to the teaching authority of the Church itself, which is shared by all the bishops of the Catholic Church, just as the “Chair of Moses” (per Matt 23:1-3) was shared by all the scribes and Pharisees collectively.

“However, while Cyprian clearly believed that all bishops share in the “Chair of Peter” (that is, the teaching authority of the Church itself), he did not believe that all bishops shared in this authority equally or to the same extent. Rather, when one reads all of Cyprian, his ecclesiology essentially worked like this:

a) On the local level, the “Chair of Peter” was held by the bishop of a particular city-church, who was responsible for maintaining unity among the presbyters and laity, just as St. Peter maintained unity among the other Apostles and disciples. This was Cyprians primary objective in the quote that you read. However…

b) On the regional level, the “Chair of Peter” was held by the metropolitan bishop of a
particular region, which was Cyprian’s own position as the Bishop of Carthage, and so metropolitan archbishop of all Africa and Numidia. In this role, he was responsible for maintaining unity among all the bishops throughout African and Numidia. However…

c) On the universal level, the “Chair of Peter” was held by St. Peter’s own literal successor, who of course was/is the Bishop of Rome. And the Bishop of Rome was responsible for maintaining unity and orthodoxy throughout the universal Church.

“This is how Cyprian understood “the Chair of Peter. And modern Catholics can hold to this same ecclesiology today.”

Here is Zizioulas on the Cyprian text cited above:

It should be noted that this passage implies that every Bishop (and not only the Bishop of Rome) is a successor of Peter given that the above saying of the Lord refers to “the honor of the bishop and the order of His Church.”

Here is patristic (Roman Catholic) scholar Johannes again, driving home that in St. Cyprian’s view, the bishops are the successors of the apostles, and that the text of Matthew 23 (and the promise to St. Peter) applies to them.

To defend ecclesiastical unity, when it was threatened by schisms, Cyprian wrote De unitate ecclesiae and many of his letters, founding it, so far as the members of the Church are concerned, on adherence to the bishop. ‘You should understand that the bishop is in the Church and the Church in the bishop and that whoever is not with the bishop is not in the Church’ (Epist. 66.8). Thus the ordinary is the visible authority around which the congregation is centered.

The solidarity of the universal Church rests in turn on that of the bishops, who act as a sort of senate. They are the successors of the apostles and the apostles were the bishops of old. ‘The Lord chose the apostles, that is, the bishops and rulers’ (Epist. 3.3). The Church is built upon them. Thus Cyprian interprets the Tu es Petrus (You are Peter) as follows:

"Our Lord, whose precepts and admonitions we ought to observe, describing the honour of a bishop and the order of His Church, speaks in the Gospel, and says to Peter: ‘I say unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock will I build my Church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.’ Thence, through the changes of times and successions, the ordering of bishops and the plan of the Church flow onwards; so that the Church is founded upon the bishops, and every act of the Church is controlled by these same rulers. Since then this order has been established by divine decree, I am amazed that some individuals have had the bold effrontery to write me and send letters in the name of the Church, seeing that the Church is composed of the bishop and the clergy and all who are steadfast’ (Cyprian, Epistle XXXIII, 1).

Thus he understands Matth. 16:18 of the whole episcopate, the various members of which, attached to one another by the laws of charity and concord (Epist. 54.1; 68.5), thus render the Church universal a single body. ‘The Church, which is catholic and one, is not split asunder nor divided but is truly bound and joined together by the cement of its priests, who hold fast one to another’ (Epist. 66.8).

Finally here is a quote of mine from a few threads:
“According to St. Cyprian, the bishops of the church also share in the Petrine succession and the St. Matthew text.”

And elsewhere: “Then there’s the Cyprianic understanding of the “Chair of Peter.” Cyprian affirmed a hereditary office, but it was shared by all the bishops of the church, not just the See of Rome. It’s a “collegiate” Petrine office if you want to put it that way.”

It would be hard to imagine why someone with a normal level of reading comprehension could come away from these sentences and conclude that the Bishop of the See of St. Peter and Paul (who is himself a bishop of a local church) has nothing to do with the Chair of Peter. The only thing that is being denied is that the Petrine promise of Matthew 23 belongs exclusively and only to the Bishop of Rome.

 

[John_Larocque]

I stated earlier that in Ignatian ecclesiology, the bishop is an “alter Christus.” Here, in the Cyprian system, each bishop, who is the bishop of a whole, complete or “catholic” church, is also an “alter Petrus.” Just as Peter was the leader of the apostles and the early church, the bishop is the leader of his presbytery and deacons and president of the local Eucharistic assembly. Also, through communion with the rest of his fellow bishops, the bishop is responsible for maintaining “orthodoxy”. Some of this thinking is reflected in post-Vatican II ecclesiology, including ARCIC documents that were quoted by Cardinal Kaspar at Lambeth last year.

I’m going to leave off with a couple of quotes from that book, as they reflect Zizioulas’ understanding of St. Cyprian.

But they are already expressed in principle and in a negative way in De Unitate: outside the Catholic Church there is no baptism {“non abluntur illic homines”), nor Eucharist (“falsa sacrificia”), nor Bishop (“episcopi nomen”) nor indeed a “cathedra” of right teaching.288 Can someone maintain that he has a right faith, asks Cyprian, if he is not connected with the cathedra of Peter which is occupied by the Bishop in each local Church?289 Faith and orthodoxy for Cyprian are ecclesiological concepts: right faith cannot form a self-sufficient means to salvation, but is a component in the believer’s more general dedication to the Catholic Church.

This important passage reveals that for Cyprian who broadens the concept of the catholicity of the Church by making a synthesis of all the elements he had inherited from previous generations that unity in the one Divine Eucharist and the one Bishop296 forms the criterion for the catholicity of the Church. A second Eucharist and a second Bishop in the same geographical area constitute a situation “outside the Catholic Church.” Here too, the supreme mark of remaining within the Catholic Church is unity in the one Eucharist “under the leadership of the Bishop.” Such unity describes the bounds of catholicity which in the synthetic exposition given by Cyprian means that living fullness of the body of Christ in which through the sovereignty of the Holy Spirit, doctrinal life {orthodoxy), and sacramental life (Eucharist, Baptism, Priesthood) form mutually dependent elements and an unbreakable unity which defines the boundaries and the substance of the Church. This fullness subsists in each Church which is led by a canonical Bishop.

Thus is it perfectly clear that, despite his recognition of the primacy of Peter, he does not recognize in any of the Bishops the right to express the unity of all the Bishops. This is demonstrated, besides, by his constant struggles against Rome’s view on baptism. If the texts in his works which have provoked so much discussion329 had even the slightest sense of acknowledging in the Roman Church the property of expressing the unity of all the Churches throughout the world, these struggles of Cyprian’s would be inexplicable. Besides, on the positive side, the only principle governing Cypria theology of the unity of the local Churches is that of the unity of the episcopate: “episcopatus unus est.” 330 This means that each of the Bishops participates in the same episcopate, not as a part of a whole, but as an expression of the whole. Hence the full equality of the Bishops all over the world forms a fundamental ecclesiological axiom for this Father too.

**It is not only all the Bishops together, but also each one of the Bishops who is the successor of all the Apostles.**331 The unity of all these Bishops and of the Churches under them in the one Catholic Church throughout the world is described by Cyprian with the term unanimitas.332 This shared consciousness and unanimity is ascertained through all the communication between the Bishops but in a quite special way through the Councils. In this way, the unity of the Bishops in different places is not a unity by addition as in a modern democracy but a unity of identity.

1. Epist. 66 (69). 5: The Lord’s words to the Apostles (Lk 10:16) were addressed to all the Bishops. It should be noted how Cyprian refers to the Apostle Peter as the foundation of the Church’s unity: “God is one, and Christ is one, and the Church is one, and one is the throne (cathedra) which the Lord’s word founded upon Peter” (Epist. 43 (40). 5). The nature of this one Church founded upon Peter is made clear by a careful study of the passage immediately following: “no other altar can be instituted, no other priesthood can be established apart from the one single altar, the one single priesthood” (Ibid.). From this it is quite clear that Cyprian has in mind here the proliferation of altars within one and the same Church because of schisms (besides, it is clear from the whole of the letter that this is what it is talking about); and consequently the ecclesial unity founded on the one throne of Peter is to be fοund in the episcopal Church which does not admit a second altar. In consequence, each bishop sits on the one throne of Peter. Cf. De Unit., 4. In view of this, one is justified in asking whether there is any ground, at least as far as the sources of the first three centuries go, for the view that the hierarchy “in its entirety” constitutes the successor of the Apostles in such a way that the college or “choir” of the Twelve is shared out in the succession to the particular Bishops. Such a collective unity of the episcopate, a unity by addition which easily permits the maintenance of a special office for the Pope as unifying in his person the college of the Apostles which is parcelled out among the various Bishops, is the underlying basis for the theory which has recently appeared among Roman Catholic theologians: concerning the “collegiality” of the Bishops.

 

[josie_L]

We’ve seen the way Catholicism was spread, conquer first, send missionaries later. It seems to have a lot in common with the spread of Islam. It is not our way.

John

The Catholic Church did not condone the behaviour of those who were violent against the indigenous people, in fact, when the conquistadors maltreated the natives, Spanish priests sent reports back home, which fueled debates about the dignity of all men. As a result of their efforts they laid the groundwork for international human rights law.

 

[SingleMomMonica]

Actually, the founders of individual sees are of importance to you, otherwise Orthodox posters would not be so quick to remind us that Peter founded Antioch as well as Rome.

The only reason Orthodox are quick to point out that St. Peter first established the Church in Antioch before together with St. Paul establishing the Church in Rome is because modern day Catholics place so much emphasis that St. Peter (usually completely ignoring St. Paul’s role in the founding of the Church in Rome) founded the Church in Rome.

Modern day Catholics seem more interested in which of the Apostles founded the Churches in the various cities rather than simply being satisfied that AN Apostle founded each of the various Churches. All of those Churches were together for the most part, each one at various points in history separated itself from the others for a short time, but it was in 1054 when the major split began with mutual excommunications of the Churches in Constantinople & Rome that was finalized by the 4th Roman Crusade that sacked Constantinople in 1204. The rest of the Churches followed Constantinople - what is now commonly termed “The Orthodox Church” and the Church in Rome remained alone - now commonly called “The Roman Catholic Church” - there have been a few other Churches who had split away from the Church prior to the Major split between Orthodoxy and Catholicism, like some of the Coptics who deny that Christ has 2 Natures, which have joined “The Roman Catholic Church” and so usually when speaking people drop the Roman, unless they are of that particular “Rite” and call it “The Catholic Church”.

This is revisionist history which can easily be dispelled if one simply reads the 28th Canon of Chalcedon, it is clear that only reason the Church of Rome had any “perogatives” is because** “The fathers rightly accorded prerogatives to the see of older Rome, since that is an imperial city” **quoted from Canon 28. It was purely due to the ancient political/imperial standing of Rome, not “which of the Apostles” founded the Church in Rome, that made it important.

If it had been because of “which of the Apostles”, then Antioch would have been of more importance since the Church there was founded prior to the Church in Rome. But as the Councils of the Church state, it wasn’t, so it’s not.

Let’s believe what the Church teaches in her Councils and not what a rogue Church now claims. Don’t believe me and don’t just believe what a certain Church currently teaches…**Read the Councils **(prior to the major split of Christendom) and their Canons.

 

[ralphinal]

The only reason Orthodox are quick to point out that St. Peter first established the Church in Antioch before together with St. Paul establishing the Church in Rome is because modern day Catholics place so much emphasis that St. Peter (usually completely ignoring St. Paul’s role in the founding of the Church in Rome) founded the Church in Rome.

Modern day Catholics seem more interested in which of the Apostles founded the Churches in the various cities rather than simply being satisfied that AN Apostle founded each of the various Churches. All of those Churches were together for the most part, each one at various points in history separated itself from the others for a short time, but it was in 1054 when the major split began with mutual excommunications of the Churches in Constantinople & Rome that was finalized by the 4th Roman Crusade that sacked Constantinople in 1204. The rest of the Churches followed Constantinople - what is now commonly termed “The Orthodox Church” and the Church in Rome remained alone - now commonly called “The Roman Catholic Church” - there have been a few other Churches who had split away from the Church prior to the Major split between Orthodoxy and Catholicism, like some of the Coptics who deny that Christ has 2 Natures, which have joined “The Roman Catholic Church” and so usually when speaking people drop the Roman, unless they are of that particular “Rite” and call it “The Catholic Church”.

This is revisionist history which can easily be dispelled if one simply reads the 28th Canon of Chalcedon, it is clear that only reason the Church of Rome had any “perogatives” is because** “The fathers rightly accorded prerogatives to the see of older Rome, since that is an imperial city”** quoted from Canon 28. It was purely due to the ancient political/imperial standing of Rome, not “which of the Apostles” founded the Church in Rome, that made it important.

If it had been because of “which of the Apostles”, then Antioch would have been of more importance since the Church there was founded prior to the Church in Rome. But as the Councils of the Church state, it wasn’t, so it’s not.

Let’s believe what the Church teaches in her Councils and not what a rogue Church now claims. Don’t believe me and don’t just believe what a certain Church currently teaches…**Read the Councils **(prior to the major split of Christendom) and their Canons.

The Pope did not affirm that Canon, Rome’s delegates were not there, and it was of political not spiritual nature…

 

[SingleMomMonica]

The Pope did not affirm that Canon, Rome’s delegates were not there, and it was of political not spiritual nature…

Pope Leo I didn’t, but following Councils recognized by the Catholic Church did. I will get the exact Council or two that “ratified” **all **of the Canons (which includes 28) of the Council of Chalcedon when I return from lunch.

Yes, I know that Rome’s delegates failed to show up that day. They’d been there the day before & they were there the day after. Why didn’t they show up that particular day? Who knows, maybe they just felt like sleeping in or simply taking a tour around the city? Should the entire Council have stopped and waited on them? No way!!! They knew the Council was going on, they could have shown up, but they chose not to.

Whether they were there or not, the very fact that the entire Church, save those Roman delegates, did showed up and voted that Canon in, is enough to indicated that it was clearly the understanding of the Church in that matter as a whole. The next day, when the Roman delegates argued about the Canon, they argued it on grounds that Byzantium, now Constantinople, was being elevated, not on the grounds of why the earlier Councils had recognized Rome having “perogative”.

So you are correct that the Roman delegates did objected to the Canon on political grounds, not spiritual.

 

[SingleMomMonica]

The Pope did not affirm that Canon, Rome’s delegates were not there, and it was of political not spiritual nature…

The 28th Canon of the Council of Chalcedon was accepted by the Roman Catholic Church at the Second Council of Lyons which was presided over by Pope Gregory X.

This 2nd Council of Lyons is a Catholic Council held in 1245 ad. nearly half a century after the official split of Orthodoxy from Rome which began in 1054 by the mutual excommunications of the Churches of Constantinople/Rome & was finalized in 1204 by the 4th Roman Crusade which Sacked Constantinople.

This information re: the Official Catholic acceptance of the 28th Canon of the Council of Chalcedon was obtain via Roman Catholic Historian/Author: Leo Donald Davis, S.J. in his book: The First Seven Ecumenical Councils (325-787) Their History and Theology Chapter 5.

 

[ralphinal]

Pope Leo I didn’t, but following Councils recognized by the Catholic Church did. I will get the exact Council or two that “ratified” **all **of the Canons (which includes 28) of the Council of Chalcedon when I return from lunch.

Yes, I know that Rome’s delegates failed to show up that day. They’d been there the day before & they were there the day after. Why didn’t they show up that particular day? Who knows, maybe they just felt like sleeping in or simply taking a tour around the city? Should the entire Council have stopped and waited on them? No way!!! They knew the Council was going on, they could have shown up, but they chose not to.

Whether they were there or not, the very fact that the entire Church, save those Roman delegates, did showed up and voted that Canon in, is enough to indicated that it was clearly the understanding of the Church in that matter as a whole. The next day, when the Roman delegates argued about the Canon, they argued it on grounds that Byzantium, now Constantinople, was being elevated, not on the grounds of why the earlier Councils had recognized Rome having “perogative”.

So you are correct that the Roman delegates did objected to the Canon on political grounds, not spiritual.

And it was in there in the first place for political, not spiritual, reasons.

The 28th Canon of the Council of Chalcedon was accepted by the Roman Catholic Church at the Second Council of Lyons which was presided over by Pope Gregory X.

This 2nd Council of Lyons is a Catholic Council held in 1245 ad. nearly half a century after the official split of Orthodoxy from Rome which began in 1054 by the mutual excommunications of the Churches of Constantinople/Rome & was finalized in 1204 by the 4th Roman Crusade which Sacked Constantinople.

This information re: the Official Catholic acceptance of the 28th Canon of the Council of Chalcedon was obtain via Roman Catholic Historian/Author: Leo Donald Davis, S.J. in his book: The First Seven Ecumenical Councils (325-787) Their History and Theology Chapter 5.

Interesting. Not that I am doubting you, but that was not listed in my sources. I must read further

 

[josie_L]

Interesting. Make an argumentum ad populum, and then when it backfires just limit who can be included.

By interesting I mean dishonest.

When Jesus gave us the great commission to go into all nations and baptize it was to Christians and not to Muslims therefore Miguel is correct when he says “Is Islam Christian?”

If popular approval marks the truth of the faith, why isn’t everyone allowed to vote for the Pope?

I believe Miguel’s point is that the Catholic Church has done a better job at fulfilling the great commission than the Orthodox have, therefore, making it more “catholic” than the Orthodox.

 

[SingleMomMonica]

And it was in there in the first place for political, not spiritual, reasons.

Exactly, because the only “perogative” Rome ever had was based on political reasons never on spiritual reasons. You get it now - HURRAY!!!

 

[ralphinal]

Exactly, because the only “perogative” Rome ever had was based on political reasons never on spiritual reasons. You get it now - HURRAY!!!

Perhaps, perhaps not. Do you know the objection that the Roman delegation had against it?

 

[SingleMomMonica]

Perhaps, perhaps not. Do you know the objection that the Roman delegation had against it?

On May 22, 452 Pope Leo I responded to the requests from the other Patriarchs and the Emperor to accept Canon 28 by reproaching Patriarch Anatolius of Constantinople for “ambition” and claiming it was an “insult” to the Patriarchates of Alexandria and Antioch.

However; the 28th Canon of Chalcedon (451) which included: “properly gave the primacy to the Throne of elder Rome, because that was the imperial city” simply was 100% in-line with the teachings/understanding of the Christian Church.

To confirm it, would simply be to acknowledge the ancient & continued beliefs of the Church as a whole. Just looking back at previous Councils confirms that:

Council of Constantinople (381) Canon 2 simply renewed the Council of Nicaea’s (325)instructions that Bishops were to confine their activities to their own Churches and not to leave their local jurisdictions or exercise any ecclesiastical function unless invited (on a side note: No exception was made for the Bishop of Rome in the Council of Nicaea nor in the Council of Constantinople regarding this matter) & that the importance of an episcopal see depends on its prominence in civil matters.
The Council of Antioch (341) 9th Canon: “It behooves the bishops in every province to acknowledge the bishop who presides in the metropolis, and who has to take thought for the whole province; because all men of business come together from every quarter to the metropolis. Wherefore, it is decreed that he have precedence in rank.”

It is clear through the Canons that the Early Church understood the only reason for Rome to have any “perogative” was because of it’s former political status, any claim of its Bishop to a primacy among Bishops based on his succession from St. Peter (& St. Paul) was not recognized by any of the 7 Ecumenical Councils.

Pope Gregory X through the Roman Catholic 2nd Council of Lyons confirmed the 28th Canon of Chalcedon - which confirmed that the basis for the Early Church’s recognition of the “precedence in rank” of the Bishop of Rome was based on the political/imperial status of the ancient city of Rome, not on any claim of primacy due to succession from St. Peter (& St. Paul).

**The Silence of the 7 Ecumenical Councils **re: the claim that the Bishop of Rome is Supreme over all Bishops of the world, the sole holder of the Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven and the like is completely Deafening!

 

[John_Larocque]

Perhaps, perhaps not. Do you know the objection that the Roman delegation had against it?

In Rome’s view, Byzantium was not a “Petrine” see and should not displace two existing Petrine sees. (By Petrine, I mean in the narrow context of tracing the See’s lineage back to St. Peter). But a lot had changed over the centuries - after Chalcedon, the other two Petrine sees, Alexandria and Antioch were no longer in communion with the Greco/Roman church, so Rome in effect became the only see associated with St. Peter. And then there was the schism between Latin and Greek.

Mark Bonocore, Catholic apologist, contributed to this tlimeline:
davidmacd.com/catholic/orthodox/timeline_history_of_catholic_orthodox_relations.htm

Here’s what he says about the Second Council of Lyons:

1274
FIFTH SCHISM TEMPORARILY HEALED at the Council of Lyons II, called by Pope Gregory X. Soon after, in 1276, Emperor Michael VIII Palaeologos and Pope John XXI affect a reunion of East and West. The East accepts the orthodoxy of Filioque, Unleavened Bread in the Eucharist, and the Western understanding of Purgatory.

Canon 28 was passed in the context of one of the many (failed) attempts to reunify Orthodoxy with the Roman Catholic Church, in this case brokered by the Roman Emperor. At Lyons, Emperor Paleologos also affirmed the following:

“…(the Church) says and teaches that those who after baptism slip into sin must not be rebaptized, but by true penance attain forgiveness of their sins. Because if they die truly repentant in charity before they have made satisfaction by worthy fruits of penance for (sins) committed and omitted, their souls are cleansed after death by purgatorical or purifying punishments, as Brother John has explained to us. And to relieve punishments of this kind, the offerings of the living faitful are of advantage to these…”

Lyons was in more ways than one a predecessor to the Council of Florence.

By the way Monica, I have a quote from Pope St. Gregory which stated that in Rome’s view, the three Petrine sees were equal in importance and acted in tandem. This question of which Petrine See was greater is absurd, at least from a pre-Chalcedonian era. However, the one thing that made Rome unique was its connection to both SS. Peter and Paul. One could assert that its voice was consulted because it preserved intact the faith that was handed down to them by both apostles.

 

[josie_L]

The only reason Orthodox are quick to point out that St. Peter first established the Church in Antioch before together with St. Paul establishing the Church in Rome is because modern day Catholics place so much emphasis that St. Peter (usually completely ignoring St. Paul’s role in the founding of the Church in Rome) founded the Church in Rome.

Modern day Catholics seem more interested in which of the Apostles founded the Churches in the various cities rather than simply being satisfied that AN Apostle founded each of the various Churches. All of those Churches were together for the most part, each one at various points in history separated itself from the others for a short time, but it was in 1054 when the major split began with mutual excommunications of the Churches in Constantinople & Rome that was finalized by the 4th Roman Crusade that sacked Constantinople in 1204. The rest of the Churches followed Constantinople - what is now commonly termed “The Orthodox Church” and the Church in Rome remained alone - now commonly called “The Roman Catholic Church” - there have been a few other Churches who had split away from the Church prior to the Major split between Orthodoxy and Catholicism, like some of the Coptics who deny that Christ has 2 Natures, which have joined “The Roman Catholic Church” and so usually when speaking people drop the Roman, unless they are of that particular “Rite” and call it “The Catholic Church”.

This is revisionist history which can easily be dispelled if one simply reads the 28th Canon of Chalcedon, it is clear that only reason the Church of Rome had any “perogatives” is because** “The fathers rightly accorded prerogatives to the see of older Rome, since that is an imperial city”** quoted from Canon 28. It was purely due to the ancient political/imperial standing of Rome, not “which of the Apostles” founded the Church in Rome, that made it important.

If it had been because of “which of the Apostles”, then Antioch would have been of more importance since the Church there was founded prior to the Church in Rome. But as the Councils of the Church state, it wasn’t, so it’s not.

Let’s believe what the Church teaches in her Councils and not what a rogue Church now claims. Don’t believe me and don’t just believe what a certain Church currently teaches…**Read the Councils **(prior to the major split of Christendom) and their Canons.

First, St. Peter did have a singular authority (beyond that of the other apostles) bestowed upon him by Jesus, the son of David, the King of Israel when He handed the keys to St. Peter . This action on the part of Jesus was a continuation of what former Kings of Israel did when they would assign a prime minister (out of 12 ministers) to be the right hand man of the King. This in essence meant that the prime minister was the second in command in the kingdom of Israel, in fact, when the King was away it was the prime minister who acted in his stead. The Catholic Church therefore is structured in the same manner that the Kingdom of Israel is in that we have a King, Jesus, the head of our Church, a prime minister or rather the Pope/St.Peter’s successors, as well as the other 11 ministers (bishops). The Bishop of Rome is the visual head of the Church (because Jesus our King who is in Heaven appointed him as such).

Let me quote Isaiah 22:20-23

The Lord said to Shebna (the former prime minister), "When that happens, I will send for my servant Eliakim son of Hilkiah. I will put your official robe and and belt on him and give him all the authority you have had. He will be like a father to the people of Jerusalem and Judah. ** I will give him complete authority under the king, the descendant of David.** He will have the keys of office; what he opens, no one will shut, and what he shuts no one will open. I will fasten him firmly in place like a peg, and he will be a source of honour to his whole family.

So no the Catholic Church is not rogue for we follow scripture, sacred tradition, and the holy councils guided by the magisterium through the Holy Spirit to lead us into all truth.

**p.s. And because St. Peter named his successor in the city of Rome, it would be this particular see which would have preeminence. **

 

[josie_L]

Yes, I know that Rome’s delegates failed to show up that day. They’d been there the day before & they were there the day after. Why didn’t they show up that particular day? Who knows, maybe they just felt like sleeping in or simply taking a tour around the city? Should the entire Council have stopped and waited on them? No way!!! They knew the Council was going on, they could have shown up, but they chose not to.

Whether they were there or not, the very fact that the entire Church, save those Roman delegates, did showed up and voted that Canon in, is enough to indicated that it was clearly the understanding of the Church in that matter as a whole. The next day, when the Roman delegates argued about the Canon, they argued it on grounds that Byzantium, now Constantinople, was being elevated, not on the grounds of why the earlier Councils had recognized Rome having “perogative”.

So you are correct that the Roman delegates did objected to the Canon on political grounds, not spiritual.

Maybe this might help you get a more realistic view of Chalcedon:

Thereafter, **Pope Leo succeeded in getting both Emperors to call the Council of Chalcedon in 451. At this Council, attended by about 600 bishops (almost all of the Eastern Church), Pope Leo’s Tome against Monophysitism and for the orthodox teaching of the two natures of Christ was embraced with the pronouncement:

“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! . . . This is the true faith!’” (Acts of the Council, session 2 [A.D. 451]).**

Now, many anti-Catholic scholars have tried to chip away at the significance of this statement. However, when compared to other contemporary writings, the meaning of the Council Fathers becomes abundantly clear:

Blessed Peter, preserving in the strength of the Rock, which he has received, **has not abandoned the helm of the Church, **which he undertook. …And so if anything is rightly done and rightly decreed by us, if anything is won from the mercy of God by our daily supplications, it is of his work and merits whose power lives and whose authority prevails in his see. **To him whom they know to be not only the patron of this see, but also primate of all bishops. **When, therefore, believe that he is speaking whose representative we are. – Pope Leo, Sermon 3:3-4

Now the Lord desired that the dispensing of this gift should be shared as a task by all Apostles, but in such a way that He put the principal charge on the most blessed Peter, the highest of all the Apostles. He wanted His gifts to flow into the entire Body from Peter himself, as it were from the Head. Thus, a man who had dared to separate himself from the solidity of Peter would realize that he no longer shared in the Divine mystery. – Pope Leo, Ep 10

Similarly, the Acts of the Council of Chalcedon, speak of Leo, saying…

“Wherefore the most holy and blessed Leo, archbishop of the great and elder Rome, through us, and through this present most holy synod together with the thrice-blessed and all-glorious Peter the Apostle, who is the Rock and foundation of the Catholic Church, and the foundation of the orthodox faith, hath stripped him (Dioscorus, Bishop of Alexandria) of his episcopate, and hath alienated from him all hieratic worthiness.” – Acts of Chalcedon, Session 3

In the same way, upon concluding their synod, the Council fathers write to Pope Leo, saying…

You are set as an interpreter to all of the voice of blessed Peter, and to all you impart the blessings of that Faith. – Chalcedon to Pope Leo, Ep 98

For if where two or three are gathered together in His name He has said that there He is in the midst of them, must He not have been much more particularly present with 520 priests, who preferred the spread of knowledge concerning Him …Of whom you were Chief, as Head to the members, showing your good will. – Chalcedon to Pope Leo (Repletum est Gaudio), November 451

Besides all this, he (Dioscorus) extended his fury even against him who had been charged with the custody of the vine by the Savior. We refer to Your Holiness. – Chalcedon to Pope Leo, Ep 98

You have often extended your Apostolic radiance even to the Church of Constantinople. – Chalcedon to Pope Leo, Ep 98

Knowing that every success of the children rebounds to the parents, we therefore beg you to honor our decision by your assent, and as we have yielded agreement to the Head in noble things, so may the Head also fulfill what is fitting for the children. – Chalcedon to Pope Leo, Ep 98

So, the Council of Chalcedon clearly recognized Pope Leo as the successor of Peter and the Head of the Church. However, the Council did have one problem. One of its canons, Canon 28, had given Constantinople primacy in the East. The Canon read:

“…we do also 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 fifty most religious Bishops gave equal privileges to the most holy throne of New Rome, justly judging that the city is honored with the Sovereignty and the Senate and enjoys equal privileges with the old imperial Rome…” **(Canon 28, Chalcedon)

However, Pope Leo refused to agree to this canon; and employing a kind of “line item veto,” ordered it struck from the Council documents. In this, Bishop Anatolius of Constantinople writes to Pope Leo, apologizing and explaining how the canon came to be, saying …

to be continued . . . . .

 

[josie_L]

to be continued. . .

As for those things which the universal Council of Chalcedon recently ordained in favor 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).

**So, the matter was settled; and, for the next 6 centuries, all Eastern churches speak of only 27 canons of Chalcedon – the 28th Canon being rendered null and void by Rome’s “line item veto.” This is supported by all the Greek historians, such as Theodore the Lector (writing in 551 AD), John Skolastikas (writing in 550 AD), Dionysius Exegius (also around 550 AD); and by Roman Popes like Pope St. Gelasius (c. 495) and Pope Symmachus (c. 500) – all of whom speak of only 27 Canons of Chalcedon.
**

davidmacd.com/catholic/orthodox/heresies.htm

The Council in Chalcedon needed the approval of the bishop of Rome because he was the successor to Saint Peter and therefore the bearer of the keys (the appointed prime minister in God’s kingdom).

 

[josie_L]

The ending of one of my posts should read like this (couldn’t edit because I passed the twenty minute mark):

**p.s. And because St. Peter named his successor in the city of Rome (before he was martyred), it would be this particular see which would have preeminence (it was also the center of the world so to speak and thus truly UNIVERSAL/CATHOLIC). **

 

[SingleMomMonica]

On May 22, 452 Pope Leo I responded to the requests from the other Patriarchs and the Emperor to accept Canon 28 by reproaching Patriarch Anatolius of Constantinople for “ambition” and claiming it was an “insult” to the Patriarchates of Alexandria and Antioch.

I should have mentioned that the ironic thing about Pope Leo I claiming the 28th Canon of Chalcedon was an “insult” to the Patriarchates of Alexandria and Antioch since
Patriarch Maximus of Antioch was one of the 185 Bishops (3 of whom were Patriarchs) that approved it on Oct. 21, 451.

The next day, the 185 Bishops pointed out to the legates of the Church of Rome: Paschasinus and Lucentius that they had refused to attend the vote - Lucentius actually insinuated that the 185 Bishops had been coerced into accepting Canon 28 which each Bishop vigorously denied. The 2 legates of Rome insisted that their instructions were to resist any usurpation of the rights of the bishop of Rome. Apparently, they are the ones who came to the Council with a Political Agenda! Meanwhile, the Canon simply gave equal honors to New Rome that Old Rome had since it now held the same prestige as the New Capitol city of the Roman Empire that Old Rome had once held.