Peter and the Keys, Catholicism and the Pope(2)

[NewMan99]

I didn't know you knew more than Davis!

I never claimed I knew more, however, I am free to disagree with the findings of any given scholar, aren't I?

The Catholic Encyclopedia differs with you regarding Trullo
CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Council in Trullo

First of all, the very brief summary of the Council itself was not intended to even address the issues I raised. Secondly, I fail to see where it "differed" from me.

I don't 'posit' the Council as binding on the East, I only argued that the Catholic church accepted it then, and they did.

And if it did, then in WHAT context are we to understand this? Merely saying it was eventually accepted doesn't tell us much.

Thank you for another long, evidence-free post.

Are you kidding? This is last thing most people accuse me of.

Look, I am a busy person. I don't have time to keep up with all this stuff right now. I will get to it when I have the time to do so properly. I am not big on winging it usually. As for wanting a long post filled with evidence, be careful what you wish for (not that you have replied in a substantive way to previous long evidence-filled posts in the past).

 

[Montalban]

Montalban,

Resorting to sarcasm is not going to get us anywhere. Play nice.

I'm not the only one to ask you for evidence.

As I've said to Anglian (above) I must assume that, as the Mongols sent representatives to the Council that they too accepted the power of the Pope

 

[NewMan99]

I'm not the only one to ask you for evidence.

I don't object to your request for evidence. I am objecting to HOW you are asking for it. It is not necessary to be sarcastic to me.

 

[Montalban]

I never claimed I knew more, however, I am free to disagree with the findings of any given scholar, aren't I?

You certianly are. However, if you had more than just your supposition, that would look better

First of all, the very brief summary of the Council itself was not intended to even address the issues I raised. Secondly, I fail to see where it "differed" from me.

I believe over the acceptence of the canon at Trullo, and then of Trullo itself

And if it did, then in WHAT context are we to understand this? Merely saying it was eventually accepted doesn't tell us much.

The Legates back in the 400s stated this was an attempted underhanded addition to the Council. Leo rejected it. Maybe his ruling wasn't enough for your own church - that they could over-turn him, if it became expedient.

Are you kidding? This is last thing most people accuse me of.

I see nothing but your say-so

 

[Montalban]

I don't object to your request for evidence. I am objecting to HOW you are asking for it. It is not necessary to be sarcastic to me.

To say your post is lite on evidence because it is, is simply to state a fact.

 

[Montalban]

And still Anglian won't deal with the canon in the time-frame/period he demanded I stick to.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

And still Anglian won't deal with the canon in the time-frame/period he demanded I stick to.

Greetings Monty....which period was that again?

 

[Montalban]

NewMan, in case you missed it...

So what Davis is referring to was that canon 28 wasn't accepted "officially" by the Greek East until "the sixth century" - in other words, at the Synod of Trullo. This is rather specious reasoning on Davis' part because, as I have already noted in detail, Trullo was also rejected entirely (at first) and only later were CERTAIN canons accepted (but never canon 28), in spite of numerous attempts by the Byzantines to get it ratified. So if it was "officially accepted" by the Greek East in the sixth century,

Contrasted with...
"Canon iii of Constantinople (381) and canon xxviii of Chalcedon (451) are renewed...
The Eastern Orthodox churches holds this council an ecumenical one, and adds its canons to the decrees of the Fifth and Sixth Councils"
CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Council in Trullo

You say they rejected it (at first), and then totally canon 28. Both points are not known to the Catholic Encyclopeia article I suggested you look at.

That is the difference between your say-so, and evidence.

 

[Montalban]

Greetings Monty....which period was that again?

Anglian wants (occasionally) to stick with the Council of Chalcedon. He argued re: the Tome of Leo about the authority of the Pope to speak as Peter

But Canon 28 was not accepted by the Pope AT THAT TIME

NewMan raised objections to this, leading up to the two of us having a discussion about it's acceptence by his church in the 1200s

Anglian said he'd refuse to address it until I'd replied to NewMan.

I'd already done this.

Anglian still avoided discussing it

Suddenly Anglian wants to jump in on this, without still discussing the issue of that time that he himself demanded I discuss.

However, I've still discussed the 1200s with him and NewMan and Anglian's still not discussed the 400s with regard the Pope not accepting this canon.

 

[Montalban]

So, by 1274 the Pope was summoning Councils; the Orthodox don't seem to have found that an obstacle to talks about unity. That tells us something about 1274.

More on this non-point of yours...
"It was against this background of opposition, or at best unwilling co-operation, from the majority of the bishops and others that the Byzantine envoys set out. The Patriarch of Constantinople had been invited but neither replied nor went. There were no representatives from the three eastern Patriarchs."
"The Orthodox Church in the Byzantine Empire"
By J. M. Hussey
Clarendon Press Oxford
OXFORD HISTORY OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH

I'd noted when I first addressed this, in an earlier post..that the Mongols sent envoys there. These weren't there to acknowledge Papal Power. As for the "Orthodox" they were under-represented. What you have there is the Emperor wanting unity and sending men he thought could achieve that. NOT an Ecumenical Council in the old sense where representatives were sent from all over the Christian world.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

But Canon 28 was not accepted by the Pope AT THAT TIME

Thank you. Do you think you could start a thread about that on the Christian History board?

There just seems to be too many "irons in the fire" on this thread for me and perhaps others to keep up with. Thoughts?

Christian History - Christian Forums

 

[Montalban]

It's now 3:50 am

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

It's now 3:50 am

Ahhh....you still have a few more hours before the rooster crows

 

[Montalban]

Thank you. Do you think you could start a thread about that on the Christian History board?

There just seems to be too many "irons in the fire" on this thread for me and perhaps others to keep up with. Thoughts?

Christian History - Christian Forums

With all due respect, this is in fact the 'iron' Anglian and I should be discussing as it falls within the scope of the time-frame he wanted to limit his discussion to.

 

[Montalban]

Ahhh....you still have a few more hours before the rooster crows

Instead of waiting for that, I'm going now to watch more of Series 2 of Rome

 

[NewMan99]

You certianly are. However, if you had more than just your supposition, that would look better

So then the very lengthy list of historical events I cited after Trullo and the numerous attempts by the East to get it ratified is just my personal "supposition"? If Davis REALLY meant to say that Canon 28 was "officially accepted" in the Greek East in the 6th century he is either unaware of the East's numerous attempts at ratification long after the 6th century - OR - he is, more likely, merely offering a short-hand summary which could be implied to mean that a 6th century re-confirmation of canon 28 eventually found its way into official canonical acceptace at some unstated time in the future. Since he was not intending to delve into Trullo it is very possible he was doing the latter. But, in either case, it simply is not true that Trullo was officially accepted by the Greeks in the sixth century - if it was true - then they would not have been so deperate to gain papal ratification long after Trullo.

So my disagreement over Davis' point was not mere supposition based on non-evidence. I offered evidence, which you ignore while accusing me of not offering any.

I see nothing but your say-so

You see nothing because you are very johnny-come-lately to this thread and I have not yet interacted with you much. Nor does it appear you have read much of what was already talked about previously in the thread. If you were to actually read this thread (and I am not suggesting you do so - it is way too long for that), you will see TONS and TONS of lengthy posts from me with LOTS of evidence (and not just quote mines, although I will quote the Fathers too from time to time).

In all my time at CF you are the only person ever to accuse me of short posts without offering evidence. Usually people ask me to shorten my replies. Like I said, be careful what you wish for.

 

[NewMan99]

NewMan, in case you missed it...

So what Davis is referring to was that canon 28 wasn't accepted "officially" by the Greek East until "the sixth century" - in other words, at the Synod of Trullo. This is rather specious reasoning on Davis' part because, as I have already noted in detail, Trullo was also rejected entirely (at first) and only later were CERTAIN canons accepted (but never canon 28), in spite of numerous attempts by the Byzantines to get it ratified. So if it was "officially accepted" by the Greek East in the sixth century,

Contrasted with...

"Canon iii of Constantinople (381) and canon xxviii of Chalcedon (451) are renewed...

Sure...renewed by WHOM???

By those who participated in the local Synod! So what? Self agrees with self. The Pope did not ratify it, and the article never says otherwise.

It says:

"In fact, the West never recognized the 102 disciplinary canons of this council, in large measure reaffirmations of earlier canons."

"The Eastern Orthodox churches holds this council an ecumenical one, and adds its canons to the decrees of the Fifth and Sixth Councils. in the West St. Bede calls it (De sexta mundi aetate) a "reprobate" synod, and Paul the Deacon (Hist. Lang., VI, p. 11) an "erratic" one. Dr. Fortescue rightly says (op. cit. below, p. 96) that intolerance of all other customs with the wish to make the whole Christian world conform to its own local practices has always been and still is a characteristic note of the Byzantine Church. For the attitude of the popes, substantially identical, in face of the various attempts to obtain their approval of these canons, see Hefele, "Conciliengesch." (III, 345-48)."

So above we see in the article that it is the EASTERN ORTHODOX Churches - not East together with the West - not the Church entire - not The Catholic Church - it is the EO Church alone that TODAY holds this Synod to be a binding ecumenical one. If the Pope ratified its canons, don't you think the West would consider it in the same light that the EO Churches do???

Notice the last sentence speaks of the ATTEMPTS to obtain approval. It DOES NOT say that the canons were accepted.

You say they rejected it (at first), and then totally canon 28. Both points are not known to the Catholic Encyclopeia article I suggested you look at.

Look again. The article never says the West accepted the Synod, nor does it say we consider it to be a part of any Ecumenical Council, nor does it say that the West accepted canon 28. For if it did, then WHY would there be so many later DESPERATE attempts by Constantinople to get it ratified...even to the point of kissing the Pope's feet?

That is the difference between your say-so, and evidence.

This evidence does not conflict with my lengthy analysis of Trullo in any way. Now it is your turn to actually interact with my numerous previous points on this matter.

 

[Anglian]

Now you want to discuss outside your time-frame because you think you’re on a winner. I note you’ve shied away from discussing the fact that the pope in the 400s didn’t approve that canon.

Attributing motives to others may simply reveal something about one's own; in this instance, perhaps that's a bad idea. You seem to be desperate to prove your Church's version correct; polemic and histoiry consort badly together.

I should have thought that the fact Leo did not accept in in AD 451 spoke for itself; but since you don't wish to discuss what the Father's said about Leo, I can quite understand your reluctance to simply accept that Leo's refusal to accept it meant he didn't accept it. Its later acceptance (and we have only your word it was accepted) in different circumstances means that when circumstances change, so do decisions. Perhaps this is a phenomenon uknown to you; it is said to be quite common in the real world.

And the Orthodox accepted this Council, hey? The whole Orthodox world had representatives there? I suppose because the Mongols had sent representatives there, they too acknowledge the Papacy

Nuance: that's what the Catholic site you've quoted before in an approving sense says; perhaps you only agree with such sites when they agree with you?

So what? They accepted a canon they’d argued tried to be slipped in. At a time that the Roman pontiff accepted no one as his equal, he wanted to accept “New Rome” as an equal.

So, in a context where they thought the Greeks were making concessions, Rome made one; it is called diplomacy; it too exists in the real world.

You avoiding the Pope not approving this canon in the 400s tells us nothing about the 400s

Quite the contrary; it proves that the Pope didn't accept it, just as Anatolius' letter shows he apologised and said it wasn't his fault; your point would be?

Sarcasm would only help, if you had a point to make. You sense of history means making assertions about Papal approval for this council then never discussing the fact he didn't assent on this one canon... and then suddenly jumping out of your time-frame in a flawed attempt at point-scoring.

. That Rome did not assent in AD 451 means what it means - Rome didn't accept it. Anatolius' letter means he apologised and blamed the emperor.

As I've said to Anglian (above) I must assume that, as the Mongols sent representatives to the Council that they too accepted the power of the Pope

Nuance: the Council was meant to lead to unity, the Tartars sent representatives because they had Christians in their domains and wanted to have a say; why this 'either/or' thing?

Anglian wants (occasionally) to stick with the Council of Chalcedon. He argued re: the Tome of Leo about the authority of the Pope to speak as Peter

When discussing examples of the Bishops, in council, accepting Rome's claim to speak for Peter, I cite evidence; you don't discuss it but seek to lay a trail of red herrings.

But Canon 28 was not accepted by the Pope AT THAT TIME

Indeed, and it was only accepted when Rome thought the Greeks were making concessions; diplomacy and all that - perhaps a foreign concept?

Anglian said he'd refuse to address it until I'd replied to NewMan.

I'd already done this.

You cited it without the diplomatic context, giving a misleading impression.

Anglian still avoided discussing it

For my last three posts I have discussed it; perhaps you might wait a moment or two before firing off such comments; some of us have others things to do.

Suddenly Anglian wants to jump in on this, without still discussing the issue of that time that he himself demanded I discuss.

I addressed the diplomatic context. I suggested this told us nothing about AD 451; since it doesn't, it is rather hard to discuss a non-issue.

However, I've still discussed the 1200s with him and NewMan and Anglian's still not discussed the 400s with regard the Pope not accepting this canon.

It means what it means - the Pope didn't accept it. Anatolius apologised and it was a non-issue until the East chose to raise it later. Unable to compete in the discussing non-issue stakes, I prefer to leave it to the master of that somewhat arcane art.

I believe that the last several hours of arguing that they didn’t need papal approval should have told you this
Stating that you both want to argue that they needed his approval, and then that they don’t is another point I’ve raised

What it told me was that you wished to raise the non-issue of the Pope not calling the council; neither NewMan or I ever suggested he needed to call it. It seems to matter to you. The Pope called the one in 1274, we're not making anything of that either.

And this canon wasn’t. So they didn’t need his approval on where/when to have a Council, but they did in the end, even though they didn’t, because this canon wasn’t approved.

Since the Pope didn't accept it and Anatolius apologised for it it was a non-issue at the time; the East did not press it. That it became an issue when reunion was being discussed is, perhaps, not an occasion for surprise.

It doesn’t matter. At best this sneaky canon was accepted by the Catholic church in 1274 in order to win over the East – according to you this is why they did it. So the Catholic church accepted a canon for political reasons. Again you condemn that which you try to defend

Nuance: they accepted it as a move to ecclesiatical unity. Perhaps a non-issue for those who insist that everyone is out of step but them?

Your last posts provide a ‘context’ for the church in the 1200s which you say had a different idea of the itself, but when I draw you back to looking at the church in the time-frame you are arguing about you don’t want to look at it, but the context of the church in the 1200s???

Oddly enough, the context eight hundred years later is as different as our context eight hundred years later. I'd no more use contemporary references to illustrate the Middle Ages, than I would the Middle Ages to illuminate Late Antiquity; if you like doing this, it will be without me; poor historical method has no appeal. But then I'm not trying to prove my Church was always right about everything all the time.

No. In fact it shows that we were not as willing to ‘deal’ as the West was on matters – we stuck to our faith.

Well, that Catholic source you quote when it suits you says otherwise. The Orthodox claim what they claim; they agree with themselves. This surprises whom? You'd not accept that from the RCC, so why expect anyone to accept it from you? A little of that evidence, from non EO sites, might add some semblance of veracity to your otherwise bald and unconvincing narrative.

Not only have I dealt with this, you WON’T EVEN ADDRESS the understanding from the 400s. Post after post you skip about this.

What I will not do is to import a reading from eight hundred years later and claim it illuminates the situation at the time; this is not 'skipping', it is a refusal to indulge in your attempt to turn an historical discussion into a polemic which justifies my own Church's position; as I say, I have no horse in this race.

Funny that. At least others reading here can see how readily you avoid discussion of points

Ah, the 'others agree with me but don't post' gambit. Always less than convincing.

If there were no representatives from the East at Lyons, who was the Pope negotiating with? The Greeks there claimed to be representatives of the emperor, the fellow who called the earlier councils, the one who said there was no division between Church and state in the East - don't tell me they were telling great big fibs? That would fit the Gibbonian stereotype, which surely cannot be so? Perhaps, having no appellate jurisdiction, they were all speaking without real authority? Obviously the Pope was a gullible sort of fellow to believe a bunch of shysters claiming to speak for the emperor. Still, it speaks well of his good nature, I guess.

peace,

Anglian

 

[Anglian]

Dear NewMan,

Without resorting to the Montalbanian gambit of summarising inaccurately the views of another (an interesting trait, it always seems to me), I'd like to sum up where you and I have reached.

We have agreed that the evidence from Chalcedon shows that the Fathers accepted that Peter spoke through Leo. We have shown that the Fathers and the Emperor both wrote to Leo in terms acknowldging his lead 'over all' in matters of theological discussion. We have acknowledged that the Council, informed by Leo's views, came to a decision which it submitted to him for ratification, and that as late as 453 the Pope's ratification was still being sought.

From my own pov all of this is very unfortunate. My own Church argues as Montalban's does, which is why I am so familiar with his time-worn arguments with their need to avoid addressing the meaning of the fathers saying that Leo spoke for Peter. Since my own Church never received Chalcedon, I am quite free to point out that it did not do so partly because it rejected this claim; Montalban's did, but later wished to deny it meant what it plainly met; a not uncommon phenomenon, but only supportable by ignoring the context and importing post-Schism concepts back into the fifth century. Most Orthodox sites, including my own, have this somewhat transparent gambit in operation; it convinces only those who need no convincing.

What would be useful for me is to trace how the understanding of the Petrine claims developed between then and 1274. I'm happy to proceed slowly, and since I'm not defending my own Church's position, to do so without polemical intent.

I respect the need to defend one's own corner, but as both Orthodox and Protestants say about the RCC, it creates bad history; it creates no better history when the OC or Protestants do it.

Clearly this is something of a new departure for GT - the idea that one might allow evidence to change one's preconceptions, but being in favour of doing something new occasonally, we could give it a whirl. Those who want to do the usual polemic 'proving' they are right and that their own Church is always 'right', can add to the gaiety of nations as they will - but I'd really like to pursue this line of discussion leaving the polemic aside.

peace,

Anglian

 

[Mikeb85]

I've posted it already, but I'll post it again. The Seventh Ecumenical Council speaks of the Council of Trullo as being an extension of the 6th Ecumenical Council.

Here are some quick facts.
- The Fifth Ecumenical Council did not pass ANY Canons
- The Sixth Ecumenical Council did not pass ANY Canons

And here is a quote from the Seventh Ecumenical Council:

Tarasius, the most holy Patriarch said: There are certain affected with the sickness of ignorance who are scandalized by these canons [viz. of the Trullan Synod] and say, And do you really think they were adopted at the Sixth Synod? Now let all such know that the holy great Sixth Synod was assembled at Constantinople concerning those who said that there was but one energy and will in Christ. These anathematized the heretics, and having expounded the orthodox faith, they went to their homes in the fourteenth year of Constantine. But after four or five years the same fathers came together under Justinian, the son of Constantine, and set forth the before-mentioned canons. And let no one doubt concerning them. For they who subscribed under Constantine were the same as they who under Justinian signed the present chart, as can manifestly be established from the unchangeable similarity of their own handwriting. For it was right that they who had appeared at an ecumenical synod should also set forth ecclesiastical canons.

The fact of the matter is, anytime the Canons of the Sixth Ecumenical Council are referred to, it's actually the Canons of the Council of Trullo (which was actually held in the exact same place as the Sixth Ecumenical Council). It's also called the Quinisext Council because it was regarded as an extension of the 5th and 6th Councils, as attested to by the Seventh Ecumenical Council which I quoted above.

This is what Rome claims: That Canon 3 of the Second Ecumenical Council, Canon 28 of the Fourth Ecumenical Council, and many of the Canons of the Quinisext Council were all invalid, despite the fact that later Ecumenical Councils all refer to these Canons/Councils.

While no doubt Rome believes these are all invalid Canons today, the idea that the entire Church rejected all these Canons put forth by Ecumenical Councils and confirmed by later Ecumenical Councils is, to put it simply, rediculous.