Schism and Photius

Xeno.of.athens said:

Quoted from The Faith of our Fathers by Cardinal Gibbons:

In 859 Photius addressed a letter to Pope Nicholas I., asking the Pontiff to confirm his election to the Patriarchate of Constantinople. In consequence of the Pope's conscientious refusal Photius broke off from the communion of the Catholic Church and became the author of the Greek schism.​

​

Here are a few examples taken at random from Church History. We see Prelates most eminent for their sanctity and learning occupying the highest position in the Eastern Church, and consequently far removed from the local influences of Rome, appealing in every period of the early Church from the decisions of their own Bishops and their Councils to the supreme arbitration of the Holy See. If this does not constitute superior jurisdiction, I have yet to learn what superior authority means.​

​

​

Second—Christians of every denomination admit the orthodoxy of the Fathers of the first five centuries of the Church. No one has ever called in question the faith of such men as Basil, Chrysostom, Cyprian, Augustine, Jerome, Ambrose and Leo. They were the acknowledged guardians of pure doctrine, and the living representatives “of the faith once delivered to the Saints.” They were to the Church in their generation what Peter and Paul and James were to the Church in its infancy. We instinctively consult them about the faith of those times; for, to whom shall we go for the Words of eternal life, if not to them?​

​

​

Now, the Fathers of the Church, with one voice, pay homage to the Bishops of Rome as their superiors. The limited space I have allowed myself in this little volume will not permit me to give any extracts from their writings. The reader who may be unacquainted with the original language of the Fathers, or who has not their writings at hand, is referred to a work entitled, “Faith of Catholics,” where he will find, in an English translation, copious extracts from their writings vindicating the Primacy of the Popes.​

​

​

Third—Ecumenical Councils afford another eloquent vindication of Papal supremacy. An Ecumenical or General Council is an assemblage of Prelates representing the whole Catholic Church. A General Council is to the Church what the Executive and Legislative bodies in Washington are to the United States.​

​

​

Up to the present time nineteen Ecumenical Councils have been convened, including the Council of the Vatican. The last eleven were held in the West, and the first eight in the East. I shall pass over the Western Councils, as no one denies that they were subject to the authority of the Pope.​

​

​

I shall speak briefly of the important influence which the Holy See exercised in the eight Oriental Councils.​

​

​

The first General Council was held in Nicæa, in 325; the second, in Constantinople, 381; the third, in Ephesus, in 431; the fourth, in Chalcedon, in 451; the fifth, in Constantinople, in 553; the sixth in the same city, in 680; the seventh, in Nicæa, in 787, and the eighth, in Constantinople, in 869.​

​

​

The Bishops of Rome convoked these assemblages, or at least consented to their convocation; they presided by their legates over all of them, except the first and second Councils of Constantinople, and they confirmed all these eight by their authority. Before becoming a law the Acts of the Councils required the Pope's signature, just as our Congressional proceedings require the President's signature before they acquire the force of law.​

​

​

Is not this a striking illustration of the Primacy? The Pope convenes, rules and sanctions the Synods, not by courtesy, but by right. A dignitary who calls an assembly together, who presides over its deliberations, whose signature is essential for confirming its Acts has surely a higher authority than the other members.​

​

​

Fourth—I shall refer to one more historical point in support of the Pope's jurisdiction over the whole Church. It is a most remarkable fact that every nation hitherto converted from Paganism to Christianity since the days of the Apostles, has received the light of faith from missionaries who were either especially commissioned by the See of Rome, or sent by Bishops in open communion with that See. This historical fact admits of no exception. Let me particularize.​

​

​

Ireland's Apostle is St. Patrick. Who commissioned him? Pope St. Celestine, in the fifth century.​

​

​

St. Palladius is the Apostle of Scotland. Who sent him? The same Pontiff, Celestine.​

​

​

The Anglo-Saxons received the faith from St. Augustine, a Benedictine monk, as all historians, Catholic and non-Catholic, testify. Who empowered Augustine to preach? Pope Gregory I., at the end of the sixth century.​

​

​

St. Remigius established the faith in France, at the close of the fifth century. He was in active communion with the See of Peter.​

​

​

Flanders received the Gospel in the seventh century from St. Eligius, who acknowledged the supremacy of the reigning Pope.​

​

​

Germany and Bavaria venerate as their Apostle St. Boniface, who is popularly known in his native England by his baptismal name of Winfrid. He was commissioned by Pope Gregory II., in the beginning of the eighth century, and was consecrated Bishop by the same Pontiff.​

​

​

In the ninth century two saintly brothers, Cyril and Methodius, evangelized Russia, Sclavonia, Moravia and other parts of Northern Europe. They recognized the supreme authority of Pope Nicholas I. and of his successors, Adrian II. and John VIII.​

​

​

In the eleventh century Norway was converted by missionaries introduced from England by the Norwegian King, St. Olave.​

​

​

The conversion of Sweden was consummated in the same century by the British Apostles Saints Ulfrid and Eskill. Both of these nations immediately after their conversion commenced to pay Romescot, or a small annual tribute to the Holy See—a clear evidence that they were in communion with the Chair of Peter.170​

​

​

All the other nations of Europe, having been converted before the Reformation, received likewise the light of faith from Roman Catholic Missionaries, because Europe then recognized only one Christian Chief.​

​

​

Passing from Europe to Asia and America, it is undeniable that St. Francis Xavier and the other Evangelists who, in the sixteenth century, extended the Kingdom of Jesus Christ through India and Japan, were in communion with the Holy See; and that those Apostles who, in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, converted the aboriginal tribes of South America and Mexico received their commission from the Chair of Peter.​

​

​

But you will say: The people of the United States profess to be a Christian nation. Do you also claim them? Most certainly; for, even those American Christians who are unhappily severed from the Catholic Church are primarily indebted for their knowledge of the Gospel to missionaries in communion with the Holy See.​

​

​

The white races of North America are descended from England, Ireland, Scotland and the nations of Continental Europe. Those European nations having been converted by missionaries in subjection to the Holy See, it follows that, from whatever part of Europe you are descended, whatever may be your particular creed, you are indebted to the Church of Rome for your knowledge of Christianity.​

​

​

Do not these facts demonstrate the Primacy of the Pope? The Apostles of Europe and of other countries received their authority from Rome. Is not the power that sends an ambassador greater than he who is sent?​

​

​

Thus we see that the name of the Pope is indelibly marked on every page of ecclesiastical history. The Sovereign Pontiff ever stands before us as commander-in-chief in the grand army of the Church. Do the bishops of the East feel themselves aggrieved at home by their Patriarchs or civil Rulers? They look for redress to Rome, as to the star of their hope. Are the Fathers and Doctors of the early Church consulted? With one voice they all pay homage to the Bishop of Rome as to their spiritual Prince. Is an Ecumenical Council to be convened in the East or West? The Pope is its leading spirit. Are new nations to be converted to the faith? There is the Holy Father clothing the missionaries with authority, and giving his blessing to the work. Are new errors to be condemned in any part of the globe? All eyes turn toward the oracle of Rome to await his anathema, and his solemn judgment reverberates throughout the length and breath of the Christian world.​

​

​

You might as well shut out the light of day and the air of heaven from your daily walks as exclude the Pope from his legitimate sphere in the hierarchy of the Church. The history of the United States with the Presidents left out would be more intelligible than the history of the Church to the exclusion of the Vicar of Christ. How, I ask, could such authority endure so long if it were a usurpation?​

​

​

But you will tell me: “The supremacy of the Pope has been disputed in many ages.” So has the authority of God been called in question—nay, His very existence has been denied; for, “the fool hath said in his heart there is no God.”171 Does this denial destroy the existence and dominion of God? Has not parental authority been impugned from the beginning? But by whom? By unruly children. Was David no longer king because Absalom said so?​

​

​

It is thus also with the Popes. Their parental sway has been opposed only by their undutiful sons who grew impatient of the Gospel yoke. Photius, the leader of the Greek schism, was an obedient son of the Pope until Nicholas refused to recognize his usurped authority. Henry VIII. was a stout defender of the Pope's supremacy until Clement VII. refused to legalize his adultery. Luther professed a most abject submission to the Pope till Leo X. condemned him.​

​

​

You cannot, my dear reader, be a loyal citizen of the United States while you deny the constitutional authority of the President. You have seen that the Bishop of Rome is appointed not by man, but by Jesus Christ, President of the Christian commonwealth. You cannot, therefore, be a true citizen of the Republic of the Church so long as you spurn the legitimate supremacy of its Divinely constituted Chief. “He that is not with Me is against Me,” says our Lord, “and he that gathereth not with Me scattereth.” How can you be with Christ if you are against His Vicar?​

​

​

The great evil of our times is the unhappy division existing among the professors of Christianity, and from thousands of hearts a yearning cry goes forth for unity of faith and union of churches.​

​

​

It was, no doubt, with this laudable view that the Evangelical Alliance assembled in New York in the fall of 1873. The representatives of the different religious communions hoped to effect a reunion. But they signally and lamentably failed. Indeed, the only result which followed from the alliance was the creation of a new sect under the auspices of Dr. Cummins. That reverend gentleman, with the characteristic modesty of all religious reformers, was determined to have a hand in improving the work of Jesus Christ; and, like the other reformers, he said, with those who built the tower of Babel: “Let us make our name famous before”172 our dust is scattered to the wind.​

​

​

The Alliance failed, because its members had no common platform to stand on. There was no voice in that assembly that could say with authority: “Thus saith the Lord.”​

​

​

I heartily join in this prayer for Christian unity, and gladly would surrender my life for such a consummation. But I tell you that Jesus Christ has pointed out the only means by which this unity can be maintained, viz: the recognition of Peter and his successors as the Head of the Church. Build upon this foundation and you will not erect a tower of Babel, nor build upon sand. If all Christian sects were united with the centre of unity, then the scattered hosts of Christendom would form an army which atheism and infidelity could not long withstand. Then, indeed, all could exclaim with Balaam: “How beautiful are thy tabernacles, O Jacob, and thy tents, O Israel!”173​

​

​

Let us pray that the day may be hastened when religious dissensions will cease; when all Christians will advance with united front, under one common leader, to plant the cross in every region and win new kingdoms to Jesus Christ.​

Click to expand...

I would hardly consider the writings of a 19th century Roman Catholic bishop as evidence supporting Rome’s claim to papal supremacy that took place over 900 years before he was born.

Xeno.of.athens said:

Second—Christians of every denomination admit the orthodoxy of the Fathers of the first five centuries of the Church. No one has ever called in question the faith of such men as Basil, Chrysostom, Cyprian, Augustine, Jerome, Ambrose and Leo. They were the acknowledged guardians of pure doctrine, and the living representatives “of the faith once delivered to the Saints.” They were to the Church in their generation what Peter and Paul and James were to the Church in its infancy. We instinctively consult them about the faith of those times; for, to whom shall we go for the Words of eternal life, if not to them?

Click to expand...

Have you read Retractiones written by Augustine where he retracted many of his previous doctrines? And every denomination does not accept the writings of these men as being orthodox. Even Augustine himself didn’t consider his own early writings as being orthodox, otherwise he would’ve never written Retractiones.

Xeno.of.athens said:

Catholics say that they did preside. It does not matter with others say.

Click to expand...

So it matters not to you that Catholics are historical revisionists.

Xeno.of.athens said:

Catholics say that they did preside. It does not matter with others say.

Click to expand...

Then why did you start this thread in General Theology, instead of in one of the Catholic-specific forums? I think it does matter to you, as it would matter to any Catholic apologist, since you believe in the RCCs ecclesiology and version of history as a matter of faith, and you obviously want people to believe in these things too. The problem with that is that your church's version of history is very obviously manipulated to support the RCC's unique and false ecclesiology that others do not share. So you resort to "Well we say it was like that, so it doesn't matter what you say." That's not very convincing or mature. Furthermore, it comes off as being a self-soothing exercise rather than a serious attempt to address the reasons others have given in this thread (and your other threads in GT) for disagreeing with the RCC.

The Liturgist said:

Papal legates did not preside over any ecumenical council. They were merely present. Rome was very passively engaged in every ecumenical council except Chalcedon* , even those it supported, primarily because of the distance between the councils and Rome, and the majority of attendees being Greek and Syrian, and Greek being the language of the councils.

Indeed, in the case of the First Council of Nicaea, I am shocked you suggested the Papal legates presided over it, since it is well known by nearly everyone that the great Emperor St. Constantine convened the council and presided over it personally.

*Pontifex Maximus Leo was actually opposed to the convening of Chalcedon, but his meddling in its affairs contributed to an ecclesiastical disaster, although I believe Pope St. Dioscorus would have been deposed by that council even without the Tome, and Leo may even have been trying to help Dioscorus; the villains of Chalcedon were the crypto Nestorian Ibas, who lied and cheated to avenge his exiled master, and Eutyches, who deceived Dioscoeus by claiming to have renounced his heresy, when in fact he had not, and consequently this heresy, properly called Monophysitism, was falsely attributed to the Miaphysite Oriental Orthodox, who were guilty of nothing besides preserving the exact Christological formula of Pope St. Cyril the Great.

I suspect my Coptic Orthodox friend @dzheremi would agree with me on this issue. However it is important that we avoid division with our Eastern Orthodox brethren or our Roman Catholic brethren, which is why as a proponent of ecumenical reconciliation I disagree with nearly everything @Xeno.of.athens has said in this thread.

Click to expand...

It was the decision of the pope to preside, convoke, or confirm the ecumenical councils. There is not complete historical documentation on all of the councils but the historical documentation that still exists supports this position.

Valletta said:

It was the decision of the pope to preside, convoke, or confirm the ecumenical councils. There is not complete historical documentation on all of the councils but the historical documentation that still exists supports this position.

Click to expand...

No there isn’t. Your argument is directly refuted by the acts of the councils themselves. For example, Canons VI and VII of Nicaea, which clearly declare that Alexandria, Antioch and Jerusalem have the same authority in their territories as Rome, and the history of the Council of Nicaea, at which a proposal by the Roman legates to adopt mandatory clerical celibacy throughout the church was not taken up.

Indeed, Nicaea was convened and presided over according to a decision of St. Constantine, with the Bishop of Rome (who at the time was not called Pope; in the fourth century only the bishops of Alexandria were styled Pope) having very little to do with it other than to send two legates in support of the position of his brother bishop Pope Alexander of Alexandria. Likewise, the Council of Constantinople was convened by Emperor St. Theodosius I, and was initially presided over by St. Gregory the Theologian, who later resigned as the early days of the council were chaotic and his health was failing, but the council in the end did produce a successful revision of the creed.

The Council of Ephesus then adopted Canon VII prohibiting modifying the Nicene Creed, and it is because of this canon that the Orthodox oppose the Filioque, as well as more fundamental objections pertaining to the Theology of the Trinity, but Canon VII is the reason why it was entirely canonical for St. Photius the Great to excommunicate the Romans until they consented at the actual Eigth Ecumenical Synod to remove the Filioque, which they complied with until roughly the end of the tenth century, at which point a build up to the Great Schism of 1054 began.

Xeno.of.athens said:

But they certainly have the right to "anathematise "

Click to expand...

To anathematize is to pronounce an anathema! Laity do not have the right to do that. And what is more, if you do that, you will be anathematizing a church that your own Popes stopped anathematizing decades ago, and at present do not anathematize, but instead have favorable ecumenical relationships with, so you will be acting contrary to your own hierarchy.

Xeno.of.athens said:

Catholics say that they did preside. It does not matter with others say.

Click to expand...

All respected contemporary Catholic scholars agree with their Protestant and Orthodox brethren concerning the Ecumenical Councils, who called them, and the roles of those involved. Indeed I have never met a Catholic priest or theologian who agreed with the position you hold on the councils.

Thus, you are basically saying that because some Catholics say they did preside, it does not matter what others say, and others presumably includes Catholics who disagree with you. Thus, you are essentially elevating your personal belief on the matter to the level of a dogma, when it is not in fact a doctrine of the Catholic Church at all.

The Liturgist said:

No there isn’t. Your argument is directly refuted by the acts of the councils themselves. For example, Canons VI and VII of Nicaea, which clearly declare that Alexandria, Antioch and Jerusalem have the same authority in their territories as Rome, and the history of the Council of Nicaea, at which a proposal by the Roman legates to adopt mandatory clerical celibacy throughout the church was not taken up.

Indeed, Nicaea was convened and presided over according to a decision of St. Constantine, with the Bishop of Rome (who at the time was not called Pope; in the fourth century only the bishops of Alexandria were styled Pope) having very little to do with it other than to send two legates in support of the position of his brother bishop Pope Alexander of Alexandria.

Click to expand...

Again the original historic records are lost, there is nothing to back up your assertion the pope had little to do with it. Ossius presided at Nicea, and Gelasius of Cyzicus wrote that Ossius "held the place of Sylvester of Rome, together with the Roman presbyters Vito and Vincentius." Those were the two legates from the Catholic Church, and for the order of signatures Ossius is first followed by Vito and Vincentius. But in any case the pope fully approved Nicaea.

The Liturgist said:

All respected contemporary Catholic scholars agree with their Protestant and Orthodox brethren concerning the Ecumenical Councils, who called them, and the roles of those involved. Indeed I have never met a Catholic priest or theologian who agreed with the position you hold on the councils.

Thus, you are basically saying that because some Catholics say they did preside, it does not matter what others say, and others presumably includes Catholics who disagree with you. Thus, you are essentially elevating your personal belief on the matter to the level of a dogma, when it is not in fact a doctrine of the Catholic Church at all.

Click to expand...

As I said, It was the decision of the pope to preside, convoke, or confirm the ecumenical councils. The pope certainly confirmed Nicea, and I posted comments about that Gelasius, who was from the east, said that Ossius "held the place of Sylvester of Rome." To me it is the confirmation of the pope that is most important. Just like with the councils that approved the 73 books of the Bible, the pope's approval is the key.

Valletta said:

As I said, It was the decision of the pope to preside, convoke, or confirm the ecumenical councils. The pope certainly confirmed Nicea, and I posted comments about that Gelasius, who was from the east, said that Ossius "held the place of Sylvester of Rome." To me it is the confirmation of the pope that is most important. Just like with the councils that approved the 73 books of the Bible, the pope's approval is the key.

Click to expand...

All bishops who were not in attendance at the councils were expected to sign off on the decisions made by the council in their absence. It wasn't just the bishop of Rome.

Valletta said:

As I said, It was the decision of the pope to preside, convoke, or confirm the ecumenical councils.

Click to expand...

Ironically, in the case of the Council of Ephesus, the only Pope at the time, Pope St. Cyril of Alexandria, did convene and preside over this council, although the council was confirmed by the consensus reached between himself and Patriarch John X of Antioch in advance of the council, and the acceptance of the council throughout the church, including in the autocephalous churches of Jerusalem and Cyprus.

The support of St. Celestine the Bishop of Rome, who epitomized the stalwart, conservative Roman bishop who admitted no change in the faith but saw the role of the Church in Rome as one of helping to maintain the continuity of the Apostolic Faith through absolute adherence to tradition, was invaluable to Pope St. Cyril. And Pope St. Cyril’s support was in turn invaluable to Archbishop Celestine as the latter dealt with Pelagianism; indeed, Nestorianism was explained to St. Celestine as being akin to Christological Pelagianism by one of the great Latin fathers of the era.

And this was rather apt, because interestingly, Nestorianism requires monergism, and Pelagianism is a form of monergism, since Nestorianism depends on a union of will between the divine hypostasis and person of Christ and the human hypostasis and person of Jesus Christ, this division and separation of the humanity and divinity of God being required in order to explain with coherent Christology how it is that Mary gave birth to Jesus without giving birth to God, while still paying lip service to the Nicene Creed.

I am not convinced Nestorianism is actually compatible with the Nicene Creed, but it attempts to be and is superficially compatible, because of the way in which it divides but does not deny the divinity and humanity of our Lord. But in introducing this division, it produces a myriad of derivative heresies and it also, when coupled with various restorationist ideas that derived from Anselm’s Satisfaction Atonement, specifically the Penal Substitutionary Atonement model of John Calvin, create the image of Christ as the innocent victim of the angry and wrathful Father that have turned so many people away from Christianity, as Metropolitan Kallistos Ware, memory eternal, pointed out in his lecture Salvation In Christ.

Metropolitan Kallistos stressed that we are called to make ourselves, in our relations with our family, with our friends, with our neighbors, within our church, and with humanity at large, an icon of the Holy Trinity, which is an eternal union of three persons: the unoriginate Father, and the uncreated Son and Holy Spirit who share in the boundless sea of life that is the Divine Essence of the Father, from which the Son is eternally begotten and from which the Spirit eternally proceeds. These three coequal and coeternal persons created time, space and everything therein, and furthermore are omnipresent in our universe through uncreated grace of the Holy Spirit, and also through the Incarnation of the Son exist participate in Creation directly.

The pope certainly confirmed Nicea, and I posted comments about that Gelasius, who was from the east, said that Ossius "held the place of Sylvester of Rome." To me it is the confirmation of the pope that is most important. Just like with the councils that approved the 73 books of the Bible, the pope's approval is the key.

Click to expand...

The Bishop of Rome assented to Nicaea, it is true, and without that assent, and the assent of the other bishops of the Roman Patriarchate, and the laity of their dioceses, the council would not have become ecumenical.

The fact that none of the Bishops of Rome other than Leo made a direct and significant contribution to the ecumenical councils accepted by both the Eastern Orthodox and the Roman Catholics is not a bad thing at all. It is rather a testament to the extreme conservativism of the Church of Rome, which was known for absolute doctrinal Orthodoxy until the controversy at Chalcedon alienated some of the Eastern bishops, particularly those who did not speak Greek as their native tongue, for while some of the initial leaders of the Oriental Orthodox movement, such as St. Dioscorus, St. Severus of Antioch and St. Peter Fullo were Greeks, most would be Syriacs, Copts, Armenians, Ethiopians, Numidians, Georgians, and Caucasian Albanians, for example, St. Jacob bar Addai, who was a friend of Empress Theodora, also a Syrian, who provided him life-saving information allowing him to escape the forces of Emperor Justinian who hunted down and liquidated all of his brother bishops in the Syriac Orthodox Church. To prevent a recurrence, St. Jacob bar Addai ordained, acting sola, which is allowed under emergency conditions (although under normal conditions there should be at least three bishops as co-ordainers at any episcopal consecration), hundreds of Syriac Orthodox bishops, which made the hierarchy too large and too distributed to be purged, and that, combined with the remote and thus effectively untouchable status of the Coptic-Ethiopian and Armenian hierarchies and also the Maphrianate in the Persian Empire, ensured that the Oriental Orthodox communion could not be decapitated. Ironically just a few decades earlier Emperor Justinian was on very good terms with the Oriental Orthodox and even incorporated the hymn of St. Severus, Ho Monogenes, into the synaxis of the Byzantine Rite liturgy.

St. Jacob of Sarugh, who was the Oriental Orthodox contender for the title “The Flute of the Spirit”, whose beautiful metrical homily Haw Nurone is the most exquisite confession of the real physical presence of the Body and Blood of our Lord in the Eucharist that I have seen, against the Nestorian Mar Narsai, who is most known for what I find to be a very ugly and trite hymn in which each alternating line attributes each subsequent act of our Lord to the divine Christ or the human Jesus respectively. This was important because St. Ephraim the Syrian is universally recognized as “The Harp of the Spirit.” Another important Syrian bishop was St. Philoxenus of Mabbug.

So basically, what it came down to in the end was an ethnic division, with the Greeks, Georgians, Bulgarians, Romanians, Macedonians, Serbians, most Cypriots, and some Albanians being Eastern Orthodox, the Assyrians being split between the Oriental Orthodox and the Church of the East, with the Oriental Orthodox group then splitting into separate Syrian and Maronite identities, with the Maronites later settling in Lebanon and entering into communion with Rome, and the Armenians, Copts, and Ethiopians becoming Oriental Orthodox, and unfortunately, the Nubians and Caucasian Iberians being exterminated. Separately, the Latins, Franks, Germans, Poles, Slovaks, Hungarians, Slovenes, Croats, and most non-Muslim Albanians became Catholics, as well as a minority of Cypriots, and of course, most of Northern and Western Europe. Among the Finns and the Balts, however, a minority of Finns, Estonians, Latvians and Lithuanians did become Orthodox, and also a minority of Poles, and likewise a sizeable minority of Ukrainians and Belarussians became Byzantine Rite and Roman Rite Catholics, and many Russians also became Roman Rite Catholics, but very few became Byzantine Rite Catholics, although there is a Russian Greek Catholic cathedral in Los Angeles. And some Ukrainians became Byzantine Rite Lutherans.

Valletta said:

It was the decision of the pope to preside, convoke, or confirm the ecumenical councils. There is not complete historical documentation on all of the councils but the historical documentation that still exists supports this position.

Click to expand...

Oh, like fun it does. Nicaea was convoked by Emperor Constantine (not a Roman Pope) and presided over by HH Pope Alexander of Alexandria (not a Roman Pope) and Hosius of Cordoba (not a Roman Pope). Constantinople was convoked by Emperor Theodosius (not a Roman Pope), and presided over by HH Pope Timothy of Alexandria (still not a Roman Pope), Meletius of Antioch, Gregory Nazianzen, and Nectarios of Constantinople (no Roman Popes among these, either). Finally, Ephesus was convoked by Emperor Theodosius II and presided over HH Cyril of Alexandria, the Pillar of Faith, not the Roman Pope. After this, obviously I stop paying attention, so I'll leave you to argue over the later councils if you wish. The point is that there is no evidence whatsoever of the Roman Pope deciding to convoke or preside over any of the earliest ecumenical councils. He demonstrably never did either of those things; that is what is confirmed by the historical record, not your RC fantasy where the Pope of Rome ran everything important. The fact that you are, in subsequent replies to the Liturgist, appealing to some hypothetical "original documents" that are now lost is very telling, because of course you can make things that don't exist say anything you want them to. That's why the sort of claim you are making carries no evidentiary weight, and will not be taken seriously by anyone (including, as the Liturgist has pointed out, serious scholars and churchmen of your own communion).

And since there's still no answer in this thread or anywhere what it means for the RC Pope to "confirm" the councils (I asked about this in post #56 on the previous page to your co-religionist xeno.of.athens and the crickets have responded before he has), I see no reason not assume that this is yet another piece of fantastic sophistry by the apologists of your communion, perhaps whereby the agreement of the RC Pope is in itself what "confirms" the councils to Roman Catholics, so of course that would be 'true', so far as that goes...sort of like how I don't agree with Chalcedon or Chalcedonianism, so that council is not 'confirmed' or even able to be 'confirmed' to me or anyone in my communion. It'd be pretty silly of any of us to think that this would convince anyone else of anything, of course.

prodromos said:

All bishops who were not in attendance at the councils were expected to sign off on the decisions made by the council in their absence. It wasn't just the bishop of Rome.

Click to expand...

Indeed, and in the case of Nicaea, a few bishops who decided Arius was right took leave of the Council rather than signing it. I think about half a dozen or so. I don’t think Eusebius of Nicomedia, not to be confused with the church historian Eusebius of Caesarea, was even present at Nicaea, but I could be mistaken; do you recall?

By the way my opposition to historical revisionism extends to rejecting certain propaganda that exists concerning the Chalcedonian Schism. I reject the validity of the EO/OO schism and believe that the ecumenical agreement between the Syriac and Antiochian Orthodox should be the template for restored communion between all EO and OO churches, and the beauty of such an approach is that it can be taken one pair of churches at a time, because attempting, as had once been proposed for the somewhat ill-fated Council of Crete, to reunify the EO and OO on a communion-wide basis would probably cause schisms on both ends. I think the Ethiopian monks at Lalibela and their counterparts on Mount Athos would refuse to go along with such a reunion, since the former believe the Eastern Orthodox are Nestorians and the latter believe the Oriental Orthodox are Monophysites and followers of Eutyches.

Ironically, however, I think the combined impact of Traditiones Custodes and Fiducia Supplicans may well have made traditional Catholics, aside from those in the SSPX and other groups in an irregular canonical situation, more favorably disposed to ecumenical reconciliation with the Orthodox due to the fact that the Western Rite Orthodox liturgy is basically the traditional Roman and Gallican Rites, albeit with some use of the vernacular, and both the Western and Byzantine Rite liturgies as practiced by the Eastern Orthodox, as well as the liturgies of the Oriental Orthodox and the Assyrian Church of the East, have the same luxuriant quality as the Extraordinary Form of the Roman Mass, and also all three Eastern churches, the Eastern and Oriental Orthodox and the Church of the East, are absolutely stalwart in their opposition to gay marriage and other forms of sexual perversion.

Indeed, the process of getting a canonical divorce in the Eastern Orthodox church represents in many respects what the process of getting an annulment in the Roman Catholic Church, in that the requirements for a canonical divorce are essentially the same (adultery, abandonment and so on), indeed, in some respects, they are stricter. Some differences include that the person who causes the marriage, or both parties if it was mutual, will be subject to severe penances by the ecclesiastical tribunal, and also the catch-all way of getting an annulment, that of questioning the commitment or mental preparation or proper disposition to receive the sacrament, is not available as an easy way out. And if someone obtains a civil divorce, the Orthodox will not just remarry them.

Indeed, as I see it, the Orthodox system of canonical divorces represents what the Roman Catholic system of annulments tries to be, and fails, due to extreme pressure to grant annulments based on the warped norms of contemporary society, and annulments are convenient in that they deny that the marriage existed, even if it actually did. The canonical divorce does not grant such a fig leaf. And it does not provide an automatic right to remarry.

Regardless of how a marriage ends, whether through canonical divorce or the death of a spouse, an Orthodox Christian can be remarried, but the service takes on a penitential character. A third marriage is allowed only to prevent a greater evil such as a civil remarriage or cohabitation, and a fourth marriage is prohibited.

On the other hand, in the case of annulments, I don’t believe that restrictions exist on the number of them, as long as one can articulate a reason why the sacrament of marriage was not validly confected.

dzheremi said:

And since there's still no answer in this thread or anywhere what it means for the RC Pope to "confirm" the councils (I asked about this in post #56 on the previous page to your co-religionist xeno.of.athens and the crickets have responded before he has), I see no reason not assume that this is yet another piece of fantastic sophistry by the apologists of your communion, perhaps whereby the agreement of the RC Pope is in itself what "confirms" the councils to Roman Catholics, so of course that would be 'true', so far as that goes...sort of like how I don't agree with Chalcedon or Chalcedonianism, so that council is not 'confirmed' or even able to be 'confirmed' to me or anyone in my communion. It'd be pretty silly of any of us to think that this would convince anyone else of anything, of course.

Click to expand...

The pope could approve of or confirm a decision by letter, or his confirmation by the participation of his legates is obvious, as in the following summary of the third ecumenical council of Ephesus:

Valletta said:

The pope could approve of or confirm a decision by letter, or his confirmation by the participation of his legates is obvious, as in the following summary of the third ecumenical council of Ephesus:

Council of Ephesus

Ephesus, COUNCIL OF, the third ecumenical council, 431. The idea of this great council seems to have been due to Nestorius, the Bishop of Constantinople. St. Cy...

www.catholic.com

Click to expand...

Claims are made in the article, however no quotations or citations are given to back up said claims. It is not a particularly useful reference for this discussion.