OrthodoxChristianity.net
October 25, 2014, 07:26:34 AM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Reminder: No political discussions in the public fora.  If you do not have access to the private Politics Forum, please send a PM to Fr. George.
 
   Home   Help Calendar Contact Treasury Tags Login Register  
Pages: 1   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Popes and Councils Reject Appeals to Rome  (Read 1620 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« on: November 23, 2010, 05:44:38 PM »

In message 41 on another thread Mary introduces the canons of the  Council of Carthage of 418 and describes them as the "deal breaker" on a matter concerning original sin and Baptism.  She mentions that the canons of this Council of Carthage were ratified by the Ecumenical Councils of Ephesus and Nicea II.

http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,27401.msg496563.html#msg496563

It is noteworthy that Canon 17 of this Council rejects appeals to Rome and excommunicates any who do so.

Can. 17 “If priests, deacons, and inferior clerics complain of a sentence of their own bishop, they shall, with the
consent of their bishop, have recourse to the neighboring bishops, who shall settle the dispute. If they desire to make
a further appeal, it must only be to their primates or to African Councils. But whoever appeals to a court on the other
side of the sea (Rome), may not again be received into communion by any one in Africa.”

Two Ecumenical Councils and two Popes rejected appeals to Rome at the highest level of the Church:

1.  The Ecumenical Council of Ephesus which was ratified by Pope Saint Celestine I
2.  The Ecumenical Council of Nicea II which was ratified by Pope Hadrian.



Logged
Alpo
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Jerkodox
Posts: 6,859



« Reply #1 on: November 23, 2010, 05:57:00 PM »

That doesn't make any sense. I thought that even today members of other local churches can appeal to EP. If that's the case, why would appealing to Rome be somehow wrong. Huh
Logged

Rufus
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: GOA
Posts: leet


Nafpliotis with sunglasses and a cigar.


« Reply #2 on: November 23, 2010, 06:03:26 PM »

In message 41 on another thread Mary introduces the canons of the  Council of Carthage of 418 and describes them as the "deal breaker" on a matter concerning original sin and Baptism.  She mentions that the canons of this Council of Carthage were ratified by the Ecumenical Councils of Ephesus and Nicea II.

http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,27401.msg496563.html#msg496563

It is noteworthy that Canon 17 of this Council rejects appeals to Rome and excommunicates any who do so.

Can. 17 “If priests, deacons, and inferior clerics complain of a sentence of their own bishop, they shall, with the
consent of their bishop, have recourse to the neighboring bishops, who shall settle the dispute. If they desire to make
a further appeal, it must only be to their primates or to African Councils. But whoever appeals to a court on the other
side of the sea (Rome), may not again be received into communion by any one in Africa.”

Two Ecumenical Councils and two Popes rejected appeals to Rome at the highest level of the Church:

1.  The Ecumenical Council of Ephesus which was ratified by Pope Saint Celestine I
2.  The Ecumenical Council of Nicea II which was ratified by Pope Hadrian.

Father, I don't see the problem. The canon only forbids priests and deacons from appealing to Rome and bypassing their own bishop.
Logged
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #3 on: November 23, 2010, 06:09:30 PM »

That doesn't make any sense. I thought that even today members of other local churches can appeal to EP. If that's the case, why would appealing to Rome be somehow wrong. Huh

I am only a nobody monk and cannot make a judgement on whether the Council Fathers were creating senseless canons.   laugh
Logged
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #4 on: November 23, 2010, 06:29:24 PM »

In message 41 on another thread Mary introduces the canons of the  Council of Carthage of 418 and describes them as the "deal breaker" on a matter concerning original sin and Baptism.  She mentions that the canons of this Council of Carthage were ratified by the Ecumenical Councils of Ephesus and Nicea II.

http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,27401.msg496563.html#msg496563

It is noteworthy that Canon 17 of this Council rejects appeals to Rome and excommunicates any who do so.

Can. 17 “If priests, deacons, and inferior clerics complain of a sentence of their own bishop, they shall, with the
consent of their bishop, have recourse to the neighboring bishops, who shall settle the dispute. If they desire to make
a further appeal, it must only be to their primates or to African Councils. But whoever appeals to a court on the other
side of the sea (Rome), may not again be received into communion by any one in Africa.”

Two Ecumenical Councils and two Popes rejected appeals to Rome at the highest level of the Church:

1.  The Ecumenical Council of Ephesus which was ratified by Pope Saint Celestine I
2.  The Ecumenical Council of Nicea II which was ratified by Pope Hadrian.


I noted when you first brought this to bear that this applies even to this day.

IF a priest has a complaint against his bishop and writes a letter to Rome, it is as day follows night that the letter will be sent immediately to the bishop in question, so you had better be VERY careful what you say about your bishop in writing.  There is NO recourse for priest or laity in the Catholic Church that does not FIRST go through their canonical local ordinary.

This is a non-starter if you want an argument because it still holds and this is one example of why I insist that you are one of the last of the people that I know, who should be held up as an "expert" in things Catholic.

Mary
Logged

ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,963



« Reply #5 on: November 23, 2010, 06:44:38 PM »

In message 41 on another thread Mary introduces the canons of the  Council of Carthage of 418 and describes them as the "deal breaker" on a matter concerning original sin and Baptism.  She mentions that the canons of this Council of Carthage were ratified by the Ecumenical Councils of Ephesus and Nicea II.

http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,27401.msg496563.html#msg496563

It is noteworthy that Canon 17 of this Council rejects appeals to Rome and excommunicates any who do so.

Can. 17 “If priests, deacons, and inferior clerics complain of a sentence of their own bishop, they shall, with the
consent of their bishop, have recourse to the neighboring bishops, who shall settle the dispute. If they desire to make
a further appeal, it must only be to their primates or to African Councils. But whoever appeals to a court on the other
side of the sea (Rome), may not again be received into communion by any one in Africa.”

Two Ecumenical Councils and two Popes rejected appeals to Rome at the highest level of the Church:

1.  The Ecumenical Council of Ephesus which was ratified by Pope Saint Celestine I
2.  The Ecumenical Council of Nicea II which was ratified by Pope Hadrian.

Father, I don't see the problem. The canon only forbids priests and deacons from appealing to Rome and bypassing their own bishop.
But it doesn't forbid them from bypassing their bishop and going to the neighboring bishops and the primate of Africa (i.e. Carthage).
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #6 on: November 23, 2010, 07:02:02 PM »

In message 41 on another thread Mary introduces the canons of the  Council of Carthage of 418 and describes them as the "deal breaker" on a matter concerning original sin and Baptism.  She mentions that the canons of this Council of Carthage were ratified by the Ecumenical Councils of Ephesus and Nicea II.

http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,27401.msg496563.html#msg496563

It is noteworthy that Canon 17 of this Council rejects appeals to Rome and excommunicates any who do so.

Can. 17 “If priests, deacons, and inferior clerics complain of a sentence of their own bishop, they shall, with the
consent of their bishop, have recourse to the neighboring bishops, who shall settle the dispute. If they desire to make
a further appeal, it must only be to their primates or to African Councils. But whoever appeals to a court on the other
side of the sea (Rome), may not again be received into communion by any one in Africa.”

Two Ecumenical Councils and two Popes rejected appeals to Rome at the highest level of the Church:

1.  The Ecumenical Council of Ephesus which was ratified by Pope Saint Celestine I
2.  The Ecumenical Council of Nicea II which was ratified by Pope Hadrian.


I noted when you first brought this to bear that this applies even to this day.

IF a priest has a complaint against his bishop and writes a letter to Rome, it is as day follows night that the letter will be sent immediately to the bishop in question, so you had better be VERY careful what you say about your bishop in writing.  There is NO recourse for priest or laity in the Catholic Church that does not FIRST go through their canonical local ordinary.

This is a non-starter if you want an argument because it still holds and this is one example of why I insist that you are one of the last of the people that I know, who should be held up as an "expert" in things Catholic.

Mary

All the above is a fine example of a sequence of "loose association" and it does not address the canon really.  It simply attempts to disguise its import.  The usual Lanserism - Turba et Impera - Muddle and Conquer!    laugh laugh
Logged
Shanghaiski
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 7,973


Holy Trinity Church of Gergeti, Georgia


« Reply #7 on: November 23, 2010, 07:56:13 PM »

Well, later there certainly were lots of appeals to Rome, probably because Rome was the only Orthodox see at the time.
Logged

Quote from: GabrieltheCelt
If you spend long enough on this forum, you'll come away with all sorts of weird, untrue ideas of Orthodox Christianity.
Quote from: orthonorm
I would suggest most persons in general avoid any question beginning with why.
Aindriú
Faster! Funnier!
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Cynical
Jurisdiction: Vestibule of Hell
Posts: 3,918



WWW
« Reply #8 on: November 23, 2010, 08:30:38 PM »

As a military man, I can say I don't find this conclusive evidence (at least as presented). I find nothing contradictory with demanding a chain of command and avoid skipping to the top.
Logged


I'm going to need this.
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,963



« Reply #9 on: November 23, 2010, 08:50:37 PM »

Well, later there certainly were lots of appeals to Rome, probably because Rome was the only Orthodox see at the time.
418? We had plenty of Orthodox Sees, including all 5 of the Pentarchy (although Rome, under Bishop Zosimos, the codler of Pelagius, just barely. Given the weakness of bishop Zosimos, perhaps this is why the ban on appealing to Rome: they wanted a secure Orthodox court of appeal).

When would Rome be the only Orthodox see at the time?
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
Rufus
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: GOA
Posts: leet


Nafpliotis with sunglasses and a cigar.


« Reply #10 on: November 23, 2010, 09:08:40 PM »

In message 41 on another thread Mary introduces the canons of the  Council of Carthage of 418 and describes them as the "deal breaker" on a matter concerning original sin and Baptism.  She mentions that the canons of this Council of Carthage were ratified by the Ecumenical Councils of Ephesus and Nicea II.

http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,27401.msg496563.html#msg496563

It is noteworthy that Canon 17 of this Council rejects appeals to Rome and excommunicates any who do so.

Can. 17 “If priests, deacons, and inferior clerics complain of a sentence of their own bishop, they shall, with the
consent of their bishop, have recourse to the neighboring bishops, who shall settle the dispute. If they desire to make
a further appeal, it must only be to their primates or to African Councils. But whoever appeals to a court on the other
side of the sea (Rome), may not again be received into communion by any one in Africa.”

Two Ecumenical Councils and two Popes rejected appeals to Rome at the highest level of the Church:

1.  The Ecumenical Council of Ephesus which was ratified by Pope Saint Celestine I
2.  The Ecumenical Council of Nicea II which was ratified by Pope Hadrian.

Father, I don't see the problem. The canon only forbids priests and deacons from appealing to Rome and bypassing their own bishop.
But it doesn't forbid them from bypassing their bishop and going to the neighboring bishops and the primate of Africa (i.e. Carthage).

Basically, this canon shows that Rome did not have direct jurisdiction in North Africa.
Logged
Aindriú
Faster! Funnier!
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Cynical
Jurisdiction: Vestibule of Hell
Posts: 3,918



WWW
« Reply #11 on: November 23, 2010, 09:45:38 PM »

In message 41 on another thread Mary introduces the canons of the  Council of Carthage of 418 and describes them as the "deal breaker" on a matter concerning original sin and Baptism.  She mentions that the canons of this Council of Carthage were ratified by the Ecumenical Councils of Ephesus and Nicea II.

http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,27401.msg496563.html#msg496563

It is noteworthy that Canon 17 of this Council rejects appeals to Rome and excommunicates any who do so.

Can. 17 “If priests, deacons, and inferior clerics complain of a sentence of their own bishop, they shall, with the
consent of their bishop, have recourse to the neighboring bishops, who shall settle the dispute. If they desire to make
a further appeal, it must only be to their primates or to African Councils. But whoever appeals to a court on the other
side of the sea (Rome), may not again be received into communion by any one in Africa.”

Two Ecumenical Councils and two Popes rejected appeals to Rome at the highest level of the Church:

1.  The Ecumenical Council of Ephesus which was ratified by Pope Saint Celestine I
2.  The Ecumenical Council of Nicea II which was ratified by Pope Hadrian.

Father, I don't see the problem. The canon only forbids priests and deacons from appealing to Rome and bypassing their own bishop.
But it doesn't forbid them from bypassing their bishop and going to the neighboring bishops and the primate of Africa (i.e. Carthage).

Basically, this canon shows that Rome did not have direct jurisdiction in North Africa.

Direct? Of course, not. Modern Catholicism doesn't work that way, either. All it says is :

"if you don't agree with my decision, we'll try a different bishop. If you don't like either of those, we'll try our bishop. But don't you dare jump above us to another church's See. You keep our issues in-house."
Logged


I'm going to need this.
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,963



« Reply #12 on: November 23, 2010, 09:47:22 PM »

In message 41 on another thread Mary introduces the canons of the  Council of Carthage of 418 and describes them as the "deal breaker" on a matter concerning original sin and Baptism.  She mentions that the canons of this Council of Carthage were ratified by the Ecumenical Councils of Ephesus and Nicea II.

http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,27401.msg496563.html#msg496563

It is noteworthy that Canon 17 of this Council rejects appeals to Rome and excommunicates any who do so.

Can. 17 “If priests, deacons, and inferior clerics complain of a sentence of their own bishop, they shall, with the
consent of their bishop, have recourse to the neighboring bishops, who shall settle the dispute. If they desire to make
a further appeal, it must only be to their primates or to African Councils. But whoever appeals to a court on the other
side of the sea (Rome), may not again be received into communion by any one in Africa.”

Two Ecumenical Councils and two Popes rejected appeals to Rome at the highest level of the Church:

1.  The Ecumenical Council of Ephesus which was ratified by Pope Saint Celestine I
2.  The Ecumenical Council of Nicea II which was ratified by Pope Hadrian.

Father, I don't see the problem. The canon only forbids priests and deacons from appealing to Rome and bypassing their own bishop.
But it doesn't forbid them from bypassing their bishop and going to the neighboring bishops and the primate of Africa (i.e. Carthage).

Basically, this canon shows that Rome did not have direct jurisdiction in North Africa.
The problem is also that Africa was the most conciliar Church, squeezed between the most centralized (Alexandria) and the most autocratic (Rome)
Quote
The Structure of the Episcopate and the Eclipse of Christianity in North Africa
Maureen A. Tilley, The University of Dayton

The Eminently Episcopal Hierarchy
From its inception Christianity in North Africa seems to have taken on a hierarchical structure which relied strongly on bishops. The bishop was the focus of the church; priests rarely exercised any independent judgment.(6) When Cyprian went into exile, priests and confessors tried to fill the power vacuum, but with the return of the bishop, the normal course of church government was restored.(7)

Bishops were the agents of pastoral care in every village and hamlet. No town of any size seemed to be without one.(Cool And unlike chorepiskopoi in Egypt, these bishops exercised full jurisdiction and power.(9)

The episcopal structure itself was collegial. From the earliest years of Christianity in Africa we know that councils of bishops made policy and that, while there were outstanding theologians, speakers were heard according to seniority.(10) In the third century Cyprian acted as primate for Africa as an undivided ecclesiastical province. His successors as bishops of Carthage remained the primates. In the fourth century when the civil province of Africa was divided and ecclesiastical administration followed suit, the two new provinces, Proconsularia and Numidia each had its own primate. In the newer province, Numidia, primacy was tied to term in office and not to a particular city. Yet the collegiality between the provinces and their primates endured.: the primate of Proconsularia was ordinarily ordained by the Primate of Numidia. In the early fifth century, a further splitting of Africa into the ecclesiastical provinces of Byzacena, Tripolitania and the Mauretanias (Sitifensis and Caesariensis) did not dilute the primatial system.(11) In each of these new provinces a primate, by seniority, exercised a leadership role within the province, but the bishops themselves governed the province jointly. This particular and peculiar structure was submerged during the Vandal occupation but was restored under the Byzantines. (12) Though close to sovereign in their own dioceses, bishops of the all of the North African provinces assembled often, as regularly as circumstances allowed, to decide issues of joint interest.(13)

This collegial pattern was reproduced across the Donatist Catholic divide with their respective bishops and primates. Both parties multiplied bishops by dividing dioceses, making sure that every hamlet had at least one of their party in charge of the local partisans so adherents of neither party would be forced to seek ministrations of the other party's bishops. Catholics tried to put a stop to the multiplication of dioceses in 387 at the Council of Carthage with their order that no new dioceses be erected.(14) They seem to have been ineffective for two decades later another Council of Carthage passed legislation requiring the consent of the primate, the provincial synod, and the affected bishop if a new diocese were created.(15) By 411, there were hundreds of overlapping sees, two hundred eighty-six Catholic and two hundred seventy-nine Donatists, a total of five hundred sixty-five. Both the Catholic and Donatist parties had their own primates and their own councils, making sure that each hamlet had a bishop and that he participated in collegial provincial and inter-provincial affairs.

Thus when the Vandals entered North Africa, they found a hierarchy used to cooperation and collegiality. In this section of the paper I want to sketch the vacillating Vandal policies to show how they weakened the episcopal structure of Catholic Christianity. The Vandals, however, were Arian Christians with their own hierarchy. At first the 'persecution' of Catholic Christians seemed to have more to do with native wealth coveted by the invaders than their religious affiliation,(16) but ecclesiastical leaders, such as Possidius of Calama, could get caught in the exiling of influential men. Whether he was exiled as a civic or ecclesiastical leader, the result was the same: his diocese was bereft of a leader.(17) By the end of Gaiseric's reign persecution for religious reasons alone seems to have prevailed.

The see of Carthage represents the persecution under the Vandals. As Gaiseric controlled the appointment of bishops,(18) this Arian king had the power to prevent the election of bishops. This he did. After the bishop Quodvultdeus died in 439, the see was vacant for fifteen years. Many other sees had the same experience.(19) Under pressure from Valentinan, Gaiseric acquiesced to the election of Deogratias of Carthage in 454. When the bishop died three years later, Gaiseric effectively prevented the see being filled. For twenty-three years it remained vacant.(20) During that time, the priests of the diocese were persecuted. In 475 they were given the choice of going into exile or being made slaves.(21)

With the restoration of Byzantine dominance in Africa under Belisaurus, one would think that the North African troubles would be over. There was reason for optimism. Justinian ordered that the ecclesiastical properties taken by the Vandals to be restored to the Church and that new churches be erected, including Damous-el-Karita.(34) Monasteries were built under his patronage.(35) Carthage regained its old prerogatives including financial support.(36) Clergy were to be judged only by ecclesiastical courts.(37) Imperial officials were obliged by law to accept the counsels of the bishops.(38)

However, the sovereign's liberality was grounded in the notion that he was the absolute ruler of both State and Church. Justinian exercised a much tighter control over internal ecclesiastical affairs than that to which the Africans had grown accustomed either before or during the Vandal occupation. Instead of the primates, he convoked and presided at councils and sanctioned their legislation. Instead of the bishops in council, he made ecclesiastical law amd composed formulas of faith. While restoring the independence of the Church from Vandal oppression, he tied it more tightly to Constantinople. The restoration of the privileges of Carthage as metropolitan see were not simply as restoration of privileges status quo ante. The bishop of Carthage was expected to impose his own authority on the bishops of Proconsularia. The primacy of Byzacena was no longer expected to act in concert and consensus with other bishops of North Africa but was to report directly to the imperial throne.(39)

In 544 the emperor Justinian ordered the bishops of East and West to join his in condemning the writings of theologians deemed to have favored monophysitism. But Arianism, not Nestorius, had been the concern of the North Africans and of Rome. In North Africa, Arianism was less a theological problem than it was part of the culture of the occupying Vandals. But in the wake of the Vandal defeat North African bishops needed to provide for the reintegration of Arians into the larger church. It was a delicate task even without the complication of a thoroughly foreign Christological problem. Thus Western bishops did not see the writings of the Three Chapters in the same light as the East. In fact, they refused to condemn posthumously men whose works they had accepted as orthodox within their lifetimes. They saw a condemnation of the Three Chapters as a betrayal of Chalcedon which differentiated them from Arians.(41) So on both theological and political grounds they reacted negatively to Justinian's demands.

All over Western Europe bishops resisted. Across the sea in Rome, there were similar pastoral problems, similar opinions to that of North Africa, and similar pressure from Justinian. After resisting for three years, including time under arrest in Constantinople, the Roman bishop Vigilius was forced to condemn the Three Chapters. The Africans held out longer. In 550 they assembled at a general council, proclaimed themselves defenders of the Three Chapters, excommunicated Vigilius, and sent their solemn protest to the emperor. In response, Justinian summoned to Constantinople the leadership of North Africa: Reparatus of Carthage, Firmus of Tipasa as primate of Numidia, and Primasius of Hadrumentum in place of the ailing primate of Byzacena.(42)

With the leaders of the North Africans under house arrest in Constantinople, in effect evacuating its leadership, Justinian was free to pressure North African Christians. He exiled both bishops and abbots who refused.(43) He deposed others and installed new bishops by force, jailing some priests and forcing others to flee for fear of exile among the Moors or in other inhospitable places.(44) At Carthage, in place of Reparatus, he installed Primosus the deacon as bishop . Primosus received his see with the charge that he was to insure the acceptance of the condemnation of the Three Chapters.(45) Finally in 551 he brought his own handpicked North Africans to Constantinople to act as Western representatives to Chalcedon. When some of these refused to sign condemnations, he send them into exile.(46)

While being persecuted by the Vandals and while enduring extreme pressures from the Byzantine emperor, the bishops of North Africa saw their authority further eroded by encroachments from the West, specifically from Rome. While there was a long history of Roman concern for the church of North Africa, events during the Byzantine period will show that the ways in which Rome expressed its concern counterbalanced the methods by which the African bishops were trying to rebuild the church in their own territory.(47)

In the demoralizing period of the early Vandal occupation, the bishops of North Africa attempted to cope with the long vacancies in dioceses. In 446 when the opportunity came for elections, the bishops of Caesarea Mauretania moved quickly to fill vacant dioceses with able administrators. In imperious language Leo the Great scolded them. He did not think their candidates worthy men. He objected to their election of men who were not long enough in previous rank or who married not to a second wife, but to a wife who had been previously married.(48) However, he did recommend his own dubious candidates, one a former Novatianist, another a former Donatist, provided that they expressed their loyalty, not to the orthodox Church, holy doctrine, or even their metropolitan, but to Leo personally.(49) As the bishops attempted to exert their influence in rural areas against both the Arian episcopacy and the non-Christian Moors, Leo upbraided them for the multiplication of dioceses and for having bishops resident in small towns and villages. For Leo, the rural residence of bishops diminished their honor. In addition, partitioning a larger diocese to create a small rural one brought the senior urban bishop into disrepute. Leo's counter-recommendation that not bishops but priests be sent to smaller towns directly mirrors the North African custom that bishops, not priests, should have authority even in rural areas of small populations.(50) He ended the letter with the command that the bishops send him a report indicating that his orders had been followed.(51) We do not know whether the bishops heeded the letter, but the conditions that Leo found troubling give witness to the attempt of the North african bishops to maintain a hierarchy which relied heavily on bishops and generally did not seek to substitute presbyters as leaders for local, especially rural, communities.

The next time North Africa seems to have captured the attention of Rome was during the reign of Gregory the Great.

Gregory, like his predecessor, was anxious for the church of North Africa, but his understanding of good order flew in the face of North African tradition. He appealed directly to the Byzantine exarch Gennadius to maintain ecclesiastical discipline(52) and to order the bishops to change the method of choosing their primate. He wanted the primate to be attached to a particular see.(53) The bishops of Numidia protested this interference in their age-old custom of electing the most senior bishop, and Gregory backed down. His sole concern he later said was that the customary rule of seniority not lead to a former Donatist becoming primate.(54) He wrote directly and often to his correspondent bishop Columbus in Numidia regarding abuses which allowed the Donatists to keep their episcopal lines in succession.(55) Whether the issue is really Donatism or not, the appearance is one of Rome trying to refashion the North African on its own model, against the pattern the North Africans themselves see as most useful.(56)
http://people.vanderbilt.edu/~james.p.burns/chroma/clergy/Tilleyorders.html
« Last Edit: November 23, 2010, 09:52:07 PM by ialmisry » Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #13 on: November 24, 2010, 01:53:13 AM »

In message 41 on another thread Mary introduces the canons of the  Council of Carthage of 418 and describes them as the "deal breaker" on a matter concerning original sin and Baptism.  She mentions that the canons of this Council of Carthage were ratified by the Ecumenical Councils of Ephesus and Nicea II.

http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,27401.msg496563.html#msg496563

It is noteworthy that Canon 17 of this Council rejects appeals to Rome and excommunicates any who do so.

Can. 17 “If priests, deacons, and inferior clerics complain of a sentence of their own bishop, they shall, with the
consent of their bishop, have recourse to the neighboring bishops, who shall settle the dispute. If they desire to make
a further appeal, it must only be to their primates or to African Councils. But whoever appeals to a court on the other
side of the sea (Rome), may not again be received into communion by any one in Africa.”

Two Ecumenical Councils and two Popes rejected appeals to Rome at the highest level of the Church:

1.  The Ecumenical Council of Ephesus which was ratified by Pope Saint Celestine I
2.  The Ecumenical Council of Nicea II which was ratified by Pope Hadrian.


I noted when you first brought this to bear that this applies even to this day.

IF a priest has a complaint against his bishop and writes a letter to Rome, it is as day follows night that the letter will be sent immediately to the bishop in question, so you had better be VERY careful what you say about your bishop in writing.  There is NO recourse for priest or laity in the Catholic Church that does not FIRST go through their canonical local ordinary.

This is a non-starter if you want an argument because it still holds and this is one example of why I insist that you are one of the last of the people that I know, who should be held up as an "expert" in things Catholic.

Mary

All the above is a fine example of a sequence of "loose association" and it does not address the canon really.  It simply attempts to disguise its import.  The usual Lanserism - Turba et Impera - Muddle and Conquer!    laugh laugh

Snorkle all you want, Father.  There's no fight here.  The Catholic Church still lives by these particular canons.

I see you are still allowed the Odd Hominem...now and then.
Logged

prodromos
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 1,463

Sydney, Australia


« Reply #14 on: November 26, 2010, 09:23:26 AM »

I see you are still allowed the Odd Hominem...now and then.

What's an "Odd Hominem"?
Logged
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #15 on: November 26, 2010, 10:02:35 AM »

In message 41 on another thread Mary introduces the canons of the  Council of Carthage of 418 and describes them as the "deal breaker" on a matter concerning original sin and Baptism.  She mentions that the canons of this Council of Carthage were ratified by the Ecumenical Councils of Ephesus and Nicea II.

http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,27401.msg496563.html#msg496563

It is noteworthy that Canon 17 of this Council rejects appeals to Rome and excommunicates any who do so.

Can. 17 “If priests, deacons, and inferior clerics complain of a sentence of their own bishop, they shall, with the
consent of their bishop, have recourse to the neighboring bishops, who shall settle the dispute. If they desire to make
a further appeal, it must only be to their primates or to African Councils. But whoever appeals to a court on the other
side of the sea (Rome), may not again be received into communion by any one in Africa.”

Two Ecumenical Councils and two Popes rejected appeals to Rome at the highest level of the Church:

1.  The Ecumenical Council of Ephesus which was ratified by Pope Saint Celestine I
2.  The Ecumenical Council of Nicea II which was ratified by Pope Hadrian.


I noted when you first brought this to bear that this applies even to this day.

IF a priest has a complaint against his bishop and writes a letter to Rome, it is as day follows night that the letter will be sent immediately to the bishop in question, so you had better be VERY careful what you say about your bishop in writing.  There is NO recourse for priest or laity in the Catholic Church that does not FIRST go through their canonical local ordinary.

This is a non-starter if you want an argument because it still holds and this is one example of why I insist that you are one of the last of the people that I know, who should be held up as an "expert" in things Catholic.

Mary

All the above is a fine example of a sequence of "loose association" and it does not address the canon really.  It simply attempts to disguise its import.  The usual Lanserism - Turba et Impera - Muddle and Conquer!    laugh laugh

There's no fight here.  The Catholic Church still lives by these particular canons.


You will find that Carthage 424 addresses the matter of bishops appealing to Rome (the case of Bishop Apiarius) and forbids it, as well as appeals from lesser clergy.

"For though this seems to be there forbidden in respect of the inferior clergy or the laity
[the bishops have in mind the 418 Council we have discussed which took place 6 years earlier],
how much more did it will this to be observed in the case of bishops, lest those who had been
suspended from communion in their own province might seem to be restored to communion hastily
or unfitly by your Holiness."

Quote

Snorkle all you want, Father. 

Don't make me laugh when snorkeling in the bath tub.  I swallowed half the water!   laugh


Logged
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #16 on: November 26, 2010, 10:06:38 AM »

I see you are still allowed the Odd Hominem...now and then.

What's an "Odd Hominem"?

I don't know but either it was a typo or, as I prefer to believe, it was Mary at her most creative.  laugh
Logged
Aindriú
Faster! Funnier!
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Cynical
Jurisdiction: Vestibule of Hell
Posts: 3,918



WWW
« Reply #17 on: November 26, 2010, 10:12:21 AM »

I see you are still allowed the Odd Hominem...now and then.

What's an "Odd Hominem"?

I don't know but either it was a typo or, as I prefer to believe, it was Mary at her most creative.  laugh

LOL
Logged


I'm going to need this.
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #18 on: November 26, 2010, 10:13:01 AM »


Snorkle all you want, Father. 


Golly gee gosh. I did not know the meaning of this word. I don't think we use it in British.  


Logged
Iconodule
Uranopolitan
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA (Diocese of Eastern Pennsylvania)
Posts: 7,032


"My god is greater."


« Reply #19 on: November 26, 2010, 11:13:06 AM »


Snorkle all you want, Father. 


Golly gee gosh. I did not know the meaning of this word. I don't think we use it in British.  

I think she's exhorting you to take advantage of the fine weather in New Zealand and enjoy the beaches and reefs.
Logged

"A riddle or the cricket's cry
Is to doubt a fit reply." - William Blake
militantsparrow
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian Orthodox Christian Archdiocese of North America
Posts: 629


militantsparrow
« Reply #20 on: December 18, 2010, 08:41:31 AM »

What are, "inferior clergy?"
Logged

"Yeah, the sparrow hath found an house..." -Psalm 84:3
Irish Melkite
Information Mongeror
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite Greek-Catholic
Jurisdiction: Eparchy of Newton
Posts: 988


WWW
« Reply #21 on: December 18, 2010, 08:47:14 AM »

What are, "inferior clergy?"

The shortest ones in the procession? Or, those with a complex? Or, the short ones with a complex - they're really inferior!

But, to not be a smart alec, I presume, in this instance - since priests and deacons are named - subdeacons, readers, etc. and religious who are not in orders.

Many years,

Neil
« Last Edit: December 18, 2010, 08:50:13 AM by Irish Melkite » Logged

"Not only is it unnecessary to adopt the customs of the Latin Rite to manifest one's Catholicism, it is an offense against the unity of the Church."

- Melkite Archbishop Joseph (Tawil), of blessed memory
militantsparrow
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian Orthodox Christian Archdiocese of North America
Posts: 629


militantsparrow
« Reply #22 on: December 18, 2010, 09:31:22 AM »

Thank you. That made me laugh and makes sense. I wish the west would bring back lesser clergy.
Logged

"Yeah, the sparrow hath found an house..." -Psalm 84:3
Aindriú
Faster! Funnier!
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Cynical
Jurisdiction: Vestibule of Hell
Posts: 3,918



WWW
« Reply #23 on: December 18, 2010, 09:35:08 AM »

Thank you. That made me laugh and makes sense. I wish the west would bring back lesser clergy.

Some of the TLM supporters are actually doing that. I can't remember where I read it, but it was all about the conflict between tonsured positions in Mass and angry NOers, lol.

I see your back, though!
Logged


I'm going to need this.
militantsparrow
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian Orthodox Christian Archdiocese of North America
Posts: 629


militantsparrow
« Reply #24 on: December 18, 2010, 09:58:59 AM »

Thank you. That made me laugh and makes sense. I wish the west would bring back lesser clergy.

Some of the TLM supporters are actually doing that. I can't remember where I read it, but it was all about the conflict between tonsured positions in Mass and angry NOers, lol.

I see your back, though!

Yes I am. I do read the boards somewhat frequently, but I haven't entered into any discussions for a while.
Logged

"Yeah, the sparrow hath found an house..." -Psalm 84:3
Mardukm
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Coptic
Posts: 423


« Reply #25 on: December 25, 2010, 06:20:26 AM »

In message 41 on another thread Mary introduces the canons of the  Council of Carthage of 418 and describes them as the "deal breaker" on a matter concerning original sin and Baptism.  She mentions that the canons of this Council of Carthage were ratified by the Ecumenical Councils of Ephesus and Nicea II.

http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,27401.msg496563.html#msg496563

It is noteworthy that Canon 17 of this Council rejects appeals to Rome and excommunicates any who do so.

Can. 17 “If priests, deacons, and inferior clerics complain of a sentence of their own bishop, they shall, with the
consent of their bishop, have recourse to the neighboring bishops, who shall settle the dispute. If they desire to make
a further appeal, it must only be to their primates or to African Councils. But whoever appeals to a court on the other
side of the sea (Rome), may not again be received into communion by any one in Africa.”

Two Ecumenical Councils and two Popes rejected appeals to Rome at the highest level of the Church:

1.  The Ecumenical Council of Ephesus which was ratified by Pope Saint Celestine I
2.  The Ecumenical Council of Nicea II which was ratified by Pope Hadrian.

Father, I don't see the problem. The canon only forbids priests and deacons from appealing to Rome and bypassing their own bishop.
But it doesn't forbid them from bypassing their bishop and going to the neighboring bishops and the primate of Africa (i.e. Carthage).
Of course not. They were all in the same local autonomous Church.

Blessings
Logged
Mardukm
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Coptic
Posts: 423


« Reply #26 on: December 25, 2010, 06:39:39 AM »

It is noteworthy that Canon 17 of this Council rejects appeals to Rome and excommunicates any who do so.

Can. 17 “If priests, deacons, and inferior clerics complain of a sentence of their own bishop, they shall, with the
consent of their bishop, have recourse to the neighboring bishops, who shall settle the dispute. If they desire to make
a further appeal, it must only be to their primates or to African Councils. But whoever appeals to a court on the other
side of the sea (Rome), may not again be received into communion by any one in Africa.”

Two Ecumenical Councils and two Popes rejected appeals to Rome at the highest level of the Church:

1.  The Ecumenical Council of Ephesus which was ratified by Pope Saint Celestine I
2.  The Ecumenical Council of Nicea II which was ratified by Pope Hadrian.
No. It only forbade priests, deacons and lower clergy to do so. That's because priests and lower clergy are under the direct omophor of their local bishop, not the Pope.

Bishops, on the other hand, from anywhere - East, West, and Orient - could appeal to the bishop of Rome.

Quote
You will find that Carthage 424 addresses the matter of bishops appealing to Rome (the case of Bishop Apiarius) and forbids it, as well as appeals from lesser clergy.

"For though this seems to be there forbidden in respect of the inferior clergy or the laity
[the bishops have in mind the 418 Council we have discussed which took place 6 years earlier],
how much more did it will this to be observed in the case of bishops, lest those who had been
suspended from communion in their own province might seem to be restored to communion hastily
or unfitly by your Holiness."
You have completely misinterpreted that canon, Father.  What the canon is speaking of that is necessary to be observed is the practice of having commendatory letters in order to be able to appeal to Rome. Such letters were forbidden to lower clergy, but they were absolutely necessary for bishops appealing to Rome.  The canon is saying that the bishop of Rome should not be hasty about receiving appeals unless the appealing bishop has commendatory letters from his local head bishop. Such commendatory letters would include not only permission for the appeal, but also the WHOLE story, not a one-sided version of events from the appealling bishop.

Humbly,
Marduk



P.S. Apiarius was not a bishop, but a priest.
« Last Edit: December 25, 2010, 06:50:21 AM by Mardukm » Logged
Mardukm
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Coptic
Posts: 423


« Reply #27 on: December 25, 2010, 06:44:37 AM »

Basically, this canon shows that Rome did not have direct jurisdiction in North Africa.

Direct? Of course, not. Modern Catholicism doesn't work that way, either. All it says is :

"if you don't agree with my decision, we'll try a different bishop. If you don't like either of those, we'll try our bishop. But don't you dare jump above us to another church's See. You keep our issues in-house."
Very well said.

Blessings,
Marduk
Logged
Thomist
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Latin Rite: Archdiocese of Baltimore
Posts: 203



« Reply #28 on: December 26, 2010, 12:23:52 PM »

Nothing about barring as point of procedure appeal to Rome under given circumstances has anything to do with barring appeal to Rome as a point of principle.

The fact of the matter, however, is that much contradictory evidence can be found regarding the Pope's role in the first millenium Church because the Church of the first millenium was not itself entirely sure what role the Pope played. He regularly exercised a good deal more than the 'primacy of honor' that the Orthodox today would limit him to, but what his exact form of authority was had not been officially articulated anywhere. It is an error for us to turn questions of Petrine primacy in to simple questions of the first millenium Church. The first millenium Church's attitudes towards Petrine primacy were often incoherent and self-contradictory. If the Churches unite in the third millenium, they won't find their answers to the question in the first. They'll need to forge a new and more cogently articulated vision of ecclesiastical hierarchy. Such a vision was created by the Catholic Church in the second millenium, but it confused the Pope's role as Choryphaeus of the universal Church and his particular role as Patriarch of the West. What Papal authority comes in his capacity as Patriarch of the West and what comes in his capacity as Choryphaeus will have to be carefully articulated.
« Last Edit: December 26, 2010, 12:36:57 PM by Thomist » Logged

"Would heretics dare to come to the very seat of Peter whence apostolic faith is derived and whither no errors can come?" - Saint Cyprian of Carthage
Tags:
Pages: 1   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.18 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.137 seconds with 56 queries.