Quick-like, since you were kind enough to be brief:
As I suggested in post 224,Justinian was inclined toward Monophysitism,and he had a vested political intrest in having a theological consensus among the Eastern bishops. He was not much interested in remaining true to the orthodox faith,and so to him the ecclesiastical authority that the pope wielded in the East would have been a foreign intrusion into Byzantine affairs,just as the ecclesiastical authority of the pope is still resented by people who value national autonomy rather than orthodoxy and communion.
This is historically inaccurate, and fairly offensive, given that Justinian is venerated as a saint in the Orthodox and Eastern Catholic churches. Justinian was doctrinally strongly orthodox, and, while generally one of the more religiously tolerant emperors, actually was fairly ruthless toward the Syrian and Egyptian monophysites. Theological consensus was, of course, important to him, just as it remains important to all the ancient Christian communions. There is no evidence he felt snitty about the pope and wanted to thumb his nose thereat, as you implicitly suggest; in fact, Justinian was generally rather supportive of the papacy, to the occasional chagrin of more nationalistic Eastern bishops.
The council of Trullo was obviously motivated by Byzantine prejudices and a desire for ecclesiastical independence from Rome.
Certainly Trullo was extremely pro-Eastern Rite, but I think it begs to question to say the Trullan bishops sought ecclesiastical
independence from Rome. Historically speaking, they’d never really paid heed to Rome’s bluster in the first place.
As for the Illyrian bishops,they tended to side with Constantinople. But for what reasons? Did they think that Constantinople was more orthodox than Rome? Are the instances of bishops defying Leo’s papal authority proof that Leo’s claims of Petrine primacy and universal jurisdiction were wrong?
It certainly doesn’t make Leo’s case for him.
If papal supremacy were an understood dogma of the early Church, one would expect pious and right-believing bishops to, oh, I dunno,
not ignore the Pope’s pontifications more often than not, don’t’cha think?
If papal supremacy is true, why do we find pre-Schism popes having so much harder a time exercising it than post-Schism popes? The cold historical facts would seem to more suggest the Orthodox view, that the papacy often made grandiose claims, but these claims, while perhaps not ranted at out of respect for Rome’s great track record of Orthodoxy, were simply ignored as being innovative customs and therefore neither binding nor authoritative.
Leo is considered a saint by the Eastern churches. How could he be right in his defense of the orthodox faith in the East,and yet be wrong in his claims to Petrine primacy and universal jurisdiction?
False dilemma, and a highly disingenuous one at that. You know as well as I do that the saints were often quite human, even on certain doctrinal matters.
Basil the Great and Gregory of Nyssa are both saints, considered theologians of immense importance. How could they be right in their many expositions of the orthodox faith, and yet be wrong on a basic soteriological issue like whether or not any eternal punishment exists for sinners? (Both taught Christian universalism, or the doctrine that hell is not eternal and that all men will eventually inherit Paradise.)
Photius the Great is considered a saint by the Eastern Catholics. How could he be venerated as a beacon of holiness, and yet be so vehemently opposed to papal supremacy and the filioque?
Irenaeus of Lyon is considered a saint in all churches. How could he be right in his defense of the orthodox faith against the Gnostics, and yet be so wrong on, e.g., as simple a fact as Christ’s age?
The point, of course, is that Leo’s superior Christology and pious life don’t automatically make him right on every theological opinion he expresses, or power grab he makes.
(Am following this thread, really am. Just have very little spare time with finals and all.)
