Pope as Final Authority For Ecumenical Councils?

[abacabb3]

In my study of Church History, Pope Leo I of Rome is the first guy I have come across who obviously comes across as a Pope. He wrote letters to Alexandria and Constantinople that appeared to say that his Apostolic See controlled everything, and his own supporters called him an "Apostle" and "Peter."

What I find strange is, if the whole Christian world did not reject thing, why did they allow for it? Further, according to Letter 132 of Leo (I do not know if there is a Greek copy or if it is a Roman forgery) it says that Bishop Anatolius of Constantinople said the following:

"As for those things which the universal council of Chalcedon recently ordained in favor of the Church of Constantinople [canon 28], let your holiness be sure that there was no fault in me, who from my youth have always loved peace and quiet, keeping myself in humility. It was the most reverend clergy of the Church of Constantinople (his subjects) who were eager about it, and they were equally supported by the most reverend priests of those parts, who agreed about it. Even so, the whole force and confirmation of the acts was reserved for the authority of your blessedness. Therefore let your holiness know for certain that I did nothing to further the matter, having always held myself bound to avoid the lusts of pride and coveteousness" (Epistle 132, Leo's Collections).

Does the Roman Bishop have the whole force of confirming a Council or not? Why would Anatolius write such a thing if he didn't? How to Orthodox understand this?

Much thanks!

 

[dzheremi]

Not EO here, but since you mentioned Alexandria...

If by mentioning Alexandria you mean the letter he wrote in 445 to then-patriarch HH Pope Dioscorus, who was at that time the sole and universally-recognized patriarch of that see, then it is obvious by Alexandria's not moving an inch to make Alexandria and Rome alike in all things (as the letter exhorted Alexandria to adopt Rome's practices) that the letter must've gone straight into the circular file, or, if replied to at all (we don't know), it was probably nothing more than the ancient version of a "Suggestions noted; thank you" brush-off before getting back to doing things their own way.

Don't forget as well that HH Pope Dionysius of Alexandria intervened in the conflict between St. Cyprian and Popes Stephen and Xystus, circa 254-258 AD (in other words, long before the days of Leo I), which directly contradicts the idea of Rome as some kind of final arbiter of what is true and to be followed in all churches, as the modern Roman Catholic Church would have it.

 

[abacabb3]

Augustine also wrote in his 43 letter that the Donatists could have legitimately overturned the The Council of Rom 313 by Pope Miliatedes by appealing to an ecunemical council.

Thanks for the above resource.

 

[ArmyMatt]

Does the Roman Bishop have the whole force of confirming a Council or not? Why would Anatolius write such a thing if he didn't? How to Orthodox understand this?

no, because:

1. Ephesus was called and the canons enacted before Rome even made it there (although St Cyril had the support of St Celestine of Rome, and his archdeacon at the time, the future St Leo).

2. Constantinople 2 excommunicated Vigilius and placed him on house arrest until he repented.

3. Constantinople 3 anathematized Honorius for being a monothelite.

4. St Irenaeus of Lyons stood up to the Pope Victor when he tried to force the Quartodecimens to celebrate Easter according to the Roman dating system.

the reason that was probably sent was because St Leo was the great champion against the heresy of Eutyches, so he upheld Orthodoxy against the heretic. the Fathers usually used that kind of language for whoever preserved the faith. and also Rome did have a headship of honor, it was just not over any of his brother bishops. he had no authority over other sees.

 

[ArmyMatt]

and I would also add St Leo wrote a letter to Syriac monks who did not like some of the language in Chalcedon, and St Leo said that he did not care if they didn't use his terminology, only that they agree to the faith of Athanasius, Theophilus, and Cyril. he told them if they are one in faith with them, they are one in faith with him. the true Faith is important, not necessarily the mouthpiece.

so the point is that we submit to whoever preserves the Truth, no matter where it is found.

 

[jeffinjapan]

It is true that from a very early time in Church history the bishop of Rome...the pope...has been held in high honor and seen as the first among equals. But the Eastern Churches have never, as in never ever ever, recognized the bishop of Rome as someone who can rule over other bishops. All bishops have the keys of Peter, not just the pope. That is simply a fact of history the RCs need to come to grips with.

 

[FenderTL5]

The model for church council is in Acts 15. It has never sounded like Peter was in charge to me. ymmv

..after they had become silent, James answered, saying, “Men and brethren, listen to me..
..Therefore I judge that we should not trouble those from among the Gentiles who are turning to God but that we write to them..

Then it pleased the apostles and elders, with the whole church, to send chosen men of their own company to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas, namely, Judas who was also named Barsabas, and Silas, leading men among the brethren.
They wrote this letter by them:
The apostles, the elders, and the brethren,
To the brethren who are of the Gentiles in Antioch, Syria, and Cilicia..

 

[prodromos]

I think it is worthwhile to remember that the Church in Rome suffered terrible persecution in the first few centuries, and whoever accepted the role of bishop in that city knew they were taking on a death sentence. This means that the early bishops of Rome were exemplary Christians, quite literally the cream of the crop, which led to the well deserved reputation the bishops of Rome 'enjoyed' (martyrdom is not necessarily enjoyable). Once that death sentence was removed, the subsequent bishops were just as susceptible to corruption as anyone else.

 

[ArmyMatt]

good point. add to that Rome being the capital of the empire and therefore a center of education, gave you very solid apologists in the early days. add to that one that Rome was the only patriarchate in the West, and you have a recipe for some power grabs

 

[Virgil the Roman]

Christ made Blessed Peter his vicegerent. A man cannot easily discard the authority of Christ or His vicegerent.

 

[Light of the East]

All bishops have the keys of Peter, not just the pope. That is simply a fact of history the RCs need to come to grips with.

This to me is a bad case of special pleading to prove your own thoughts. There is nothing in the Sacred Scriptures anywhere that suggests that the keys were given to anyone but Peter. I find it troubling, as I continue to try to find the truth of certain matters, to see people engage in such special pleading, whether it be Romans with their odd interpretations in the Douay-Rheims Bible or the Orthodox trying to spread the keys around when there is nothing in Scripture to give such warrant.

 

[Light of the East]

The model for church council is in Acts 15. It has never sounded like Peter was in charge to me. ymmv

..after they had become silent, James answered, saying, “Men and brethren, listen to me..
..Therefore I judge that we should not trouble those from among the Gentiles who are turning to God but that we write to them..

Then it pleased the apostles and elders, with the whole church, to send chosen men of their own company to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas, namely, Judas who was also named Barsabas, and Silas, leading men among the brethren.
They wrote this letter by them:
The apostles, the elders, and the brethren,
To the brethren who are of the Gentiles in Antioch, Syria, and Cilicia..

Are you saying that the model is that the council consist of the whole Church, because I don't think that the ecumenical councils were attended by anyone but bishops (correct me if I'm wrong here).

And if this is the case, then why is the Robber Council not valid? It followed the same pattern

 

[prodromos]

This to me is a bad case of special pleading to prove your own thoughts. There is nothing in the Sacred Scriptures anywhere that suggests that the keys were given to anyone but Peter.

The Church Fathers understand the power of binding and loosing to be the "keys" which was given to all the apostles. No special pleading involved.

 

[ArmyMatt]

This to me is a bad case of special pleading to prove your own thoughts. There is nothing in the Sacred Scriptures anywhere that suggests that the keys were given to anyone but Peter. I find it troubling, as I continue to try to find the truth of certain matters, to see people engage in such special pleading, whether it be Romans with their odd interpretations in the Douay-Rheims Bible or the Orthodox trying to spread the keys around when there is nothing in Scripture to give such warrant.

it's not pleading. yes, the keys were given to St Peter. however, nowhere does it say that his successors who possess the keys are only in Rome. all bishops who confess that Christ is the Son of the Living God are the successors of St Peter.

 

[ArmyMatt]

Are you saying that the model is that the council consist of the whole Church, because I don't think that the ecumenical councils were attended by anyone but bishops (correct me if I'm wrong here).

And if this is the case, then why is the Robber Council not valid? It followed the same pattern

yes. all bishops were invited even if they could not attend. then all synodal statements are sent back to those not present for ratification, to include bishops not present and the people. this is how Robber councils are refuted.

 

[Light of the East]

it's not pleading. yes, the keys were given to St Peter. however, nowhere does it say that his successors who possess the keys are only in Rome. all bishops who confess that Christ is the Son of the Living God are the successors of St Peter.

No. Again, with great respect for you, Father, what you have said is kind of like someone saying that just because all men are in the police force, that all men are captains or hold the same level of authority.

Furthermore, the history of the Church in the East seems to refute this very idea. To whom did the orthodox bishops turn when the whole world of emperors was against them? To whom did Athanasius turn to support his orthodoxy when emperor was after his hide for being orthodox?

Rome!

If I have an office of special privilege in a company and I retire (or die) the only one who holds that office upon my death is the next man to sit in my chair and use my phone. It does not belong to the rest of those in my company who may also have certain privileges of authority above the average worker (I'm trying to find a good analogy to use here).

I get the feeling that the refusal to acknowledge that there must be a center of unity and authority comes from some serious anger against Rome, some of which is rightly deserved (such as the Sack of Constantinople) rather than a good piece of scriptural interpretation.

 

[Light of the East]

The Church Fathers understand the power of binding and loosing to be the "keys" which was given to all the apostles. No special pleading involved.

Not what Jesus said.....at all.

It is very disappointing to see my Orthodox friends and brothers doing the same thing to Scripture that the Protestants do - twisting and turning words and changing meanings to fit a presuppositional stance. To say that giving the power to the Apostles to forgive sins is the same thing as the fulfillment of Isaiah 22:22 by the giving of the keys to the household to a single overseer is to me being disingenuous to keep one's interpretation alive.

I am disappointed and sad. I feel that what I keep reading from the East and West in this regard means that we are never going to have a united Church again. At least, not on this earth.

 

[~Anastasia~]

Maybe if you tell us exactly how you see the keys? I don't have an answer for you, but it might help discussion.

Our icons of St. Peter show him holding the keys. I'm also reminded of the keys and broken chains/locks beneath the doors of Hades in the icons of Christ's Harrowing of Hades - and isn't that directly connected with the first bestowing of the keys (from memory only) ... "I say to you that you are Peter, and upon this rock I shall build my Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it"?

 

[ArmyMatt]

No. Again, with great respect for you, Father, what you have said is kind of like someone saying that just because all men are in the police force, that all men are captains or hold the same level of authority.

Furthermore, the history of the Church in the East seems to refute this very idea. To whom did the orthodox bishops turn when the whole world of emperors was against them? To whom did Athanasius turn to support his orthodoxy when emperor was after his hide for being orthodox?

Rome!

If I have an office of special privilege in a company and I retire (or die) the only one who holds that office upon my death is the next man to sit in my chair and use my phone. It does not belong to the rest of those in my company who may also have certain privileges of authority above the average worker (I'm trying to find a good analogy to use here).

I get the feeling that the refusal to acknowledge that there must be a center of unity and authority comes from some serious anger against Rome, some of which is rightly deserved (such as the Sack of Constantinople) rather than a good piece of scriptural interpretation.

sure, because that was when the Pope was rightly believing. however, when Rome went off in the cases of heresy (Honorius), bad practice (Victor), being excommunicated (Vigilius), Rome clearly did not simply and solely possess the keys, as they were all stood against by other bishops in both East and West. and were corrected by them.

 

[FireDragon76]

Not what Jesus said.....at all.

It is very disappointing to see my Orthodox friends and brothers doing the same thing to Scripture that the Protestants do - twisting and turning words and changing meanings to fit a presuppositional stance. To say that giving the power to the Apostles to forgive sins is the same thing as the fulfillment of Isaiah 22:22 by the giving of the keys to the household to a single overseer is to me being disingenuous to keep one's interpretation alive.

I am disappointed and sad. I feel that what I keep reading from the East and West in this regard means that we are never going to have a united Church again. At least, not on this earth.

It seems to me that Isaiah passage is speaking of Christ, not Peter. Christ is the Key of David.

I think there is already a unity of sorts wherever people confess Christ as their Savior. That we have different cultural perspectives on that doesn't negate that unity. It is the Catholics who insist on institutional unity rather than simply relying on a unity based in love.