“It is interesting at Chalcedon in 451 that the Bishop of Constantinopile inserted his Church to the 2nd rank in what is Canon 28. Again, Pope Leo never ratified it”
Let’s read it, capitalization mine:
“Following in all things the decisions of the holy Fathers, and acknowledging the canon, which has been just read...we also do enact and decree the same things concerning the privileges of the most holy Church of Constantinople, which is New Rome. For the Fathers rightly granted privileges to the throne of old Rome, BECAUSE IT WAS THE ROYAL CITY. And the One Hundred and Fifty most religious Bishops, actuated by the same consideration, gave equal privileges to the most holy throne of New Rome, justly judging that the city which is honored with the SOVEREIGNTY and the SENATE, and enjoys equal privileges with the old imperial Rome, should in ecclesiastical matters also be magnified as she is, and rank next after her.” (28th canon of Chalcedon)
What’s fascinating is that they build not Rome on Peter or Paul, but on its location only as a royal city.
“No, Marcion was from the East and the Son of an Eastern Bishop.”
I did not say Marcion was born in Rome. I said he founded and taught his heresy in Rome, where all manner of fornication tends to originate.
“You still can’t refute the fact that Pius of Rome excommunicated the son of an Eastern Bishop with no appeal to a council an there was no protests. And No, I am not claiming Rome did as it pleased, it did what was necessary to strengthen the brethren and other Churches.”
I refuted your leap which is: “[H]is father, a Bishop in the East did not welcome him in communion” BECAUSE he was told to do it by Rome, rather than, say, by the universal condemnation of all the church fathers who discussed the man.
This you concede to, when you say “I am not claiming Rome did as it pleases,” by which I meant, originally, that it had authority to do this on its own, without consent of the whole church. Your argument can only work if Rome does not require the consent of the whole church, but can excommunicate a person, like Cyprian, and cannot be gainsaid, which all other Bishops are obligated to obey.
Obviously, Rome is gainsaid, historically, quite often. And so your assertions are nothing. For example, yet another one, the Third Ecumenical Council condemning the heretic Nestorious, which the Bishop of Rome Celestine I had already condemned:
“The Pope had pronounced in the affair of Nestorius a canonical judgment clothed with all the authority of his see. He had prescribed its execution. Yet, three months after this sentence and before its execution, all the episcopate is invited to examine afresh and to decide freely the question in dispute.” (Bishop Maret Du Concile General, vol.i p.183)
The next Ecumenical Councils even get WORSE for the Pope!
“Fifth Ecumenical Council
A controversy arose out of the writings known as Three Chapters – written by bishops Theodore, Theodoret, and Ibas. Pope Vigilius opposed the condemnation of the Three Chapters. At the Fifth Ecumenical Council (553) the assembled bishops condemned and anathematized Three Chapters. After the council threatened to excommunicate him and remove him from office, Vigilius changed his mind – blaming the devil for misleading him.[103] Bossuet wrote
“These things prove, that in a matter of the utmost importance, disturbing the whole Church, and seeming to belong to the Faith, the decress of sacred council prevail over the decrees of Pontiffs, and the letter of Ibas, though defended by a judgment of the Roman Pontiff could nevertheless be proscribed as heretical.”[104]
German theologian Karl Josef von Hefele notes that the council was called “ …without the assent of the Pope”[105]
You also write: “it did what was necessary to strengthen the brethren and other Churches”. But this is only a justification for Rome “doing as it pleases,” and is not actually a denial of Rome doing as it pleases, which is essential to your claim. I think perhaps you string together sentences and hope they’ll work. But, this does not work.
Augustine’s rule still stands, which sees not just one “Apostolic seat,” but many, giving such a name as to those that “received Apostles” or epistles from them, and gives the rule to the majority for major issues, even making the weight of lesser-known churches, in the majority, equal to the majority of Apostolic Sees:
“But let us now go back to consider the third step here mentioned, for it is about it that I have set myself to speak and reason as the Lord shall grant me wisdom. The most skillful interpreter of the sacred writings, then, will be he who in the first place has read them all and retained them in his knowledge, if not yet with full understanding, still with such knowledge as reading gives,—those of them, at least, that arc called canonical. For he will read the others with greater safety when built up in the belief of the truth, so that they will not take first possession of a weak mind, nor, cheating it with dangerous falsehoods and delusions, fill it with prejudices adverse to a sound understanding. Now, in regard to the canonical Scriptures, he must follow the judgment of the greater number of catholic churches; and among these, of course, a high place must be given to such as have been thought worthy to be the seat of an apostle and to receive epistles. Accordingly, among the canonical Scriptures he will judge according to the following standard: to prefer those that are received by all the catholic churches to those which some do not receive. Among those, again, which are not received by all, he will prefer such as have the sanction of the greater number and those of greater authority, to such as are held by the smaller number and those of less authority. If, however, he shall find that some books are held by the greater number of churches, and others by the churches of greater authority (though this is not a very likely thing to happen), I think that in such a case the authority on the two sides is to be looked upon as equal.” (Augustine, NPNF1: Vol. II, On Christian Doctrine, Book II, Chapter 8. See also John E. Rotelle, O.S.A., ed., The Works of Saint Augustine, Part 1, Vol. 11, trans. Edmund Hill, O.P., De Doctrina Christiana, Book II, Chapter 8 (New York: New City Press, 1996), p. 134.)
Greetings_Puny_Humans:
Again, the usurping of Alexandria and Antioch by Constantinople was done in Canon 3 of Constantinople, which was not recognized as a Council till Chalcedon in 451AD. If you read what happened, the Easterners put Canon 28 in the Canons. It was not accepted by Rome and it was not in line with Canon 6 of Nicea as it granted a primacy to only Antioch and Alexandria. In addition, Canon 2 of Constantinople, even though there were no Western Bishops there, did not put limits on the jurisdiction and authority of Rome, only Alexandria and Antioch.
And if Rome, and Alexandria and Antioch were equal, per your reading of Canon 6 at Nicea [not a priority of rank], then if Constantinople felt it could usurp Alexandria and Antioch, why wasn’t Rome usurped given the Political and Civil power were now East.
Here is the question, why didn’t Constantinople just go for the gusto and put itself ahead of Rome. And Patristic Scholars like Harnack and Lightfoot, with respect to Clement’s Letter pointed out that it showed the important of the Roman Church, even independent if we do not know for sure whether Clement was the “sole Bishop” of Rome [could have had co-Bishops, what are now auxiliary Bishops in current Catholic Church hierarchies, e.g., the Archdiocese of Chicago has one Cardinal Archbishop and I think 4 or 5 Auxiliary Bishops.
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04012c.htm
[Harnack and Lightfoot’s comments are included in the last paragraph of the Newadvent article]
And what the Bishop of Constantinopile and its Eastern supporters put Canon 28, earlier testimony of St. Ignatius of Antioch [Eastern Church Bishop, a disciple of Polycarp, who was a disciple of the Apostle John] certainly, in his Letter to Rome ties it to Peter and Paul. Irnenaeus certainly does it as well in 180AD, and there was no mention of Royal city as Christendom at that time was outlawed. This entire theme of using the Royal City image was purely an Eastern Theory, some Easterners, as Pelikan notes in Volume 2, Spirit of Eastern Christianity, argued that old Rome had the primacy as long as Rome was the Royal city and once it moved to Constantinople, the primacy moved [p.272]. THis is theological nonsense because it makes theology and Church authority a function of politics. Nonsense.
The excommunication of Nestorius by Pope Celestine being reviewed by the Council of Ephesus was because Nestorius and his ally, John of Antioch and numerous Eastern Bishops asked the Emperor to call the council. So the problem wasn’t Rome’s lack of primacy, it was the Easterners using the Emperor to call a council to review it. St. Cyril of Alexandria arrived, before Pope Celestine’s Personal Legates. and summoned Nestorius, who did not appear to meet with St. Cyril of Alexandria. When John of Antioch and the majority of the Easterners arrived, they refused to say Mass/Liturgy with Cyril of Alexandria and Nestorius and John of Antioch and hords of their Eastern Supporters held a rival council. Once Pope Celestine’s personal legates arrived at Ephesus, they reaffirmed what Pope Celestine had done with respect to Nestorius, and then the 2 personal Bishop Legates of Celestine [Arcadias and Projectus] and a Roman Priest along with Cyril excommunicated John of Antioch and his Eastern Supporters.
Nothing at Ephesus refutes Papal authority, in fact, it supports it as 2 Western Bishops representing Pope Celestine, a Roman Priest, representing him along with Cyril of Alexandria and his supporters, excommunicated John of Antioch and his party.
Some 5 years later, John of Antioch recanted, made peace with Cyril of Alexandria and once that happened, Nestorius had no more Support from a major See [Antioch] and thus the Emperor, not having any Church allies dropped his support of Nestorius and banished him.
So the need for the Council of Ephesus was primarily the result of a rivalry between John of Antioch and that See and Cyril of Alexandria and that See and Eastern Politics. It had nothing to do with a challenge to Rome’s primacy and the role of the Pope.
In summary, it was a few years ago, most of the FR Protestant brigade here charged that Rome had no authority and that Catholicity did not appear to after Constantinople. Now, we are going back and saying the earliest we can verify definitively a sole Roman Bishop is St. Pius, 140 to 154AD.
Council of Constantinopile 2 [5th council] again, the Pope was going to call it with the emperor, but the Emperor wanted and equal number of Bishops from the 5 Patriarchs which would mean the Western Bishops would be outnumbered. The Pope wanted the Council in Italy but the Emperor would not support it unless in his City. The Pope [Vigilus] refused to participate on that account. You are correct that Vigilus did condemn Theodore and the other 2, he objected to some of their writings. These decisions were denounced in the West, particularly in North Africa so Vigilus withdrew from what he did regarding the 3 noted above, and of course after the Council was held, he affirmed the Council. But again, don’t underestimate the Political intrigues of the Council. Vigilus, as the Westerners told him, was making a dangerous precedent in condemning men who were dead and while they may have had incorrect theological writings, they accepted the Councils of Ephesus were reconciled and died in peace with the Church at the time of Chalcedon 451AD
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15427b.htm
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14707b.htm