The Fountain of the Four Rivers
Piazza Navona (Roma)
The Nile River with covered head --
because the source of the Nile was then unknown
Posted on 01/31/2005 5:25:06 PM PST by Diago
Primacy of Rome as of 325 AD:
FIRST COUNCIL OF NICAEA - 325 AD
Canon 6. The ancient customs of Egypt, Libya and Pentapolis shall be maintained, according to which the bishop of Alexandria has authority over all these places since a similar custom exists with reference to the bishop of Rome. Similarly in Antioch and the other provinces the prerogatives of the churches are to be preserved. In general the following principle is evident: if anyone is made bishop without the consent of the metropolitan, this great synod determines that such a one shall not be a bishop. If however two or three by reason of personal rivalry dissent from the common vote of all, provided it is reasonable and in accordance with the church's canon, the vote of the majority shall prevail.
Rome did not have primacy.
Congratulations, Romulus! You've reached da source of da Nile ...
Hunt around, you will certainly find apologetics papers which with you find agreement.
Ignore all else including the Canons of the First Ecumenical Council which don't support your view. Ignore that the Primacy of Rome was never accepted by the Eastern Churches.
The Sixth Nicene Canon and the Papacy
The kernel of the difficulty is the demonstrative [touto], this. "This is the custom of the Roman Bishop." What does this refer to? "Let the Bishop of Alexandria retain his ancient sway over these three provinces, for this is also the Roman Bishop's custom." According to Bellarmine and others, [touto] refers to the Patriarchate of Alexandria, and is to be expounded thus: "Let the Bishop of Alexandria continue to govern these provinces, because this is also the Roman Pontiff's custom; that is, because the Roman Pontiff, prior to any synodical enactment, has repeatedly recognized the Alexandrian Bishop's authority over this tract of country."3 Vera expositio est, Alexandrinum debere gubernare illas provincias, quia Romanus Episcopus ita consuevit; idest, quia Romanus Episcopus ante omnem Conciliorum definitionem consuevit permittere Episcopo Alexandrino regimen Egypti, Libyæ et Pentapolis; sive consuevit per Alexandrinum Episcopum illas provincias gubernare. Bellarmine De Rom. Pont., lib. ii., c. xiii. He says there is no other plausible interpretation.
And who is the bishop of Cleveland?
Bishop Pilla, the man with the Gay Pride Rainbow flag on his website...and the Pink Triangles!
http://www.dioceseofcleveland.org/gayandlesbianfamilyministry/images/rnbwtile.gif
http://www.dioceseofcleveland.org/gayandlesbianfamilyministry/images/tooosgif.gif
The official logo for the Diocese of Cleveland Gay and Lesbian Ministry [Warning: This is not a joke]:
Go see for yourself:
http://www.dioceseofcleveland.org/gayandlesbianfamilyministry/mission/index.htm
From previous stories on Bishop Pilla:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/1060132/posts
In March, 2002, about two years after leaving the diocese, Charlie [the bishop's former lawyer] says he met again with Bishop Gries. “I met with Bishop Roger and I told him as a friend that he needed to tell Pilla to step down. That's all I said.”
I prod him to continue. “Because of the manner in which all of this had been handled.”
Charlie later says, “The thing that really fried me was the way the church in Cleveland has agreed to ‘infanticize' Anthony. It's like he's a child. ‘Oh, he didn't know this, he didn't know that.' Wait a minute, oh merciful God. Then what's he in charge of one million Catholics for? Yes, Quinn did crazy stuff, but he was a lieutenant, you are the general. Why didn't you stop it?
_________________________________________________________
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/762432/posts
The following appeared in "The Wanderer's" From the Mail Section.:
In Cleveland, which has been racked with the most damaging sex abuse scandals outside of Boston and Los Angeles, diocesan officials, including Bishop Anthony Pilla, maintain a stiff upper lip as some homosexual activists in the chancery and parishes continue to transform parishes into gay-friendly communities. Consider:
The Diocese of Cleveland's official web site (www.dioceseofcleveland.com) greets the viewer with a rainbow flag, and gay activists at the diocese's Gay and Lesbian Family Ministry (GLFM) office are way out and way proud.
One member of the GLFM recorded his experience on an area gay web site of his participation in the Cleveland Gay Pride Parade, informing, "The catholic group had a very nice sized contingent. There were a whole ton of other religious groups as well...Oh, did I mention that I am in the same video as a pornstar?!...Our table was almost across from The Grid's table, so we got to watch Matt Rush shirtless signing autographs and posing for pictures most of the afternoon. I felt so uncouth ogling a pornstar and trying to be a respectable representative of the Catholic Diocese of Cleveland...
"The Stonewall Democrats had the booth next to The Grid, and they had some mighty fine shirtless guys sitting at their table, too. After we took down our table at the pride festival, seven of us from the Catholic group went out to dinner...We also had the same waiter that we had last time...the cute one with attitude."
The author of that revealing letter is the apparent friend of Brian Halderman, a longtime gay activist of the Diocese of Cleveland who recently announced that he is joining the Society of Mary (Marianists) in Dayton.
In another Internet chat thread sent to FTM by a Cleveland reader, Halderman revealed that while a parishioner at Ascension Church (a church plagued by a number of predator priests), he was a chatechist involved in the sacramental preparation of second graders.
Reader, does all this help you understand what bishops such as Clark and Hubbard and Pilla mean by the "lay-run church.
You can contact the diocese of Cleveland toll free at 1-800-869-6525 or by e-mailing:
info@dioceseofcleveland.org
_________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________ ---------------------------------------------------------
The following exchange appeared in an article on a gay convicted priest here in Cleveland. [Note: Burkhart is a gay detective and McBride is the gay priest]:
Burkhart and McBride dined on crab cakes and chatted lightly. After dinner, McBride turned the conversation to the recent Catholic Church scandal. He hoped that, when it was all over, the church would recognize that priests are sexual beings too -- and that some are gay.
"Back in the 1960s, would you have ever come to a place like this?" Burkhart asked. "I mean, in this town, where you were working?"
"Probably not, no," McBride said. "Realistically, in 1960, no."
"And in certain places it looks like the seminary on Saturday night now," Burkhart joked.
"Yeah, that really is how it is," McBride said. They compared notes on seeing clergy in gay bars. Then Burkhart stammered as he asked McBride a personal question: "So, whenever you had sex . . . were you bound to go to confession and confess it before you said Mass, or . . .?"
"Well, you were supposed to, yes," McBride said.
"Do you think all these priests do?"
"No," McBride said. "I think they changed their minds and decided it's not a sin."
The full article can be found at this link:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/992919/posts
Perhaps you'd like to quote the relevant part? I looked through the first half-dozen chapters, including your direct link, and saw nothing bearing on your interpretation of Nicaea's canon 6. Perhaps you'd like to present a counter-argument to that made in my linked article?
According to Religious Movements U of Virginia
. Group Profile
1. Name: Roman Catholicism
2. The Founding:
The apostles of Jesus Christ formed the beginnings of the Christian Church. They helped spread the Gospel and provided structure for the early Church. It is hard to differentiate the beginnings of the Roman Catholic church from that of the early Christian church. 1 The apostle, Peter, also known as Simon, was of central importance. The Church was organized and presided over by Peter. According to the Scriptures, Matthew 16:13- 19, Christ said to Peter: "And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church." 2 In 313, the Roman Catholic Church was legally recognized by the Roman Emperor Constantine, and, in 380 it became the official religion of the Roman Empire. 3
If you want to know about the acceptance of papal primacy by the East, see Luke Rivington's The Primitive Church and the See of Peter or Dom John Chapman's Studies on the Early Papacy. Here is the chapter on St. Athanasius, Arianism, and the Holy See from Dom Chapman's book.
In this fashion the whole history is clear. On Fr. Puller's supposition that the Pope was a dignitary of great influence but no real superiority, the whole becomes incomprehensible. On what ground, if we admit this, could Julius summon the Patriarch of Alexandria to Rome? On what ground could he summon Eusebius and his friends? How had he the right to insist upon a Council, and then upon a particular time and place for that Council? What right had he to review the decisions of Tyre and Jerusalem? Why did nobody protest against his claim to restore bishops? If St. Athanasius did not believe the Pope to be a general overseer of the Church, was it not unworthy of him to utilize the pretensions of Julius for his own purposes? If Hosius and the leaders of orthodoxy at Sardica, the men to whom Christendom owed the preservation of the Nicene faith, thought Julius' claim preposterous, is it conceivable that they would have given him the enormous powers he was intended to wield under the new canons? ... The Council was not Ecumenical, for it was not concerned with the Faith. The retirement of the Eusebian party had left it with less than a hundred members, mainly Western. But it was of a broadly representative character. The most eminent Bishop of the day, Hosius of Cordova, was its president. St. Julius was represented. St. Athanasius voted in it, and stood for the united voice of the ninety Bishops of Egypt who were his suffragans, and held his views. In the letter of the Council to Alexandria, preserved by the Saint, it describes itself as composed of Bishops from Rome, Spain, Gaul, Italy, Africa, Sardinia, Pannonia, Mysia, Dacia, Noricum, Tuscany, Dardania, the second Dacia, Macedonia, Thessaly, Achaia, Epirus, Thrace, Rhodope, Palestine, Arabia, Crete and Egypt.
Papal Authority in the First Ecumenical Councils
The Eastern priest-historian Gelasius of Cyzicus, who had no Roman axe to grind, affirms that Ossius "held the place of Sylvester of Rome, together with the Roman presbyters Vito and Vincentius." Gelasius was born and bred in the vicinity of Nicaea, and wrote around 475, claiming to base his history of the Council on its original acts (now lost). That Rome was acknowledged as the first of all sees is shown by the fact that the signatures of its undisputed legates, Vito and Vincentius, came immediately after that of Ossius (whose minor see, Cordoba, obviously had nothing to do with his prominence in this context). Luke Rivington's point here is telling: if Ossius had presided solely in virtue of the Emperor's favour, it is hard to imagine that this would never subsequently have been cited as a precedent, especially at Chalcedon. It is quite likely, then, that Bishop Ossius, being a Western prelate and the foremost champion of anti-Arianism, was accepted by Sylvester as an ad hoc representative, and presided by mutual agreement with Constantine.
"There never is an ecumenical council which is not confirmed or at least recognized as such by Peter's successor. And it is the prerogative of the Roman Pontiff to convoke such councils, to preside over them and to confirm them."
- Vatican Council II, Lumen Gentium: 22
THE COUNCIL OF NICAEA (325)
There is no doubt that the first Ecumenical Council was convoked by the Emperor Constantine. Did Bishop Sylvester of Rome have anything to do with it? Certainly Ortiz de Urbina does not quite do justice to the evidence in asserting that "Nicaea ... was not convoked on the initiative of the Church." 10 The original documentation of the Council has vanished, but Ortiz omits to tell us that according to the historian Rufinus, who lived shortly afterwards (d. 410), Constantine made his decision "on the advice of the clergy" 11 - a perfectly plausible assertion. We simply cannot prove from written sources whether or not Rome was consulted in any way, but it seems very likely - almost certain - that Constantine's trusted associate, Ossius of Cordoba, who subsequently presided at the Council, was involved beforehand in its preparation.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Propaganda, and a poor job at that. Please stop wasting my time with your tripe.
There was no Papal Primacy.
There was no Primacy of Rome.
Constantine was the big boss, he called the Council, he and he alone had primacy.
Who called the first 8 "Ecumenical" Councils?
First Ecumenical Council: Nicaea I (325) Emperor Constantine.
Second Ecumenical Council: Constantinople I (381) Emperor Theodosius I
Third Ecumenical Council: Ephesus (431) Theodosius II
Fourth Ecumenical Council: Chalcedon (451) Emperor Marcian
Fifth Ecumenical Council: Constantinople II (553) Emperor Justinian I,
Sixth Ecumenical Council: Constantinople III (680-681)Emperor Constantine Pogonatus
Seventh Ecumenical Council: Nicaea II (787) Emperor Constantine VI and his mother Irene
Eighth Ecumenical Council: Constantinople IV (869) Emperor Basil
Fourth Ecumenical Council: Chalcedon (451) Emperor Marcian
Here's one good example of your mistake. This council was in fact approved by St. Leo, and recognized the papal primacy.
Yet in these brethren, that is Paschasinus and Lucentius, bishops, Boniface and Basil, presbyters, who have been deputed by the Apostolic See, let your brotherhood reckon that I am presidings at the Synod; for my presence is not withdrawn from you, who am now represented by my vicars, and have this long time been really with you in the proclaiming of the catholic Faith: so that you who cannot help knowing what we believe in accordance with ancient tradition, cannot doubt what we desire. (St. Leo the Great, Epistles 93, To the Synod of Chalcedon)
For if where two or three are gathered together in his name, there he says he is in the midst of them [cf. Matt. 18:20], how great an intimacy will He show in regard to the five hundred and twenty priests, who have preferred to both native land and to labor the knowledge of confession for Him. Over these you ruled as a head over the members, among those holding office, displaying your good will. (Letter of the Synod of Chalcedon to St. Leo the Great, in Denzinger-Deferrari, The Sources of Catholic Dogma, 149)
Over the whole Church? No.
The kernel of the difficulty is the demonstrative [touto], this. "This is the custom of the Roman Bishop." What does this refer to? "Let the Bishop of Alexandria retain his ancient sway over these three provinces, for this is also the Roman Bishop's custom." According to Bellarmine and others, [touto] refers to the Patriarchate of Alexandria, and is to be expounded thus: "Let the Bishop of Alexandria continue to govern these provinces, because this is also the Roman Pontiff's custom; that is, because the Roman Pontiff, prior to any synodical enactment, has repeatedly recognized the Alexandrian Bishop's authority over this tract of country."This exposition is unpalatable to the adversaries of Roman supremacy; hence they offer us a different interpretation. They make [touto] refer to patriarchates in general and expound the sentence as follows: "Let Alexandria have jurisdiction over these provinces, because the Roman Bishop has also a Patriarchate." "It illustrates the sort of power by referring to a similar power exercised by the Roman prelate in his province."
IV. Although this second exposition might strike the reader at first sight as being possibly, correct, yet I trust I shall be able to prove that it is inadmissible; and that Bellarmine's is the only unexceptionable interpretation.
Let me, at the risk of being tedious, state, first of all, my understanding of the passage. The supremacy of the Bishop of Alexandria had been contested by the Meletian bishops. They had, asked him, if not in words at least in facts, upon what warrant he based his claim to rule over and depose his fellow-bishops. If he had a title let him produce it. Now the Alexandrian prelate had no written document of any kind to produce. The Council of Nicæa, therefore, came to his assistance, by decreeing that the Patriarch's authority must be respected, and that for two reasons: 1st, because it was [archaia], immemorial, aboriginal; and 2d, because it was sanctioned by constant recognition on the part of the Roman Pontiff. Two very good reasons.
1st. The first argument in favor of this interpretation is drawn from the grammatical structure of the text. (a) Take the pronoun [touto] and see what it obviously refers to. Surely to this subject in hand, to wit, the ancient privileges and boundaries of the Alexandrian Patriarchate. It seems impossible, without quibbling, to refer the [touto] to anything else. The only objection which can be urged against this is the [kai], also. What is the use of the [kai] in this interpretation? This objection is readily answered. The [kai] introduces a new and stronger reason why the Patriarch's authority should be respected. "Let the custom prevail, not only because it is ancient, but especially because it has Roman usage in its favor;" or, "Since even the Roman Bishop constantly recognizes it." (b) The word [sunethes], customary, is intelligible in our interpretation, but in the alternative it becomes absurd. "It is customary with the Bishop of Rome to recognize the Bishop of Alexandria as Patriarch," is clear and sensible; but, "It is customary with the Bishop of Rome to be a Patriarch," is devoid of sense.
2d. A second argument in support of our interpretation is elicited by considering the logical sequence of the passage. "This is the Roman Bishop's custom," is the Council's reason for supporting the Alexandrian claims. If it is a reason, we must reverentially presume that it is a valid one. The ancient fabric of the Patriarchate was tottering; the Nicene Fathers prop it up with this clause, which, therefore, contains a reason strong enough to sustain a Patriarchate. Now imagine Meletius demanding wherefore Lycopolis should be subject to Alexandria? If the Council be made to answer: "Because Tusculum is subject to Rome," would it not appear a "lame and impotent conclusion?" Egypt, Libya, and Pentapolis must obey the Bishop of Alexandria; because this (not Egypt, etc., but Campania and the islands) is the Roman Pontiff's custom! Besides, granting that Rome's possessing a Patriarchate were a valid reason why Alexandria also should have one, would it be a sufficient reason why the Alexandrian Patriarchate should extend just so far and no further? If so, then the following ratiocination must be considered sound: " Let the Alexandrian Bishop have jurisdiction over three provinces, because the Bishop of Rome is also a patriarch." Should any one rejoin that the reason why Alexandria happened to rule three provinces instead of two or four, was that this was the ancient custom, I answer that his reason is different from that of the Council, which tells us that "Alexandria shall rule these three because this is the Roman Bishop's custom."
Now take Bellarmine's view of the canon. "Why shall Meletitis and all the other bishops of Egypt, Libya, and Pentapolis acknowledge the supremacy of the Patriarch?" Because the Bishop of Rome has time and again recognized the authority of the Alexandrian Bishop over these provinces. "Where are the documents to prove this?" asks Meletius. "Documents are not necessary," says the canon, "custom has force of law. Has not the Bishop of Rome, ever since he sent Mark to found churches in Egypt, held the Bishop of Alexandria responsible for purity of faith and strict observance of discipline in that part of the world?" What could Meletius reply to this? If he and the Council admitted the Catholic doctrine of Papal supremacy his mouth was closed. Here was a reason strong enough to sustain not Alexandria merely but, "in like manner, Antioch and the other great eparchies;" their authority was sanctioned by the Vicar of Christ. But if we assume that the Bishop of Rome was, in the opinion of the ancients, a simple bishop, like any other, what weight would his recognition of Alexandrian claims then carry with it? None at all. The Meletian would answer, "What care I for the favor or displeasure of a bishop a thousand miles away? What right has the Roman to recognize any one's jurisdiction in Egypt? Antioch is nearer to me than Rome, and so are Carthage and Ephesus but the bishops of Antioch, and of Carthage and of Ephesus know very well they have no right to meddle with things in Egypt. After having thrown off the tyrannical yoke of an Egyptian is it probable that I shall be swayed by the opinion of a Latin?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.