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
” 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.”
Can you please show where any canon, from any ecumenical council, that gave to Rome an unlimited jurisdiction, like what you describe, over all the Bishops?
“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.”
You are confusing the Primacy that Rome thinks of, which is Monarchical and religious, as head of the church, with the different “primacy” of the East, which gave weight to Rome only on the basis of it being the former “Royal City,” and not because they conceded that the Bishop in Rome was really the vicar of Christ, “THE” Apostolic See, rather than “an” Apostolic See, head of the church on Earth whose authority was not to be gainsaid. This same honor belonged to Antioch and Alexandria because they were (alleged, though their lists are just as flaky as Rome’s) Apostolic Sees, which even claimed, and was acknowledged, as having the “throne of Peter,” and having the same honor and prestige in religious issues as that of Rome, though different interpretations by different church Fathers only saw Peter as a type, a symbol for all Apostles.
“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.”
Why do you keep mentioning Clement’s letter? Though I am pleased that you are conceding that there is no evidence for your Pope in it, though you are still fantasizing that there can be found proof here for the “importance of Rome.” A similar argument could be made about any church that was written to by Ignatius, perhaps, and Rome was the only church he failed to write to any leader by name (because there was no individual leader). As for your claim about “auxiliary Bishops,” that is pure speculation, which you have no way of knowing but by your blind faith, which still has not uttered a word about most of what I have written in this thread, though if we go to the scripture, we find only Elders who are equivalent to Bishops, and as Ignatius said, “the head of the Bishop is God.”
“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”
IOW, you acknowledge that there was no special charism of Peter attached to the Bishop of Rome in the earliest times, but rather was praised for having been founded by both Peter and Paul, who both ordained Bishops.
Though, of course, Irenaeus is incorrect. Neither Peter nor Paul actually founded the church in Rome, as it was already existing before either had even arrived, and Peter, likely, did not even go there until his death.
“THis is theological nonsense because it makes theology and Church authority a function of politics. Nonsense.”
How do you say this with a straight face when you just got done, in this very post, describing the church authority as a function of politics? You even warned me to be aware of the “political machinations” going on between Popes, Emeperors, and Easterners, which even forced a Pope to yield. What do you call it when rival Bishops jostle each other for influence and power, and the Emperor is in the middle of it meddling? This is the same thing Pope Gregory the Great warned against, and the scripture as well, which fallen men, of course, are seldom willing to obey.
“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”
IOW, the decision of the Pope was overwhelmed and undone, which he submitted to, in complete agreement with Augustine, Cyrpian, and other church fathers, in the mode of government for resolving controversy. Note: You have ceased from depicting Rome as having jurisdiction to make decisions for the entirety of the church.
I will also add that, if this is the image you want us to have of the “early church being Roman Catholic,” you must de-legitimize and de-Christianize even your own Doctors of the church, who do not support your view of church government, nor your doctrines. Thus your assertion can only be true... if you are refferring only to Christians in Rome as the only Christians on Earth, and, at this, only under certain reigns, in certain times.