Why is the Eastern Orthodox Church false?

[Evlogitos]

Isn’t it funny what holds us back from belief. I have several icons in my home and have started buying them as gifts for many of my friends.

Oh, I know. I now own more icons than several cradle Orthodox of my acquaintance, and the beauty of the theology of the icon never fails to choke me up.

Ah. So your issue with icons is like my issue with the papacy.

That’s a little bit insulting Evlogitos.

I assure you that no insult whatsoever is meant.

It has nothing to do with what you suggest. I see no historical evidence for the model of the Church that you present. It’s really that simple. I’m not trying to be difficult about it./quote]

No historical evidence? C’mon, that’s a little bit harsh. Even if you do ultimately reach a different conclusion than I do, surely your point of view is not so skewed that you believe nobody could reasonably reach a different conclusion.

 

[steve_b]

I agree. Why would I ever accept some anonymous internet poster’s Latin translation. I can find half a dozen translations of this particular passage from Protestant and Catholic experts on the matter. I can also find several other posters who’ve translated this same language. Unless the poster can give me some credentials, I’ll pick the experts.

That’s why I gave those statements by 2 popes, confirming that the translation of Irenaeus we’re using in this discussion, is the same as they use also…

As we know, Irenaeus was taught by Polycarp who was a disciple of St John the apostle.

 

[Evlogitos]

That’s why I gave those statements by 2 popes, confirming that the translation of Irenaeus we’re using in this discussion, is the same as they use also.

Again, that’s an unjustified and fallacious appeal to authority. As even y’all Catholics will admit, popes are capable of being monstrously in the wrong on a whole host of issues.

All you did was cite their personal opinions. No indication was given that they had undertaken a thorough and fair examination and exegesis of the text. No indication was given of the process by which they arrived at their conclusions about the text. As demonstrated, their own statements contained several instances of apparent begging the question. As such, while it’s nice to know that the papacy has exactly the expected position on the text in question, it does absolutely nothing to move the discussion forward.

As we know, Irenaeus was taught by Polycarp who was a disciple of St John the apostle.

This Everyone Knows. Your point?

If you’re saying we should hold up Irenaeus as an early and reasonably pure reflection of the Apostolic tradition, I heartily concur (although his bit about “Jesus was an old fogey” has always bugged me ). Of course, this is troublesome, since, as demonstrated, you have to considerably stretch the text in question to make it come out pro-RCC.

 

[steve_b]

Here I will have to disagree with His Holiness. Antioch is older and was also founded by Ss. Peter and Paul, as well as being far more often frequented by various apostolic luminaries, from what we can determine from Scripture and the Fathers. As such, it is somewhat misleading to state that Rome has the greatest apostolicity because of her antiquity; Antioch’s antiquity is greater, and has a comparable claim to apostolicity.

Why isn’t Antioch put first in the East?

Evlogitos:

And again, this is reasonably accurate (if we assume convenire ad to be rendered “agree with”), but he doesn’t go into the nuts and bolts of why the churches must agree with Rome, choosing instead to simply presume that, naturally, it must be because Rome has the prerogatives he presently claims! This is circular logic.

He DOES give reasons for his conclusion.

He says

1. 
   *]apostolic tradition, carefully preserves it, as if living in one house. She believes these things [everywhere] alike, as if she had but one heart and one soul, and preaches them harmoniously, teaches them, and hands them down, as if she had but one mouth.
   *]For they[the apostles] certainly wished those whom they were leaving as their successors, handing over to them their own teaching position, to be perfect and irreproachable, since their sound conduct would be a great benefit [to the Church], and failure on their part the greatest calamity
   *]I can by pointing out the tradition which that very great, oldest, and well-known Church, founded and established at Rome by those two most glorious apostles Peter and Paul, received from the apostles, and its faith known among men, which comes down to us through the successions of bishops, put to shame all of those who in any way, either through wicked self-conceit, or through vainglory, or through blind and evil opinion, gather as they should not. For every church must be in harmony with this Church.
   Gnostics not only had bad theology but they thought they were smarter than everyone else. and no matter the point they argued over it.
   
   If scripture went against them they discretited scripture, if tradition went against them, they discretited tradition.
   
   Thus Irenaeus says
   

   :
   

   1. Such are the adversaries with whom we have to deal, my very dear friend, endeavouring like slippery serpents to escape at all points. Where-fore they must be opposed at all points, if per-chance, by cutting off their retreat, we may succeed in turning them back to the truth. For, though it is not an easy thing for a soul under the influence of error to repent, yet, on the other hand, it is not altogether impossible to escape from error when the truth is brought alongside it.

   
   Evlogitos:
   

   Well, sure, except I’d say of Irenaeus that it’s especially through the “Church at” Rome rather than “Bishop of” Rome, tracking Irenaeus’ language. And again, why? As the text appears to indicate, it’s not because Rome possesses some awesome and amazing unique power that no other church does, but rather because Rome in Irenaeus’ day acts as a microcosm of, to quote St. Vincent, “that faith which has been believed everywhere, always, by all.”

   As Ignatius says, do nothing without the bishop. Where the bishop is, there is the Catholic Church.

 

[steve_b]

Just wanted to jump in on one point here, I have been reading this conversation with interest though, it seems more knowledgable people than myself are on both sides, so it is best for me not to say much, hahaha.

Just on the issue of ex-Roman Catholics becoming Protestant. If an RCC does leave the Catholic Church, then he or she is probably doing so because they have a serious gripe with Tradition, or formal Church structure,

Unfortunately divorce and remarriage statistics hit Catholics the same as society in general. If one remarries after divorce and an annulment has not been possible, then they are living in an adulterous state and can’t receive the Eucharist in mortal sin… Since they choose not to live singly, this causes many to leave

Fr Corapi says (paraphrasing) that in his opinion, Catholics that leave, don’t leave because of theology, it’s because of sins below the belt

John:

It is not practical to say that ex-RCs do not become Orthodox because of the lack of a Pope, as only the Catholic Church has a Pope. To chaulk it up to just having problems with the Greeks, is too simple and most likely not accurate, except in places where there is severe discrimination based upon religion.

agreed

 

[Evlogitos]

Why isn’t Antioch put first in the East?

I am, admittedly, not an expert on the specifics as to why Alexandria has occupied the second place in Orthodoxy (third in the pre-Schism Pentarchy). Alexandria claims antiquity and apostolicity nearly equal to Antioch, being founded by St. Mark the Evangelist in the mid-first century. At the time, Alexandria was the second-largest city in the Empire, and the most important city in the East. I would speculate that because of its immense size and political prominence that it naturally assumed second place after Rome, the Imperial capital. Later, of course, as Alexandria’s influence waned slightly, and New Rome received the mantle of imperial capital, Alexandria moved to a de facto third place.

Speaking strictly in terms of antiquity and apostolicity, there is absolutely no reason to put Alexandria behind Antioch. Thus, Alexandria’s accession is an extremely strong suggestion that intra-ecclesial rank in the early Church was based in large part on a city’s temporal prominence, rather than more esoteric factors. Of course, this also suggests that Rome was accorded first place in large part because of its size and imperial status, rather than more, hmm, papal considerations.

He DOES give reasons for his conclusion.

Actually, I wasn’t talking about Irenaeus. I was criticizing the Pope for begging the question. He says, in effect:

Premise 1. Irenaeus says “all churches must convenire ad Rome, which I [the Pope] interpret to mean agree with.”

Premise 2. For someone to “agree with” Rome means, a priori, that Rome is the anchor point of Tradition based on papal prerogatives.

Conclusion. Therefore, Irenaeus is a supporter of papal prerogatives and Roman supremacy.

The problem with this line of reasoning is that premise 2. assumes the truth of the conclusion. This is fallacious reasoning.

Well, sure, except I’d say of Irenaeus that it’s especially through the “Church at” Rome rather than “Bishop of” Rome

, tracking Irenaeus’ language. And again, why? As the text appears to indicate, it’s not because Rome possesses some awesome and amazing unique power that no other church does, but rather because Rome in Irenaeus’ day acts as a microcosm of, to quote St. Vincent, “that faith which has been believed everywhere, always, by all.”

As Ignatius says, do nothing without the bishop. Where the bishop is, there is the Catholic Church.

I completely agree. Problem with your implicit argument is, Ignatius was talking local bishop, not “universal bishop.” It is a complete non sequitur to try and wedge this portion of Ignatius into saying something meaningful about Irenaeus’ language.

And surely you’re not going to commit ecclesiological suicide by attempting to reduce the Church to nothing more than its local hierarch. The “Church at” any given place may have the local bishop as its nucleus, but it is composed of the whole clergy and laity there present. Irenaeus credits the preservation of the Tradition at Rome not purely to the Apostolic Succession–as we’ve seen, he clearly knows how to make specific reference to the bishops when he wants to–but rather to the whole of the Church at Rome, which is a concept much broader than merely the Petrine See.

 

[tdgesq]

History witnesses most truly to the Chalcedonian Faith. Why should you accept the “visible sign of St. Peter” against the EO? You’re begging the question.

I’m not sure you are picking up on what I’m saying, probably because I worded it so poorly. It doesn’t have to do so much with whether the non-Chalcedons were correct or not, it has to do with how epistemically the Orthodox can justify the ecumenical nature of any council after Chalcedon (or even before really). The Copts didn’t attend any of them.

Because I don’t believe there is any rational criteria by which the Orthodox can demonstrate where definitive and binding teaching authority resides. Neither of us are required, nor is it possible today, to examine the historical details of every doctrine of the Church in order to independently verify it’s veracity. None of us can do that. What we do is look to the genuine teaching authority of the Church. Yet how do we establish that? By an indeterminate number of bishops meeting and throwing down a ruling. Is that a local council, or is it ecumenical, or perhaps, is it even heretical? What if the Patriarch of Alexandria doesn’t agree? What if the Bishop of Rome doesn’t agree?

All of these questions point to the same dilemma I see facing the Orthodox. Where does the teaching authority of the Church reside, and, more importantly, how do we know? I believe history shows that the successor of St. Peter is the visible sign of unity for the entire Church. After the photian schism the Orthodox held no more ecumenical councils. I’ve received various explanations for that, none of which I find convincing.

Oh, come now. You really wanna hash things out? What about the real Constantinople IV of 879, which Dvornik (Catholic) and Schaff (Protestant), among others, assert was ratified by Pope John VIII.

Photius was restored to the patriarchal see three days after the death of Ignatius, with whom he had been reconciled. He convened a council in November, 879, which lasted till March, 880, and is acknowledged by the Orientals as the Eighth Oecumenical Council,309 but denounced by the Latins as the Pseudo-Synodus Photiana. It was three times as large as the Council of Ignatius, and held with great pomp in St. Sophia under the presidency of Photius. It annulled the Council of 869 as a fraud; it readopted the Nicene Creed with an anathema against the Filioque, and all other changes by addition or omission, and it closed with a eulogy on the unrivalled virtues and learning of Photius. To the Greek acts was afterwards added a (pretended) letter of Pope John VIII. to Photius, declaring the Filioque to be an addition which is rejected by the church of Rome, and a blasphemy which must be abolished calmly and by, degrees.310 The papal legates assented to all, and so deceived their master by false accounts of the surrender of Bulgaria that he thanked the emperor for the service he had done to the Church by this synod.

But when the pope’s eyes were opened, he sent the bishop Marinus to Constantinople to declare invalid what the legates had done contrary to his instructions. For this Marinus was shut up in prison for thirty days. After his return Pope John VIII. solemnly pronounced the anathema on Photius, who had dared to deceive and degrade the holy see, and had added new frauds to the old. Schaff, Philip, History of the Christian Church, Chapter V. ccel.org/s/schaff/history/4_ch05.htm

Try again. Warren Carrol in his History of Christendom series substantially agrees with Schaff; both of whom are in disagreement with your version of history.

This would have made it a valid ecumenical council, and made 869 intro a latrocinium. Historically, of course, the papacy did a prompt about-face on the council

Hello. What did you just say? Why would it make any difference if the Bishop of Rome later disagreed? Given your version of history, it’s a little bit difficult to explain why 879-880 doesn’t count as an ecumenical council.

and adopted the ill-attended (possibly as low as 15 bishops) council of 869 as the “eighth ecumenical” a few centuries ex post facto, once papal supremacy and the filioque returned to the top of the hot-issues list.

"After holding a Roman synod (June, 869) in which Photius was again condemned, the pope sent to Constantinople three legates to preside in his name over the council. Besides the Patriarch of Constantinople there were present the representatives of the Patriarchs of Antioch and Jerusalem and, towards the end, also the representatives of the Patriarch of Alexandria. The attendance of Ignatian bishops was small enough in the beginning; indeed there were never more than 102 bishops present."newadvent.org/cathen/04310b.htm

102 bishops at its peak according to the Catholic Encyclopedia. Do the number of bishops make a difference? Strange that you wouldn’t accept this as an ecumenical council.

Illogically, the Eastern Catholics venerate Photius as a saint to this day, even though an ecumenical council of their own church pronounced unequivocal anathema upon him. And you want to argue that Orthodoxy has authority issues? Beam out of the eye, bro. Your contention is a bogeyman.

I suspect that is a holdover from former days. Not even Roman Catholics today would deny that he was a holy man in many ways, probably worthy of sainthood if not for his schismatic acts. I’m sure if you ask Eastern Catholics who do venerate him as a saint, it won’t be because of the part he played in the Photian Schism. I think it’s kind of apparent that you are making a mountain out of a molehill.

Beam out of my eye? I simply asked a question as to why one shouldn’t accept Constantinople IV as an ecumenical council.

 

[tdgesq]

The “ludicrous” is that you seem to honestly believe that, in the absence of papal authority, there is no good reason to hold to Chalcedonian Christianity as Truth

No, what I’m saying is that there would be no good reason to hold Chalcedon as ecumenical. I don’t recall the Copts ever being anathemized. They simply didn’t accept the decrees of the council. Much of the East remained in communion with them for a time. Why wasn’t their attendance necessary?

I consider a great many things possibilities, such as Truth residing in the Copts, the Protestants, the Jews, the Muslims, the Hindus, the agnostics, and so on. However, I consider very few things to be probabilities, Monophysitism not among them.

They deny that they are Monophysite. In fact, so does the Catholic Church. Pope John Paul II declared that their understanding of the Incarnation does not contravene the canons of Chalcedon. Now who should I listen to: the Orthodox or the OO and Catholic Church? Or am I required to do an independent historical investigation every time there is schism or heresy or a questionable union to figure out where teaching authority resides?

Logically speaking, because the Copts and Assyrians broke away from the orthodox Church and have since preserved their traditions almost completely, they provide a revealing look into the governing principles of the ancient Church. Schismatic churches that divide over issues more doctrinal than liturgical tend to organize their divided communions after their parent Church.

That’s an interesting theory, but it doesn’t pan out historically. The Protestant Reformation and the Anglican Communion come to mind. The groups you are talking about are a miniscule flash in the pan compared to the ones you’ve neglected.

Thus, it is significant that the non-Chalcedonian churches which can trace themselves back past the schism all have reflected an Orthodox ideal of internal governance from the time of their separation from the true Church. Clearly, at the time of their schism, they did not view the Church as necessitating a visible and universal head.

Let me see if I have this straight. A church that you believe holds to a heretical doctrine about the nature of Christ and that engages in schism, supports your notion of church governance precisely because they engaged in schism and now operate independently of everybody else. uch: I had to look about specially for exactly the right emoticon.

See, you keep getting tangled up in all these legalistic notions of the Faith. Sure, if Apostolic Succession were false, it would be a heavy blow to bear. But Orthodoxy, while certainly incorporating a set of doctrinal principles, transcends such mundane categorization;

Then I would remain Catholic even if I discovered the papacy was false.

No historical evidence? C’mon, that’s a little bit harsh. Even if you do ultimately reach a different conclusion than I do, surely your point of view is not so skewed that you believe nobody could reasonably reach a different conclusion.

Okay, very little evidence. I typed that last post to you too hastily, so sorry about the imprecise language.

 

[Evlogitos]

I’m not sure you are picking up on what I’m saying, probably because I worded it so poorly. It doesn’t have to do so much with whether the non-Chalcedons were correct or not, it has to do with how epistemically the Orthodox can justify the ecumenical nature of any council after Chalcedon (or even before really). The Copts didn’t attend any of them.

I am failing to see why the participation of the Copts would be more necessary than the participation of any other bishop(s). Pick one randomly: let’s say, bishop of Ravenna. I get the impression you’re severely misunderstanding the Orthodox conception of Church. Why should the presence of an anathematized/heretical bishop be necessary for an ecumenical council? Are you suggesting that, e.g., any holdover Gnostic bishops should have been invited to the post-Nicene councils?

Because I don’t believe there is any rational criteria by which the Orthodox can demonstrate where definitive and binding teaching authority resides.

Obviously, it would be fruitless for me to try and argue something to which you’ve closed your mind. What would you be willing to accept?

Neither of us are required, nor is it possible today, to examine the historical details of every doctrine of the Church in order to independently verify it’s veracity. None of us can do that. What we do is look to the genuine teaching authority of the Church. Yet how do we establish that? By an indeterminate number of bishops meeting and throwing down a ruling. Is that a local council, or is it ecumenical, or perhaps, is it even heretical? What if the Patriarch of Alexandria doesn’t agree? What if the Bishop of Rome doesn’t agree?

I think you are oversimplifying. The genuine teaching authority of the Church is, of course, the Holy Spirit. The teaching and action of the Holy Spirit are manifested primarily through the lives of the saints, who are infused with the glory of God, and whose witness always vigorously opposes heresy. A more objective measure/reflection is, as you suggest, synodal decree.

While there is some definitional wiggle room, I believe most Orthodox would accept a four-pronged test for whether a council is ecumenical:

1. Participation or ratification by the Pentarchy,
2. Invitation of canonical bishops on a worldwide scale,
3. Making a dogmatic decision or decisions, and
4. Finding eventual acceptance by the Church.

In the end, of course, there are reasonable objections to be raised to any ecclesiology. For example, if a papal sign-off is a prerequisite of a council being ecumenical, then was Constantinople I “unecumenical” until Leo signed off on Chalcedon?

It is also my understanding that, according to the Catholic conception, a council is ecumenical if it is acknowledged as such by a legitimate pope. So, what objective, certain, bright-line measure do we have of a given pope’s legitimacy, or of the validity of his act of ratification?

And what of the oft-raised specter of Pope Honorius I, whom, it is frequently alleged, advocated heresy ex cathedra? What objective and ex pre facto measurement can you provide that will decisively establish what is and isn’t ex cathedra?

All of these questions point to the same dilemma I see facing the Orthodox. Where does the teaching authority of the Church reside, and, more importantly, how do we know? I believe history shows that the successor of St. Peter is the visible sign of unity for the entire Church. After the photian schism the Orthodox held no more ecumenical councils. I’ve received various explanations for that, none of which I find convincing.

By what criteria do you conclude that the Orthodox have (implicit in your statement) held no more than seven ecumenical councils?

[cont’d]

 

[Evlogitos]

Try again. Warren Carrol in his History of Christendom series substantially agrees with Schaff; both of whom are in disagreement with your version of history.

Dvornik and Tanner beg to differ:

dailycatholic.org/history/8ecumen1.htm

orthodox.ws/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=22&Itemid=28

I submit to you that these sources are of greater weight and authority than Schaff and Carroll.

Schaff is over a century old. Still generally reliable, but increasingly dated in the face of tremendous advances in modern scholarship. He also studied Church history very broadly, and as such is not to be relied upon for finely nuanced subjects.

Carroll is highly respected, but this particular subject is outside his particular areas of expertise (Western history, Hispanic history, history of Communism).

Tanner is contemporary, Catholic, and his specialty is in the history of the Church councils.

Dvornik, however, is of the most interest, being Catholic, contemporary, and most importantly, specializing in Byzantine history, particularly the Photian Schism. His take:

[T]he Ignatian Council had been added in the West to the list as the Eighth Ecumenical. This happened during the reign of Gregory VII, who had opened the Lateran archives to his canonists who were looking for new arguments for the papal primacy and who were against the intervention of laymen in the appointment of bishops and abbots. They needed a strongly worded official document which they could use in their fight against the investiture, or appointment of clergy to ecclesiastical dignities by influential laymen. They found such a document in Canon twenty-two voted by the Ignatian Council, which forbade laymen to influence the appointment of prelates. All canonists and reformists of the Gregorian period used this canon as their most powerful weapon in their struggle for the freedom of the Church in the election of prelates. To give more weight to this argument they promoted the Ignatian Council to one of the most important ecumenical synods, overlooking the Acts of the Photian Council which had cancelled the Council of 869-70, although the Acts of this council were also kept in the Lateran Archives. Only Cardinal Deusdedit copied a part of the Acts of the Photian Synod of 861 and of 879-880.

In addition, let us even suppose that Schaff’s version of history is completely accurate. He still admits that Pope John signed off on Photius’ restoration, and then changed his mind. Perhaps we could say His Holiness voted for the council before he voted against it?

And what implications does this have, if we’re going to let a pope reassess a ratified council’s validity ex post facto? Does this mean that Benedict XVI could go ahead and overturn Chalcedon if he decided its Christology or procedural history was lacking?

Given your version of history, it’s a little bit difficult to explain why 879-880 doesn’t count as an ecumenical council.

Well, its purpose wasn’t really one of dogmatic definitions. However, I believe there are at least a few Orthodox (e.g. Fr. John Romanides?) who do count it as the Eighth Ecumenical.

102 bishops at its peak according to the Catholic Encyclopedia. Do the number of bishops make a difference? Strange that you wouldn’t accept this as an ecumenical council.

102 bishops at peak (and IIRC, this is somewhat muddled/in dispute since only eighty-something actually signed the acts) would make it the lowest-attended purportedly ecumenical council in history, even below Florence and Lateran V. For the greater part of the council, off the top of my head, the number of bishops hovered somewhere between twenty and thirty-five. Also IIRC, it made an objectively wrongful condemnation of Photius, accusing him of teaching something along the lines of humans possessing two souls.

And of course I wouldn’t accept it as an ecumenical council, given that ten short years later, it was vigorously and unequivocally repudiated as a latrocinium by the much larger (383 bishops) and otherwise authoritative pro-Photian councils of 879-880. Also, as I recall, the legates of Alexandria and Jerusalem at the 869 council turned out to be fakes.

I suspect that is a holdover from former days. Not even Roman Catholics today would deny that he was a holy man in many ways, probably worthy of sainthood if not for his schismatic acts. I’m sure if you ask Eastern Catholics who do venerate him as a saint, it won’t be because of the part he played in the Photian Schism.

The fact remains that Photius was anathematized, according to the Catholics. I’m sure Nestorius was a very pious and thoughtful man in many ways as well. Perhaps Nestorius would have been a saint, if not for his heresy. And let’s not forget Nestorius was roundly anathematized. So is it permissible to venerate him as a saint, since, after all, he’s venerated in the Assyrian communion? C’mon, in what way is that even remotely a consistent point of view?

[cont’d – dang, this is looong! ]

 

[Evlogitos]

No, what I’m saying is that there would be no good reason to hold Chalcedon as ecumenical. I don’t recall the Copts ever being anathemized. They simply didn’t accept the decrees of the council. Much of the East remained in communion with them for a time. Why wasn’t their attendance necessary?

Huh? The entire Pentarchy was represented at Chalcedon. Chalcedon pronounced anathema upon those who rejected the Tome of Leo. The Cops certainly fit under that definition.

They deny that they are Monophysite. In fact, so does the Catholic Church. Pope John Paul II declared that their understanding of the Incarnation does not contravene the canons of Chalcedon.

Obviously the Copts thought their understanding contravened Chalcedon back in 451, or they wouldn’t have broken off. Naturally, I rejoice that understandings have shifted over time to a position of mutual acceptability, but this does nothing to alter the roots of each communion.

Now who should I listen to: the Orthodox or the OO and Catholic Church? Or am I required to do an independent historical investigation every time there is schism or heresy or a questionable union to figure out where teaching authority resides?

Sorry to be burdensome, but responsibility would declare that you give all sides a fair evaluation at all times. This should be especially true for you in the area of antipopes. Do you have any other option than to weigh the respective merits of their claims?

That’s an interesting theory, but it doesn’t pan out historically. The Protestant Reformation and the Anglican Communion come to mind. The groups you are talking about are a miniscule flash in the pan compared to the ones you’ve neglected.

Actually, the continental Protestants followed the same path as some of the Old Believers; they lost Apostolic Succession in very short order (or from the very beginning) and scrunched their theology to compensate. The Anglicans actually followed a papal approach, initially; Henry VIII was the supreme and visible head of the English Church (the eventual greater leeway given to the Anglicans stemming from a laissez-faire approach on the part of subsequent monarchs). As such, I think my hypothesis is a bit stronger than you imply.

Let me see if I have this straight. A church that you believe holds to a heretical doctrine about the nature of Christ and that engages in schism, supports your notion of church governance precisely because they engaged in schism and now operate independently of everybody else.

Precisely because they divided over an issue of doctrine, rather than church governance. They had no compelling reason to rip themselves apart internally by introducing some radical new approach to their internal governance, and they have preserved their liturgical practices remarkably well. As such, they provide a way to verify that the Church viewed itself as synodal rather than monarchial, way back when.

Okay, to all who’re bothering to read:

A question I’ve never seen asked on answered on an evaluation of Catholicism vs. Orthodoxy: How is the Miracle of Holy Fire explained?

For those who’re unfamiliar therewith, it’s one of the most ancient and best-attested miracles in Christendom, possibly dating back to Apostolic times, as Gregory of Nyssa recounts that St. Peter went into the Tomb and saw the light of the Holy Fire. It has definitively taken place since the ninth century. It takes place each year on Orthodox Pascha. This site explains the basics.

The interesting thing is that during the reign of Baldwin in Jerusalem, the Catholics attempted (possibly twice) to call out the Holy Fire themselves, to no avail (cf. Fulcher de Chartres); it only appeared for the Greeks. On another occasion, the Armenian Patriarch contrived to enter the tomb himself, keeping the Greek Patriarch and his party excluded, praying outside the tomb; the Fire appeared, roaring out of the tomb to the Greek Patriarch and consequently splitting a column in two, which may be seen to this day.

What implications does this extremely ancient, well-attested, and regular miracle have as far as testimony goes? It is virtually unique amongst supernatural events in that it has documentably refused to cooperate for anyone save the Orthodox. Thoughts?

 

[John214]

Evlogitos:

What implications does this extremely ancient, well-attested, and regular miracle have as far as testimony goes? It is virtually unique amongst supernatural events in that it has documentably refused to cooperate for anyone save the Orthodox. Thoughts?

Honestly, the first thought that came to my mind was that it is a fraud. Not that I do not believe miracles can happen, only I am highly skeptical this of sort of thing, which happens anually, even purportedly in modern times, and yet there is little if any knowledge of it. The criticisms of it on wikipedia were pretty strong, and unless they are discredited, then it would be hard for me to accept. Also, simply from the fact that the Bishop who goes into the tomb is the only one who witnesses the actual event makes it highly suspect. The supposed video evidence of a spontaneous candle lighting was not really evidence, it could easily have been staged (and assuming that the ones doing this are engaging in fraud, they would have a good reason to do such a thing).

Now, this is not to say that I believe it has not, or cannot happen, or even that I believe it is not happening, but there are some difficulties, and unless I personally experienced it, then it is impossible for me to base my decision one way or the other. After all, Catholics largely hold to “Our Lady of Fatima” and this is often cited as a support of Catholic doctrine on Mary, however it is a tad strange that it happened only soon after the Catholic Church made its pronouncement on Mary’s Immaculate conception. Regardless of whether it happened or not, it is of no real benefit in a debate.

Again, I am not against miracles, and I actually believe many have happened, and are happening today. I have experienced what I consider miracles myself. But, I think the greatest miracle, with the greatest amount of documentation, and the greatest implications for our lives, is the Resurrection of Jesus Christ. And that is something Protestants, Orthodox, and Catholics can agree on!

 

[steve_b]

I am, admittedly, not an expert on the specifics as to why Alexandria has occupied the second place in Orthodoxy (third in the pre-Schism Pentarchy). Alexandria claims antiquity and apostolicity nearly equal to Antioch, being founded by St. Mark the Evangelist in the mid-first century.

working backwards in time

AFTER Byzantium became Constatinople,(early 300’s) Church of Rome was still first even though the capital was moved from Rome to Constantinople

Cyprians writes(mid 200’s) Church of Rome is the Chair of Peter, and the source of priestly unity.

Irenaeus writes (late 100’s) all must agree with Church of Rome

Ignatius writes (early 100’s) Church of Rome held the presidency

Clement (during apostolic times) Corinth looked to Church of Rome for settlement of their sedition

You have to admit history shows a constant theme that the Church of Rome is pre eminent…not because of politics, not because of size, but because of it being the chair of Peter

you wrote

:
I will have to disagree with His Holiness. Antioch is older and was also founded by Ss. Peter and Paul, as well as being far more often frequented by various apostolic luminaries, from what we can determine from Scripture and the Fathers. As such, it is somewhat misleading to state that Rome has the greatest apostolicity because of her antiquity; Antioch’s antiquity is greater, and has a comparable claim to apostolicity.

if as you say above, Alexandria claims nearly equal apostolicity to Antioch, then you acknowledge there were differences in apostolicity, Agreed? And Rome because of Peter, has always held the cheif position.

Evlogitos:

At the time, Alexandria was the second-largest city in the Empire, and the most important city in the East. I would speculate that because of its immense size and political prominence that it naturally assumed second place after Rome, the Imperial capital. Later, of course, as Alexandria’s influence waned slightly, and New Rome received the mantle of imperial capital, Alexandria moved to a de facto third place.

What do secular criteria have to do with apostolicity or importance for the Church? Church and state were diametrically opposed to each other. They were water and oil. Secular Rome was fiercely persecuting the Church.

Re: Irenaeus, he wasn’t using a political argument, he was using an eccleastical argument based on Peter and Paul, and THEIR tradition being passed on as the litmus for everyone needing to agree with Rome.

Evlogitos:

Speaking strictly in terms of antiquity and apostolicity, there is absolutely no reason to put Alexandria behind Antioch.

There is no reason if one makes no differentiation between apostles, and one is assuming equalness. The fact there WAS a difference, and all were not considered equal, shows the Church made distinctions…true?

Evlogitos:

Thus, Alexandria’s accession is an extremely strong suggestion that intra-ecclesial rank in the early Church was based in large part on a city’s temporal prominence, rather than more esoteric factors. Of course, this also suggests that Rome was accorded first place in large part because of its size and imperial status, rather than more, hmm, papal considerations.

If you take this position, then why is Istanbul/Constantinople still 1st in the East? The Russian Orthodox comprise the majority of Orthodox Christians. Why isn’t Moscow #1?

Evlogitos:

Actually, I wasn’t talking about Irenaeus. I was criticizing the Pope for begging the question. He says, in effect:

Premise 1. Irenaeus says “all churches must convenire ad Rome, which I [the Pope] interpret to mean agree with.”

Premise 2. For someone to “agree with” Rome means, a priori, that Rome is the anchor point of Tradition based on papal prerogatives.

Conclusion. Therefore, Irenaeus is a supporter of papal prerogatives and Roman supremacy.

The problem with this line of reasoning is that premise 2. assumes the truth of the conclusion. This is fallacious reasoning.

Looking at the progression the Church of Rome has played, and taking Ignatius statement, do nothing without the bishop, because where the bishop is there is the Catholic Church, it’s definitional that when Irenaeus says all must agree with Rome, he is absolutely including the bishop of Rome, therefore papal perogatives, and Roman supremacy go together…

Evlogitos:

I completely agree. Problem with your implicit argument is, Ignatius was talking local bishop, not “universal bishop.” It is a complete non sequitur to try and wedge this portion of Ignatius into saying something meaningful about Irenaeus’ language.

And surely you’re not going to commit ecclesiological suicide by attempting to reduce the Church to nothing more than its local hierarch. The “Church at” any given place may have the local bishop as its nucleus, but it is composed of the whole clergy and laity there present. Irenaeus credits the preservation of the Tradition at Rome not purely to the Apostolic Succession–as we’ve seen, he clearly knows how to make specific reference to the bishops when he wants to–but rather to the whole of the Church at Rome, which is a concept much broader than merely the Petrine See.

IMO you’re trying to localize something that was seen early on as a universal necessity. Example: Clement is in Rome. Why is Corinth on the East coast of Southern Greece asking Clement in Rome to settle their sedition? St John is still alive living much closer to Corinth than Clement over in Rome was. It would be much easier to sail accross to Antioch from Corinth and talk with Ignatius. Or they could have gone to Ephesus, or Thessolonika etc etc. All closer to Corinth than Rome

 

[tdgesq]

I am failing to see why the participation of the Copts would be more necessary than the participation of any other bishop(s). Pick one randomly: let’s say, bishop of Ravenna.

That is the question I’m asking you! What bishops are necessary? Apparently not the Patriarch of Alexandria. And you are wrong about the Copts. They were not anathemized by Chalcedon, they just refused to ratify it, and every other council since.

I get the impression you’re severely misunderstanding the Orthodox conception of Church. Why should the presence of an anathematized/heretical bishop be necessary for an ecumenical council? Are you suggesting that, e.g., any holdover Gnostic bishops should have been invited to the post-Nicene councils?

Then give me your conception. In my mind you have things precisely backwards. The reason we have a visible teaching authority is so that we can know without making an independent inquiry every time which bishop or group of bishops are teaching heresy. What good is a teaching authority if you can’t define it and locate it?

Obviously, it would be fruitless for me to try and argue something to which you’ve closed your mind. What would you be willing to accept?

I don’t believe there is a rational explanation, but you could start changing my mind by giving me one. I’m willing to accept any and all evidence you have at your disposal.

While there is some definitional wiggle room, I believe most Orthodox would accept a four-pronged test for whether a council is ecumenical:

1. Participation or ratification by the Pentarchy,
2. Invitation of canonical bishops on a worldwide scale,
3. Making a dogmatic decision or decisions, and
4. Finding eventual acceptance by the Church.

Thank you for the test, but I find it extraordinarily arbitrary. You will not find any early ECFs that support it, because the concept of the Pentarchy is late fifth early sixth century stuff. It would have been an unknown concept at the time of Nicaea I. The other factors are just as arbitrary, and I doubt can be supported by the early ECFs. The “eventual acceptance by the Church” factor is so vague as to nearly be useless as guidance. Furthermore, it accords power to the patriarchs which I believe most of the Orthodox would reject today. If you want to try and historically justify it though, I’m willing to listen.

In the end, of course, there are reasonable objections to be raised to any ecclesiology. For example, if a papal sign-off is a prerequisite of a council being ecumenical, then was Constantinople I “unecumenical” until Leo signed off on Chalcedon?

Unequivocally - yes.

It is also my understanding that, according to the Catholic conception, a council is ecumenical if it is acknowledged as such by a legitimate pope. So, what objective, certain, bright-line measure do we have of a given pope’s legitimacy, or of the validity of his act of ratification?

I suppose the same measure we use for all apostolic lineage in both of our churches. If you think that’s subject to any kind of reasonable doubt, then God help us all.

And what of the oft-raised specter of Pope Honorius I, whom, it is frequently alleged, advocated heresy ex cathedra? What objective and ex pre facto measurement can you provide that will decisively establish what is and isn’t ex cathedra?

We aren’t discussing what statements qualify under the infallibility criterion, we are discussing how we know where the locus of teaching authority resides that makes a council ecumenical. But to briefly answer anyway: There is no indication that Honorius subscribed to the Monothelite heresy in his letter to Sergius, much less openly declared it. Those who say otherwise are pushing an agenda. Even if their claims were true, in no wise would it have met the infallibility criterion. What really got Honorius in trouble was his subsequent failure to do anything about the burgeoning heresy.

By what criteria do you conclude that the Orthodox have (implicit in your statement) held no more than seven ecumenical councils?

Every Metropolitan website I have ever seen and every individual Orthodox I have ever spoken with.

 

[tdgesq]

Dvornik and Tanner beg to differ:

So now you flip a 180 on Schaff that you declared triumphantly in your last post supported your position. Now suddenly he isn’t a reliable source because he doesn’t say what you want to hear? Neither Tanner nor Dvornik deny that Pope John was misled about the proceedings by his legates, whose predecessors had been bribed before in the whole sordid affair between Ignatius and Photius. And how does any of this help you to identify which two of these councils, if either, were ecumenical? All you’ve done is demonstrate how it appears to be historically impossible to tell, which bodes ill for you when it comes to identifying teaching authority.

Dvornik, however, is of the most interest, being Catholic, contemporary, and most importantly, specializing in Byzantine history, particularly the Photian Schism. His take:

And I’m supposed to conclude. . . . . that Dvornik accepts it as ecumenical anyway. He is Catholic after all.

In addition, let us even suppose that Schaff’s version of history is completely accurate. He still admits that Pope John signed off on Photius’ restoration, and then changed his mind. Perhaps we could say His Holiness voted for the council before he voted against it?

What are you talking about? Nobody denies that after the Ignatian affair he was validly appointed and that Pope John approved it. And he didn’t depose him from office, he excommunicated him for trying to “undo” what had already been decided ten years before. You act like you’ve made some clever point here.

And what implications does this have, if we’re going to let a pope reassess a ratified council’s validity ex post facto?

Every source that has been provided up to this point shows that Pope John was misled as to the content of the proceedings. Your sources don’t tell otherwise. There were Popes who made statements under duress as well. Perhaps you would count those as valid doctrinal utterances if it would help to support your position.

Well, its purpose wasn’t really one of dogmatic definitions. However, I believe there are at least a few Orthodox (e.g. Fr. John Romanides?) who do count it as the Eighth Ecumenical.

Tah dah! Yes indeed, and others like T.R. Valentine accept nine councils as ecumenical. Others accept seven. How many do you accept? I hope you are beginning to see the problem.

102 bishops at peak (and IIRC, this is somewhat muddled/in dispute since only eighty-something actually signed the acts) would make it the lowest-attended purportedly ecumenical council in history, even below Florence and Lateran V.

Go back up and refer to your proposed criteria for an ecumenical council. It doesn’t include how many bishops signed off on the documents or how many attended the council.

And of course I wouldn’t accept it as an ecumenical council, given that ten short years later, it was vigorously and unequivocally repudiated as a latrocinium by the much larger (383 bishops) and otherwise authoritative pro-Photian councils of 879-880. Also, as I recall, the legates of Alexandria and Jerusalem at the 869 council turned out to be fakes.

The number of bishops doesn’t matter according to your criterion. I have never read anywhere that any of the legates were fakes. You had better back that one up. Perhaps there were fakes at Nicaea I too. I wonder what that would mean for the ecumenity of a council?

 

[tdgesq]

The fact remains that Photius was anathematized, according to the Catholics. I’m sure Nestorius was a very pious and thoughtful man in many ways as well.

This again? Photius was not declared anathema, he was excommunicated, which Constantinople and Rome did to each other several times. He was not convicted of having committed heresy. Regardless, I’m not defending his actions. I wouldn’t venerate him as a saint, but if the EC’s want to, well, I’m not going to ask to cut communion with them because of it. If you want to go tell them they are illogical, go ahead. I find your attraction to this particular molehill to look a little desperate, especially since it’s way off the beaten path.

Huh? The entire Pentarchy was represented at Chalcedon. Chalcedon pronounced anathema upon those who rejected the Tome of Leo. The Cops certainly fit under that definition.

Um, how about the Patriarch of Alexandria?

The most eminent and illustrious officials and the exalted assembly declared: Since the most reverend bishops of Egypt have up to now put off subscribing to the letter of the most holy Archbishop Leo, not because they are in opposition to the catholic faith, but because they claim that it is customary in the Egyptian diocese not to do such things in contravention of the will and ordinance of their archbishop, and because they consider they should be given until the ordination of the future bishop of the great city of Alexandria, we think it reasonable and humane that, retaining their present rank in the imperial city, they should be granted a moratorium until such time as an archbishop of the great city of Alexandria is ordained.The Council of Chalcedon, Canon 30.

Obviously the Copts thought their understanding contravened Chalcedon back in 451, or they wouldn’t have broken off. Naturally, I rejoice that understandings have shifted over time to a position of mutual acceptability, but this does nothing to alter the roots of each communion.

You are begging the question. Alexandria didn’t agree, saying that they needed approval from their patriarch, regardless of what they really thought. Period. How can this be an ecumenical council under your criteria?

This should be especially true for you in the area of antipopes. Do you have any other option than to weigh the respective merits of their claims?

I’m not sure what you mean. The issue of anti-popes or anti-patriarchs is not one of heresy, it is one of valid succession. Yes it must be sorted out historically, which luckily is not a very difficult affair. I take it that you don’t have any legitimate dispute with the apostolic lineage of the Bishop of Rome.

 

[Galdre]

I sense some frustration. Take a few deep breaths.

1. Participation or ratification by the Pentarchy,
2. Invitation of canonical bishops on a worldwide scale,
3. Making a dogmatic decision or decisions, and
4. Finding eventual acceptance by the Church.

tdgesq is hammering a point that has troubled me for a while – the authority of councils. I have a huge problem with the Protestant views on authority. Except with some Lutherans and Anglicans (and the Orthodox and Catholics deny they are an exception), their authorities (bishops, priests, pastors, elders) are all man-made. Their authority is democratic in nature. It comes from the people; it is not divine.

I believe that Christ, through the apostles, established the Church with bishops, elders, and deacons, and that they who are thus appointed have received their authority and their mission from Christ. You obey your bishop. If he deserves to be defrocked, other bishops must defrock him.

Now, where does the authority of a council lie? Certainly, a large collection of godly bishops has great “moral authority,” but this is not what I’m talking about. On what basis can a council be considered authoritative? This is not a rhetorical question.

I have seen one model that can account for this: Cyprian’s. I quoted him about six pages ago, but here it is again:

And although He assigns a like power to all the Apostles, yet He founded a single Chair, thus establishing by His own authority the source and hallmark of the oneness. No doubt the others were all that Peter was, but a primacy is given to Peter, and it is made clear that there is but one Church and one Chair. So too, even if they are all shepherds, we are shown but one flock which is to be fed by all the Apostles in common accord. If a man does not hold fast to this oneness of Peter, does he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he deserts the Chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, has he still confidence that he is in the Church?

Again, in his next letter to the bishop of Rome:

They have had heretics set up for them a pseudo bishop, and on top of that they now [by sailing to Rome] have the audacity to sail off carrying letters from schismatics and outcasts from religion even to the chair of Peter, to the primordial church, the very source of episcopal unity; and they do not stop to consider that they are carrying them to those same Romans whose faith was so praised and proclaimed by the Apostle, into whose company men without faith can, therefore, find no entry.

At least in Cyprian’s first conception (this seems to change later, and Cyprian revises his De Unitate to match), there seems to be a double view of the chair of Peter, as head of the catholic Church. All bishops together hold the chair of Peter. The bishop of Rome holds the chair of Peter. From what I can tell, Catholicism holds to both of these (I asked whether this was true, and so far nobody has answered me), and Orthodoxy only holds to the first.

If you hold to the first, then a council can be ecumenically authoritative so long as it is ecumenically representative. Because it is impossible for everyone to come to the council, representation and ratification become very important. It needs to be universally ratified. Representation at the council isn’t necessary, but it will definitely help it acquire universal acceptance. Thus, even though the pentarchy is man-made, it can still be important, because of the representation accorded to the members of the pentarchy by those churches in their regions. Am I wrong?

If you also hold to the second, then a council can be ecumenically authoritative so long as it is ratified as such by the bishop of Rome.

I can’t speak for tdgesq or any other Catholics, but I don’t see a problem with the first system without Rome. In theory. But the list of “ecumenical councils” does not seem to work very ewll with it. For example, Chalcedon seems to pose a problem. A huge section of the Church (traditionally called “Nestorian”) disagreed, but the west (and by the west I mean the entire Roman empire, for even the “east” was western in terms of the expansion of Christianity) deems them heretical and schismatics. But why? I asked this of the local Orthodox priest, and this is how the conversation went (as word for word as I can recall):

Me: Why is Chalcedon considered ecumenical? A huge section of the Church disagreed with it, and the only reason they aren’t a huge voice now is that the Muslims killed them off several centuries later.
Pr: But they separated themselves from the Church, so it doesn’t matter what they thought.
Me: But how did they separate?
Pr: By rejecting Chalcedon. I know this sounds like circular logic.

But he never explained to me why it wasn’t. I was left with the idea that somehow logic is “western” or “latin.” Can some of you guys help me here? These aren’t rhetorical questions. I honestly want to know what I’m missing.

 

[Ignatios]

tdgesq:

That is the question I’m asking you! What bishops are necessary? Apparently not the Patriarch of Alexandria.

No bishop is necessary to attend an Ecumenical Council by himself or by a legate so there would be one, as long as this bishop would ratify it, however the Pope and Patriarch of Alexandria at that time even if he would had to attend, he would’ve had no say in all the decisions and could not vote, this goes to both or it should have gone to both the accusers and the accused.

tdgesq:

I don’t recall the Copts ever being anathemized.

I agree no Council anathematized the Coptics, But the Ecumenical Council did strip Discorus of his episcopate and found him guilty with all the accusations and he was condemned ,Discorus was Coptic, the subject was not the Coptics nor the Holy See of Alexandria, but the Pope of Alexandria, whom it happened to be Coptic

The reason we have a visible teaching authority

…Could you explain what is the visible Teaching authority, and then what would the invisible teaching be?

… is so that we can know without making an independent inquiry every time which bishop or group of bishops are teaching heresy. What good is a teaching authority if you can’t define it and locate it?

…First I would invite you to examine your post carefully here "… we can know without making an independent inquiry " then shortly after “…What good is a teaching authority if you can’t define it” I will answer on the second part …what good is a teaching Authority if you “can” define it ?

…I find it extraordinarily arbitrary…You will not find any early ECFs that support it…Pentarchy is late fifth early sixth century stuff…I doubt can be supported by the early ECFs…The “eventual acceptance by the Church” factor is so vague as to nearly be useless as guidance. Furthermore, it accords power to the patriarchs which I believe most of the Orthodox would reject today…

…again I ask you to look at your posting, count how many times you have said the " I " you must remember that when we are speaking history and facts your opinion is immaterial what is material is the Text…ECF would that be “pre” or “post” Nicea, before Nicea… “maybe?” check the link below for more on the sixth canon of the first ecumenical council"Let the ancient customs prevail which were in vogue in Egypt and Libya and Pentapolis…" …after Nicea it is not unheard of, Since Nicea was in the “fourth” Century that would be 325ad and since in that council the pentarchy was established among the Churches,intratext.com/IXT/ENG0835/_P8.HTM
steve b:

Why isn’t Antioch put first in the East?

Twenty eight (28) canon of the fourth Ecumenical Council:
… And this is in keeping with the fact that the Fathers naturally enough granted the priorities to the throne of Old Rome on account of her being the imperial capital…

exuse all if any mistakes I have made …this was my first posting , and any corrections would be appriciated

 

[Galdre]

What are your thoughts on the following?

Alexander Schmemann:

[T]he great variety of existing patterns – from the almost absolute “monarchy” of the Russian Patriarch to the more or less nominal primacy of the Archbishop of Athens – reveals the absence of a common understanding of primacy, or of a consistent canonical theory of it…What are, in other terms, the criteria of canonicity?
…
As to the regional and universal types of primacy, there does not even exist a de facto consensus of Orthodox opinion. Regional primacy, although it is clearly sanctioned by our canonical tradition, has practically disappeared from the structure and the life of the Orthodox Churches in the triumph of centralized autocephalies. And the idea of universal primacy is either rejected as alien to the very spirit of Orthodoxy or formulated in terms so vague and ambiguous that, instead of solving, they only obscure the whole of primacy.
…
Among Roman Catholic theologians, there is a growing interest, and not only a “polemical” one, in Orthodox views on primacy…there are thus reasons for a genuinely theological reconsideration of the whole question. And even if no final answer can be given immediately, it will not be reached without a sustained theological effort.
…
Having rejected and still rejecting it [supreme power] in its Roman form, i.e., as universal power, the Orthodox conscience has easily accepted it in the so-called “autocephalies.”
…
The rejection of Roman errors did not result in a positive elaboration of the Orthodox doctrine, as was the case after the condemnation of Arianism, Nestorianism, etc. Our ecclesiology is still lacking…

Nicholas Afanassieff:

The Orthodox Church is absolutely right in refusing to recognize the contemporary doctrine that primacy belongs to the Bishop of Rome; however, this rightness does not lie in the numerous arguments that has been brought against primacy, but in the very fact of non-recognition. The arguments against primacy offered by Orthodox school-theology seem to suffer from some lack of clarity and finish…Orthodox theology indeed rejects the idea of primacy on the universal scale, but it recognizes a partial primacy at the center of every autocephalous church, a primacy belonging to the head of that church…The autocephalous churches, meanwhile, have become divided and separated, for the idea of a single directive has faded since the fall of Byzantium…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…In the long course of the struggle against the Roman Catholic position about the primacy of Rome, Orthodox doctrine has lost the very notion of priority.

Both of these are taken from their essays in Meyendorff’s The Primacy of Peter.

 

[Galdre]

Twenty eight (28) canon of the fourth Ecumenical Council:
… And this is in keeping with the fact that the Fathers naturally enough granted the priorities to the throne of Old Rome on account of her being the imperial capital…

I have always seen “prerogatives” rather than “the priorities” in the translation. This makes sense, because they proceed to grant these prerogatives to Constantinople rather than Rome, and yet Rome retains her primacy. Does anybody know where to find a copy of the canons in Latin or in Greek?

The Council’s own interpretation of Canon 28:

…the Divine knowledge which the Saviour Himself gave us from above for salvation, saying, “go ye and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, teaching them to observe all things that I have enjoined you." And this golden chain leading down from the Author of the command to us, you yourself have stedfastly preserved, being set as the mouthpiece unto all of the blessed Peter, and imparting the blessedness of his Faith unto all…you were chief, as the head to the members, showing your goodwill in the person of those who represented you.
…and besides all this he [Dioscoros] stretched forth his fury even against him who had been charged with the custody of the vine by the Saviour (we mean of course your holiness)…
And we further inform you that we have decided on other things also for the good management and stability of church matters, being persuaded that your holiness will accept and ratify them, when you are told. The long prevailing custom, which the holy Church of God at Constantinople had of ordaining metropolitans for the provinces of Asia, Pontus and Thrace, we have now ratified by the votes of the Synod, not so much by way of conferring a privilege on the See of Constantinople as to provide for the good government of those cities, because of the frequent disorders that arise on the death of their bishops, both clergy and laity being then without a leader and disturbing church order. And this has not escaped your holiness, particularly in the case of Ephesus, which has often caused you annoyance. We have ratified also the canon of the 150 holy Fathers who met at Constantinople in the time of the great Theodosius of holy memory, which ordains that after your most holy and Apostolic See, the See of Constantinople shall take precedence, being placed second: for we are persuaded that with your usual care for others you have often extended that Apostolic prestige which belongs to you, to the church in Constantinople also, by virtue of your great disinterestedness in sharing all your own good things with your spiritual kinsfolk. Accordingly vouchsafe most holy and blessed father to accept as your own wish, and as conducing to good government the things which we have resolved on for the removal of all confusion and the confirmation of church order. For your holiness’ delegates, the most pious bishops Paschasinus and Lucentius, and with them the right Godly presbyter Boniface, attempted vehemently to resist these decisions, from a strong desire that this good work also should start from your foresight, in order that the establishment of good order as well as of the Faith should be put to your account. For we duly regarding our most devout and Christ loving Emperors, who delight therein, and the illustrious senate and, so to say, the whole imperial city, considered it opportune to use the meeting of this ecumenical Synod for the ratification of your honour, and confidently corroborated this decision as if it were initiated by you with your customary fostering zeal, knowing that every success of the children rebounds to the parent’s glory. Accordingly, we entreat you, honour our decision by your assent, and as we have yielded to the head our agreement on things honourable, so may the head also fulfil for the children what is fitting. For thus will our pious Emperors be treated with due regard, who have ratified your holiness’ judgment as law, and the See of Constantinople will receive its recompense for having always displayed such loyalty on matters of religion towards you, and for having so zealously linked itself to you in full agreement. But that you may know that we have done nothing for favour or in hatred, but as being guided by the Divine Will, we have made known to you the whole scope of our proceedings to strengthen our position and to ratify and establish what we have done.

At this point someone will tell me I sound like a full-fledged Catholic but I’m not. I just think these are good questions, and I don’t know the answers.

~Galdre