OrthodoxChristianity.net
September 17, 2014, 07:54:20 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: Role of first among equals  (Read 1906 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Melodist
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: The Faith That Established The Universe
Jurisdiction: AOANA
Posts: 2,523



« on: January 18, 2011, 06:34:49 PM »

What exactly is specific to the role of the first among equals in relation to the other patriarchs. I know that he is first when reading the dyptichs and would preside over any pan-Orthodox council, other than that what are his responsibilities to the other patriarchs and his prerogatives among them?
Logged

And FWIW, these are our Fathers too, you know.

Made Perfect in Weakness - Latest Post: The Son of God
Melodist
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: The Faith That Established The Universe
Jurisdiction: AOANA
Posts: 2,523



« Reply #1 on: January 18, 2011, 06:37:30 PM »

Just to clarify, I put this in "faith issues" because my question concerns the Orthodox understanding of primacy, and is not intended to discuss differences between Orthodoxy and Roman Catholicism.
Logged

And FWIW, these are our Fathers too, you know.

Made Perfect in Weakness - Latest Post: The Son of God
mike
Stratopedarches
**************
Offline Offline

Posts: 21,467


WWW
« Reply #2 on: January 18, 2011, 06:49:22 PM »

Preside the Liturgy. I can't recall more.
Logged

Byzantinism
no longer posting here
pensateomnia
Bibliophylax
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Greek Orthodox Christian
Posts: 2,347


metron ariston


« Reply #3 on: January 18, 2011, 08:05:10 PM »

"The actual rights of the patriarch of Constantinople are the normal consequence and expression of his being the 'first' among Orthodox bishops: chairmanship at Pan-Orthodox meetings and a certain responsibility (although not a monopoly) for initiating common action. In addition, canons 9 and 17 of the Fourth Ecumenical Council of Chalcedon grant him the right to receive appeals against the judgment of local provincial synods."

J. Meyendorff, "Contemporary Problems of Orthodox Canon Law," Living Tradition: Orthodox Witness in the Contemporary World (Crestwood, 1978), p. 111.
Logged

But for I am a man not textueel I wol noght telle of textes neuer a deel. (Chaucer, The Manciple's Tale, 1.131)
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: 37,590



« Reply #4 on: January 18, 2011, 10:15:05 PM »

For one, the power of the bully pulpit.
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
mike
Stratopedarches
**************
Offline Offline

Posts: 21,467


WWW
« Reply #5 on: January 19, 2011, 01:04:54 PM »

In addition, canons 9 and 17 of the Fourth Ecumenical Council of Chalcedon grant him the right to receive appeals against the judgment of local provincial synods."

What does it mean now?
Logged

Byzantinism
no longer posting here
HabteSelassie
Ises and I-ity
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo Church
Posts: 3,332



« Reply #6 on: January 19, 2011, 04:18:36 PM »

Greetings in that Divine and Most Precious Name of Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ!
For one, the power of the bully pulpit.

I am not sure exactly, but I would suppose that it has to do with the moderating and facilitating of Ecumenical and Synod Councils.  The most ranking Bishop/Patriarch I assume takes moderating and even veto powers.  Someone has to be in charge, and it is good in advance to establish such hierarchical designations laid out in advance, lest we have the power struggles that happened with His Eminence Leo III..

stay blessed,
habte selassie
Logged

"Yet stand aloof from stupid questionings and geneologies and strifes and fightings about law, for they are without benefit and vain." Titus 3:10
mike
Stratopedarches
**************
Offline Offline

Posts: 21,467


WWW
« Reply #7 on: January 19, 2011, 04:23:09 PM »

There is no liberum veto in Orthodoxy.
Logged

Byzantinism
no longer posting here
pensateomnia
Bibliophylax
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Greek Orthodox Christian
Posts: 2,347


metron ariston


« Reply #8 on: January 19, 2011, 04:45:52 PM »

In addition, canons 9 and 17 of the Fourth Ecumenical Council of Chalcedon grant him the right to receive appeals against the judgment of local provincial synods."

What does it mean now?

Pretty much the same it always has. If a clergyman or bishop contests the ruling of the highest ecclesiastical court in his local church, then he can appeal to Constantinople to review the case.

This tradition actually started before Chalcedon, during the Patriarchal rule of St. John Chrysostom. He convened councils to hear such cases, and even deposed a number of bishops from throughout the Empire.

So, for example, in 2005, the Ecumenical Patriarch convened the special expanded Synod to review the case of Patriarch Irenaios of Jerusalem, who had been deposed by his Synod but contested the ruling.
Logged

But for I am a man not textueel I wol noght telle of textes neuer a deel. (Chaucer, The Manciple's Tale, 1.131)
mike
Stratopedarches
**************
Offline Offline

Posts: 21,467


WWW
« Reply #9 on: January 19, 2011, 05:01:53 PM »

But Patriarch Irenaos' case was solved by the all autocephalous Churches not by the HAH alone.
« Last Edit: January 19, 2011, 05:02:04 PM by Michał Kalina » Logged

Byzantinism
no longer posting here
pensateomnia
Bibliophylax
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Greek Orthodox Christian
Posts: 2,347


metron ariston


« Reply #10 on: January 19, 2011, 05:31:10 PM »

But Patriarch Irenaos' case was solved by the all autocephalous Churches not by the HAH alone.

I never said it was by the Ecumenical Patriarch alone. I said he convened the special expanded Synod. In the case of Patriarch Irenaios, I believe there were many churches present, but not all. I don't recall for sure, though.

Regardless, typically, that expanded Synod consists of the members of the Endemousa Synod, all the gerontes (senior Metropolitans of the Ecumenical Patriarchate), and a number of other high-ranking bishops from other churches, e.g. a few other Patriarchs and, perhaps, whoever else they want to bring. It just depends on who the Ecumenical Patriarch invites. Some situations call for broader (or even complete) representation. Others are more limited, e.g. in 2006, when the expanded Synod deposed the Cypriot Archbishop.

There have been many such synods throughout church history convened by the Ecumenical Patriarch. They are often disciplinary in nature, but sometimes they issue statements of faith/confessions or pastoral directives.
« Last Edit: January 19, 2011, 05:31:56 PM by pensateomnia » Logged

But for I am a man not textueel I wol noght telle of textes neuer a deel. (Chaucer, The Manciple's Tale, 1.131)
Carl Kraeff (Second Chance)
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 6,780



« Reply #11 on: January 19, 2011, 06:12:49 PM »

But Patriarch Irenaos' case was solved by the all autocephalous Churches not by the HAH alone.

I never said it was by the Ecumenical Patriarch alone. I said he convened the special expanded Synod. In the case of Patriarch Irenaios, I believe there were many churches present, but not all. I don't recall for sure, though.

Regardless, typically, that expanded Synod consists of the members of the Endemousa Synod, all the gerontes (senior Metropolitans of the Ecumenical Patriarchate), and a number of other high-ranking bishops from other churches, e.g. a few other Patriarchs and, perhaps, whoever else they want to bring. It just depends on who the Ecumenical Patriarch invites. Some situations call for broader (or even complete) representation. Others are more limited, e.g. in 2006, when the expanded Synod deposed the Cypriot Archbishop.

There have been many such synods throughout church history convened by the Ecumenical Patriarch. They are often disciplinary in nature, but sometimes they issue statements of faith/confessions or pastoral directives.

All this true but the context is also important. The main reason why the Patriarch of Constantinople could lead was because his see was also the ruler's capital; the Eastern Roman one until 1453 and the Ottoman until 1923.
Logged

Michal: "SC, love you in this thread."
fisherman
crow
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Faith: orthodox
Jurisdiction: Russian
Posts: 43


redwood81
« Reply #12 on: January 19, 2011, 09:39:18 PM »

ST Andrew " the first called" Apostle
Logged

pax
Carl Kraeff (Second Chance)
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 6,780



« Reply #13 on: January 19, 2011, 11:02:48 PM »

ST Andrew " the first called" Apostle
Second Ecumenical Council, Canon Three: "The Bishop of Constantinople, however, shall have the prerogative of honor after the Bishop of Rome because Constantinople is New Rome." That is, Constantinople as the capital of the Eastern Roman Empire and not because of Apostolic provenance. After all, the churches of Jerusalem, Antioch and Alexandria had much more important provenances than Constantinople. If that was not clear enough, the political nature of the primacy of both Rome and Constantinople was reiterated two councils later.

Fourth Ecumenical Council, Canon 28: "Following in every way the decrees of the holy fathers and recognizing the canon which has recently been read out—the canon of the 150 most devout bishops who assembled in the time of the great Theodosius of pious memory, then emperor, in imperial Constantinople, new Rome — we issue the same decree and resolution concerning the prerogatives of the most holy church of the same Constantinople, new Rome. The fathers rightly accorded prerogatives to the see of older Rome, since that is an imperial city; and moved by the same purpose the 150 most devout bishops apportioned equal prerogatives to the most holy see of new Rome, reasonably judging that the city which is honored by the imperial power and senate and enjoying privileges equaling older imperial Rome, should also be elevated to her level in ecclesiastical affairs and take second place after her..." Nothing here about establishment by an apostle, number of saints, or the saintliness of a see-just raw power politics.
Logged

Michal: "SC, love you in this thread."
ICXCNIKA
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 661



« Reply #14 on: January 19, 2011, 11:15:34 PM »

But Patriarch Irenaos' case was solved by the all autocephalous Churches not by the HAH alone.

I never said it was by the Ecumenical Patriarch alone. I said he convened the special expanded Synod. In the case of Patriarch Irenaios, I believe there were many churches present, but not all. I don't recall for sure, though.

Regardless, typically, that expanded Synod consists of the members of the Endemousa Synod, all the gerontes (senior Metropolitans of the Ecumenical Patriarchate), and a number of other high-ranking bishops from other churches, e.g. a few other Patriarchs and, perhaps, whoever else they want to bring. It just depends on who the Ecumenical Patriarch invites. Some situations call for broader (or even complete) representation. Others are more limited, e.g. in 2006, when the expanded Synod deposed the Cypriot Archbishop.

There have been many such synods throughout church history convened by the Ecumenical Patriarch. They are often disciplinary in nature, but sometimes they issue statements of faith/confessions or pastoral directives.

I'm sorry but did they depose him or retire him? I thought they retired him and vacated the See due to his long case of Ill health.
Logged
Aindriú
Faster! Funnier!
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

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



WWW
« Reply #15 on: January 19, 2011, 11:20:48 PM »

ST Andrew " the first called" Apostle
Second Ecumenical Council, Canon Three: "The Bishop of Constantinople, however, shall have the prerogative of honor after the Bishop of Rome because Constantinople is New Rome." That is, Constantinople as the capital of the Eastern Roman Empire and not because of Apostolic provenance. After all, the churches of Jerusalem, Antioch and Alexandria had much more important provenances than Constantinople. If that was not clear enough, the political nature of the primacy of both Rome and Constantinople was reiterated two councils later.

Fourth Ecumenical Council, Canon 28: "Following in every way the decrees of the holy fathers and recognizing the canon which has recently been read out—the canon of the 150 most devout bishops who assembled in the time of the great Theodosius of pious memory, then emperor, in imperial Constantinople, new Rome — we issue the same decree and resolution concerning the prerogatives of the most holy church of the same Constantinople, new Rome. The fathers rightly accorded prerogatives to the see of older Rome, since that is an imperial city; and moved by the same purpose the 150 most devout bishops apportioned equal prerogatives to the most holy see of new Rome, reasonably judging that the city which is honored by the imperial power and senate and enjoying privileges equaling older imperial Rome, should also be elevated to her level in ecclesiastical affairs and take second place after her..." Nothing here about establishment by an apostle, number of saints, or the saintliness of a see-just raw power politics.

And the like:

Letter CIV.
Leo, the Bishop, to Marcian Augustus.
Quote
(To Marcian Augustus, about the presumption of Anatolius, by the hand of Lucian the bishop and Basil the deacon.)

I.  He congratulates the Emperor on his share in the triumph of the catholic Faith.

By the great bounty of God’s mercy the joys of the whole catholic Church were multiplied when through your clemency’s holy and glorious zeal the most pestilential error was abolished among us; so that our labours the more speedily reached their desired end, because your God-serving Majesty had so faithfully and powerfully assisted them.  For although the liberty of the Gospel had to be defended against certain dissentients in the power of the Holy Ghost, and through the instrumentality of the Apostolic See, yet God’s grace has shown itself more manifestly (than we could have hoped) by vouchsafing to the world that in the victory of the Truth only the authors of the violation of the Faith should perish445 and the Church restored to her soundness.  Accordingly the war which the enemy of our peace had stirred up, was so happily ended, the Lord’s right hand fighting for us, that when Christ triumphed all His priests shared in the one victory, and when the light of Truth shone forth, only the shades of error, with its champions, were dispelled.  For as in believing the Lord’s own resurrection, with a view to strengthen the beginnings of Faith, confidence was much increased by the fact that certain Apostles doubted of the bodily reality of our Lord Jesus Christ, and by examining the prints of the nails and the wound of the spear with sight and touch removed the doubts of all by doubting; so now, too, while the misbelief of some is refuted, the hearts of all hesitaters are strengthened, and that which caused blindness to some few avails for the enlightenment of the whole body.  In which work your clemency duly and rightly rejoices, having faithfully and properly provided that the devil’s snares should do no hurt to the Eastern churches, but that to propitiate God everywhere more acceptable holocausts should be offered; seeing that through the mediator between God and man, the Man Christ Jesus, one and the self-same creed is held by people, priests, and princes, O most glorious son and most clement Augustus.

II.  Considering all the circumstances Anatolius might have been expected to show more modesty.

But now that these things, about which so great a concourse of priests assembled, have been brought to a good and desirable conclusion, I am surprised and grieved that the peace of the universal Church which had been divinely restored is again being disturbed by a spirit of self-seeking.  For although my brother Anatolius seems necessarily to have consulted his own interest in forsaking the error of those who ordained him, and with salutary change of mind accepting the catholic Faith, yet he ought to have taken care not to mar by any depravity of desire that which he is known to have obtained through your means446.  For we, having regard to your faith and intervention, though his antecedents were suspicious on account of those who consecrated him447, wished to be kind rather than just towards him, that by the use of healing measures we might assuage all disturbances which through the operations of the devil had been excited; and this ought to have made him modest rather than the opposite.  For even if he had been lawfully and regularly ordained for conspicuous merit, and by the wisest selection yet without respect to the canons of the Fathers, the ordinances of the Holy Ghost, and the precedents of antiquity, no votes could have availed in his favour.  I speak before a Christian and a truly religious, truly orthodox prince (when I say that) Anatolius the bishop detracts greatly from his proper merits in desiring undue aggrandizement.

III.  The city of Constantinople, royal though it be, can never be raised to Apostolic rank.

Let the city of Constantinople have, as we desire, its high rank, and under the protection of God’s right hand, long enjoy your clemency’s rule.  Yet things secular stand on a different basis from things divine:  and there can be no sure building save on that rock which the Lord has laid for a foundation.  He that covets what is not his due, loses what is his own.  Let it be enough for Anatolius that by the aid of your piety and by my favour and approval he has obtained the bishopric of so great a city.  Let him not disdain a city which is royal, though he cannot make it an Apostolic See; and let him on no account hope that he can rise by doing injury to others.  For the privileges of the churches determined by the canons of the holy Fathers, and fixed by the decrees of the Nicene Synod, cannot be overthrown by any unscrupulous act, nor disturbed by any innovation.  And in the faithful execution of this task by the aid of Christ I am bound to display an unflinching devotion; for it is a charge entrusted to me, and it tends to my condemnation if the rules sanctioned by the Fathers and drawn up under the guidance of God’s Spirit at the Synod of Nicæa for the government of the whole Church are violated with my connivance (which God forbid), and if the wishes of a single brother have more weight with me than the common good of the Lord’s whole house.

IV.  He asks the Emperor to express his disapproval of Anatolius’ self-seeking spirit.

And therefore knowing that your glorious clemency is anxious for the peace of the Church and extends its protection and approval to those measures which conduce to pacific unity, I pray and beseech you with earnest entreaty to refuse all sanction and protection to these unscrupulous attempts against Christian unity and peace, and put a salutary check upon my brother Anatolius’ desires, which will only injure himself, if he persists:  that he may not desire things which are opposed to your glory and the needs of the times, and wish to be greater than his predecessors, and that it may be free for him to be as pre-eminent as he can in virtues, in which he will be partaker only if he prefer to be adorned with love rather than puffed up with ambition.  The conception of this unwarrantable wish he ought indeed never to have received within the secret of his heart, but when my brothers and fellow-bishops who were there to represent me withstood him, he might at least have desisted from his unlawful self-seeking at their wholesome opposition.  For both your gracious Majesty and his own letter affirm that the legates of the Apostolic See opposed him as they ought with the most justifiable resistance, so that his presumption was the less excusable in that not even when rebuked did it restrain itself.

V.  And to try to bring him to a right mind.

And hence, because it becomes your glorious faith that, as heresy was overthrown, God acting through you, so now all self-seeking should be defeated, do that which beseems both your Christian and your kingly goodness, so that the said bishop may obey the Fathers, further the cause of peace, and not think he had any right to ordain a bishop for the Church of Antioch, as he presumed to do without any precedent and contrary to the provisions of the canons:  an act which from a longing to re-establish the Faith and in the interests of peace we have determined not to cancel.  Let him abstain therefore from doing despite to the rules of the Church and shun unlawful excesses, lest in attempting things unfavourable to peace he cut himself off from the universal Church.  I had much liefer love him for acting blamelessly than find him persist in this presumptuous frame of mind which may separate him from us all.  My brother and fellow-bishop, Lucian, who with my son, Basil the deacon, brought your clemency’s letter to me, has fulfilled the duties he undertook as legate with all devotion:  for he must not be reckoned to have failed in his mission, the course of events having rather failed him.  Dated the 22nd of May in the consulship of the illustrious Herculanus (452).
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf212.ii.iv.xcix.html
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: 37,590



« Reply #16 on: January 20, 2011, 12:23:30 AM »

And the like:

Letter CIV.
Leo, the Bishop, to Marcian Augustus.

Leo the bishop to Pulcheria Augusta.

I.  He congratulates the Empress on the triumph of the Faith, but regrets the introduction of a new controversy into the Church.

We rejoice ineffably with your Grace that the catholic Faith has been defended against heretics and peace restored to the whole Church through your clemency’s holy and God-pleasing zeal:  giving thanks to the Merciful and Almighty God that He has suffered none save those who loved darkness rather than light to be defrauded of the gospel-truth:  so that by the removal of the mists of error the purest light might arise in the hearts of all, and that darkness-loving foe might not triumph over certain weak souls, whom not only those who stood unhurt but also those whom he had made to totter have overcome, and that by the abolition of error the true Faith might reign throughout the world, and “every tongue might confess that the Lord Jesus Christ is in the glory of God the Father (Phil. i. 11.).”  But when the whole world had been confirmed in the unity of the Gospel, and the hearts of all priests had been guided into the same belief, it had been better that besides those matters for which the holy Synod was assembled, and which were brought to a satisfactory agreement through your Grace’s zeal, nothing should be introduced to counteract so great an advantage, and that a council of bishops should not be made an occasion for the inopportune advancing of an illegitimate desire.

II.  The Nicene canons are unalterable and binding universally.

For my brother and fellow-bishop Anatolius not sufficiently considering your Grace’s kindness and the favour of my assent, whereby he gained the priesthood of the church of Constantinople, instead of rejoicing at what he has gained, has been inflamed with undue desires beyond the measure of his rank, believing that his intemperate self-seeking could be advanced by the assertion that certain persons had signified their assent thereto by an extorted signature:  notwithstanding that my brethren and fellow-bishops, who represented me, faithfully and laudably expressed their dissent from these attempts which are doomed to speedy failure.  For no one may venture upon anything in opposition to the enactments of the Fathers’ canons which many long years ago in the city of Nicæa were founded upon the decrees of the Spirit, so that any one who wishes to pass any different decree injures himself rather than impairs them.  And if all pontiffs will but keep them inviolate as they should, there will be perfect peace and complete harmony through all the churches:  there will be no disagreements about rank, no disputes about ordinations, no controversies about privileges, no strifes about taking that which is another’s; but by the fair law of love a reasonable order will be kept both in conduct and in office, and he will be truly great who is found free from all self-seeking, as the Lord says, “Whosoever will become greater among you, let him be your minister, and whosoever will be first among you shall be your slave; even as the Son of Man came not to be ministered unto but to minister (S. Matt. xx. 26–28).”  And yet these precepts were at the time given to men who wished to rise from a mean estate and to pass from the lowest to the highest things; but what more does the ruler of the church of Constantinople covet than he has gained? or what will satisfy him, if the magnificence and renown of so great a city is not enough?  It is too arrogant and intemperate thus to step beyond all proper bounds and trampling on ancient custom to wish to seize another’s right:  to increase one man’s dignity at the expense of so many metropolitans’ primacy, and to carry a new war of confusion into peaceful provinces which were long ago set at rest by the enactments of the holy Nicene Synod:  to break through the venerable Fathers’ decrees by alleging the consent of certain bishops, which even the course of so many years has not rendered effective.  For it is boasted that this has been winked at for almost 60 years now, and the said bishop thinks that he is assisted thereby; but it is vain for him to look for assistance from that which, even if a man dared to wish for it, yet he could never obtain.

III. Only by imitating his predecessor will he regain Leo’s confidence:  the assent of the bishops is declared null and void.

Let him realize what a man he has succeeded, and expelling all the spirit of pride let him imitate Flavian’s faith, Flavian’s modesty, Flavian’s humility, which has raised him right to a confessor’s glory.  If he will shine with his virtues, he will merit all praise, and in all quarters he will win an abundance of love not by seeking human advancement but by deserving Divine favour.  And by this careful course I promise he will bind my heart also to him, and the love of the Apostolic See, which we have ever bestowed on the church of Constantinople, shall never be violated by any change.  Because if sometimes rulers fall into errors through want of moderation, yet the churches of Christ do not lose their purity.  But the bishops’ assents, which are opposed to the regulations of the holy canons composed at Nicæa in conjunction with your faithful Grace, we do not recognize, and by the blessed Apostle Peter’s authority we absolutely dis-annul in comprehensive terms, in all ecclesiastical cases obeying those laws which the Holy Ghost set forth by the 318 bishops for the pacific observance of all priests in such sort that even if a much greater number were to pass a different decree to theirs, whatever was opposed to their constitution would have to be held in no respect.

IV.  He requests the Empress to give his letter her favourable consideration.

And so I request your Grace to receive in a worthy spirit this lengthy letter, in which I had to explain my views, at the hands of my brother and fellow-bishop Lucianus, who, as far as in him lies, has faithfully executed the anxious duties of his undertaking as my delegate, and of my son Basil, the deacon.  And because it is your habit to labour for the peace and unity of the Church, for his soul’s health keep my brother Anatolius the bishop, to whom I have extended my love by your advice, within those limits which shall be profitable to him, that as your clemency’s glory is magnified already for the restoration of the Faith, so it may be published abroad for the restraint of self-seeking.  Dated the 22nd of May, in the consulship of the illustrious Herculanus (452).
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf212.ii.iv.c.html


To the Lord Theodosius, Conqueror and Emperor, her ever august son, Galla Placidia, most pious and prosperous, perpetual Augusta and mother.

When on our very arrival in the ancient city, we were engaged in paying our devotion to the most blessed Apostle Peter, at the martyr’s very altar, the most reverend Bishop Leo waiting behind awhile after the service uttered laments over the catholic Faith to us, and taking to witness the chief of the Apostles himself likewise, whom we had just approached, and surrounded by a number of bishops whom he had brought together from numerous cities in Italy by the authority and dignity of his position, adding also tears to his words, called upon us to join our moans to his own.  For no slight harm has arisen from those occurrences, whereby the standard of the catholic Faith so long guarded since the days of our most Divine father Constantine, who was the first in the palace to stand out as a Christian, has been recently disturbed by the assumption of one man, who in the synod held at Ephesus is alleged to have rather stirred up hatred and contention, intimidating by the presence of soldiers, Flavianus, the bishop of Constantinople, because he had sent an appeal to the Apostolic See, and to all the bishops of these parts by the hands of those who had been deputed to attend the Synod by the most reverend Bishop of Rome, who have been always wont so to attend, most sacred Lord and Son and adored King, in accordance with the provisions of the Nicene Synod [See no. 9a to Lett. XLIV., 3, where it is shown that this is a mistake, willful or otherwise, on Leo’s part.]  For this cause we pray your clemency to oppose such disturbances with the Truth, and to order the Faith of the catholic religion to be preserved without spot, in order that according to the standard and decision of the Apostolic See, which we likewise revere as pre-eminent, Flavianus may remain altogether uninjured in his priestly office, and the matter be referred to the Synod of the Apostolic See, wherein assuredly he first adorned the primacy, who was deemed worthy to receive the keys of heaven:  for it becomes us in all things to maintain the respect due to this great city, which is the mistress of all the earth; and this too we must most carefully provide that what in former times our house guarded seem not in our day to be infringed, and that by the present example schisms be not advanced either between the bishops or the most holy churches.
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf212.ii.iv.lv.html

Letter XLIV.

To Theodosius Augustus.

Leo, the bishop, and the holy Synod which is assembled at Rome to Theodosius Augustus.

I.  He exposes the unscrupulous nature of the proceedings at Ephesus.

From your clemency’s letter, which in your love of the catholic Faith you sent sometime ago to the see of the blessed Apostle Peter, we drew such confidence in your defence of truth and peace that we thought nothing harmful could happen in so plain and well-ordered a matter; especially when those who were sent to the episcopal council, which you ordered to be held at Ephesus, were so fully instructed that, if the bishop of Alexandria had allowed the letters, which they brought either to the holy synod or to Flavian the bishop, to be read in the ears of the bishops, by the declaration of the most pure Faith, which being Divinely inspired we both have received and hold, all noise of disputings would have been so completely hushed that neither ignorance could any longer disport itself, nor jealousy find occasion to do mischief.  But because private interests are consulted under cover of religion, the disloyalty of a few has wrought that which must wound the whole Church.  For not from some untrustworthy messenger, but from a most faithful narrator of the things which have been done, Hilary, our deacon, who, lest he should be compelled by force to subscribe to their proceedings, with great difficulty made his escape, we have learnt that a great many priests came together at the synod, whose numbers would doubtless have assisted the debate and decision, if he who claimed for himself the chief place had consented to maintain priestly moderation, in order that, according to custom, when all had freely expressed their opinion, after quiet and fair deliberation, that might be ordained which was both agreeable to the Faith and helpful to those in error.  But we have been told that all who had come were not present at the actual decision:  for we have learnt that some were rejected while others were admitted, who at the aforesaid priest’s requisition surrendered themselves to an unrighteous subscription, knowing they would suffer harm unless they obeyed his commands, and that such a resolution was brought forward by him that in attacking one man he might wreak his fury of the whole Church.  Which our delegates from the Apostolic See saw to be so blasphemous and opposed to the catholic Faith that no pressure could force them to assent; for in the same synod they stoutly protested, as they ought, that the Apostolic See would never receive what was being passed:  since the whole mystery of the Christian Faith is absolutely destroyed (which Heaven forfend in your Grace’s reign), unless this abominable wickedness, which exceeds all former blasphemies, be abolished.

II.  And entreats the Emperor to help in reversing their decision.

But because the devil with wicked subtlety deceives the unwary, and so mocks the imprudence of some by a show of piety as to persuade them to things harmful instead of profitable, we pray your Grace, renounce all complicity in this endangering of religion and Faith, and afford in the treatment of Divine things that which is granted in worldly matters by the equity of your laws, that human presumption may not do violence to Christ’s Gospel.  Behold, I, O most Christian and honoured Emperor, with my fellow-priests, fulfilling towards your revered clemency the offices of sincere love, and desiring you in all things to please God, to whom prayers are offered for you by the Church, lest before 54the Lord Christ’s tribunal we be judged guilty for our silence,—we beseech you in the presence of the Undivided Trinity of the One Godhead, Whom such an act wrongs (for He is Himself the Guardian and the Author of your empire), and in the presence of Christ’s holy angels, order everything to be in the position in which they were before the decision until a larger number of priests be assembled from the whole world.  Suffer not yourself to be weighted with another’s sin because (and we must say it) we are afraid lest He, Whose religion is being destroyed, be provoked to wrath.  Keep before your eyes, and with all your mental vision gaze reverently upon the blessed Peter’s glory, and the crowns which all the Apostles have in common with him and the palms of all the martyrs, who had no other reason for suffering than the confession of the true Godhead and the true Manhood in Christ.

III.  He asks for a Council in Italy.

And because this mystery is now being impiously opposed by a few ignorant persons, all the churches of our parts, and all the priests entreat your clemency, with groans and tears seeing that our delegates faithfully protested, and bishop Flavian gave them an appeal in writing, to order a general synod to be held in Italy, which shall either dismiss or appease all disputes in such a way that there be nothing any longer either doubtful in the Faith or divided in love, and to it, of course, the bishops of the Eastern provinces must come, and if any of them were overcome by threats and injury, and deviated from the path of truth, they may be fully restored by health-giving measures, and they themselves, whose case is harder, if they acquiesce in wiser counsels, may not fall from the unity of the Church.  And how necessary this request is after the lodging of an appeal is witnessed by the canonical decrees passed at Nicæa by the bishops of the whole world, which are added below [Both Quesnel and the Ball. agree that the Canon here quoted by Leo really belongs not to the Nicene collection, but to that of Sardica (about 344), in which it stands as no. 4.  (Exactly the same mistake is made in Letter LVI., where Galla Placidia Augusta quotes Canon 5 of Sardica to Theodosius as secundum definitiones Nicœni concilii).  Cf. Gore’s Leo, pp. 113, 114.  The wording of this fourth Canon is as follows:  “Gaudentius, the bishop said, If it please you to add to this admirable declaration which you have passed, I propose that whensoever one bishop has been deposed by the judgment of other bishops, and appeals for his case to be heard in Civitas Novorum, the other bishop cannot by any means be considered confirmed in the same See after the appeal of the one who appears to be deposed, until he receive the decision of the judges there.”  In applying this to the present case, Leo no doubt proposed to substitute Urbs Roma for Civitas Novorum , though this was hardly the same thing].  Show favour to the catholics after your own and your parents’ custom.  Give us such liberty to defend the catholic Faith as no violence, no fear of the world, while your revered clemency is safe, shall be able to take away.  For it is the cause not only of the Church but of your Kingdom and prosperity that we plead, that you may enjoy the peaceful sway of your provinces.  Defend the Church in unshaken peace against the heretics, that your empire also may be defended by Christ’s right hand.  Dated the 13th of October, in the consulship of the illustrious Asturius and Protogenes (449).

Among the bishops who gave their answers at the last session to the question whether their subscription to the canons was voluntary or forced was Eusebius, bishop of Dorylæum, an Asiatic bishop who said that he had read the Constantinopolitan canon to “the holy pope of Rome in presence of clerics of Constantinople, and that he had accepted it” (L. and C., Conc., iv. 815).  But quite possibly this evidence is of little value.  But what is more to the point is that the Papal legates most probably had already at this very council recognized the right of Constantinople to rank immediately after Rome.  For at the very first session when the Acts of the Latrocinium were read, it was found that to Flavian, the Archbishop of Constantinople, was given only the fifth place.  Against this the bishop protested and asked, “Why did not Flavian receive his position?” and the papal legate Paschasinus answered:  “We will, please God, recognize the present bishop Anatolius of Constantinople as the first [i.e. after us], but Dioscorus made Flavian the fifth.”  It would seem to be in vain to attempt to escape the force of these words by comparing with them the statement made in the last session, in a moment of heat and indignation, by Lucentius the papal legate, that the canons of Constantinople were not found among those of the Roman Code.  It may well be that this statement was true, and yet it does not in any way lessen the importance of the fact that at the first session (a very different thing from the sixteenth) Paschasinus had admitted that Constantinople enjoyed the second place.  It would seem that Quesnel has proved his point, notwithstanding the attempts of the Ballerini to counteract and overthrow his arguments.

It would be the height of absurdity for any one to attempt to deny that the canon of Constantinople was entirely in force and practical execution, as far of those most interested were concerned, long before the meeting of the council of Chalcedon, and in 394, only thirteen years after the adoption of the canon, we find the bishop of Constantinople presiding at a synod at which both the bishop of Alexandria and the bishop of Antioch were present.

St. Leo made, in connexion with this matter, some statements which perhaps need not be commented upon, but should certainly not be forgotten.  In his epistle to Anatolius (no. cvi.) in speaking of the third canon of Constantinople he says:  “That document of certain bishops has never been brought by your predecessors to the knowledge of the Apostolic See.”  And in writing to the Empress (Ep. cv., ad Pulch.) he makes the following statement, strangely contrary to what she at least knew to be the fact, “To this concession a long course of years has given no effect!”

We need not stop to consider the question why Leo rejected the xxviijth canon of Chalcedon.  It is certain that he rejected it and those who wish to see the motive of this rejection considered at length are referred to Quesnel and to the Ballerini; the former affirming that it was because of its encroachments upon the prerogatives of his own see, the latter urging that it was only out of his zeal for the keeping in full force of the Nicene decree.

Leo can never be charged with weakness.  His rejection of the canon was absolute and unequivocal.  In writing to the Emperor he says that Anatolius only got the See of Constantinople by his consent, that he should behave himself modestly, and that there is no way he can make of Constantinople “an Apostolic See,” and adds that “only from love of peace and for the restoration of the unity of the faith” he has “abstained from annulling this ordination” (Ep. civ.).

To the Empress he wrote with still greater violence:  “As for the resolution of the bishops which is contrary to the Nicene decree, in union with your faithful piety, I declare it to be invalid and annul it by the authority of the holy Apostle Peter” (Ep. cv.).

The papal annulling does not appear to have been of much force, for Leo himself confesses, in a letter written about a year later to the Empress Pulcheria (Ep. cxvi.), that the Illyrian bishops had since the council subscribed the xxviiith canon.

The pope had taken occasion in his letter in which he announced his acceptance of the doctrinal decrees of Chalcedon to go on further and express his rejection of the canons.  This part of the letter was left unread throughout the Greek empire, and Leo complains of it to Julian of Cos (Ep. cxxvij.).
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf214.xi.xviii.xxix.html

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
deusveritasest
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: None
Jurisdiction: None
Posts: 7,528



WWW
« Reply #17 on: January 20, 2011, 12:29:51 AM »

Azure, is that an indication that Rome had not accepted the canons of Constantinople I?

"Apostolic See" seems like a bit of a red herring. The issue at hand is whether or not Constantinople was to be granted the second place of honor instead of Alexandria as established at Nicaea I.
Logged

I stopped posting here in August 2011 because of stark disagreement with the policies of the administration and moderating team of the forums. If you desire, feel free to PM me, message me on Facebook (link in profile), or email me: cddombrowski@gmail.com
Aindriú
Faster! Funnier!
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

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



WWW
« Reply #18 on: January 20, 2011, 01:24:59 AM »

To the Empress he wrote with still greater violence:  “As for the resolution of the bishops which is contrary to the Nicene decree, in union with your faithful piety, I declare it to be invalid and annul it by the authority of the holy Apostle Peter” (Ep. cv.).

The papal annulling does not appear to have been of much force, for Leo himself confesses, in a letter written about a year later to the Empress Pulcheria (Ep. cxvi.), that the Illyrian bishops had since the council subscribed the xxviiith canon.

The pope had taken occasion in his letter in which he announced his acceptance of the doctrinal decrees of Chalcedon to go on further and express his rejection of the canons.  This part of the letter was left unread throughout the Greek empire, and Leo complains of it to Julian of Cos (Ep. cxxvij.).
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf214.xi.xviii.xxix.html

Indeed.

So it seems, that the Roman Church, and Pope Leo himself, had full understanding that their power had a certain authority. However, as was often the case in the East, sporadic acceptance of the Papal authority is to be observed. When a group desired something themselves, they willfully ignored any desires from Rome. However, this is not shocking, in any total sense, considering human nature, as well as even modern RC politics. Especially, considering the continued push for Constantinople power in the region.
Logged


I'm going to need this.
Aindriú
Faster! Funnier!
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

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



WWW
« Reply #19 on: January 20, 2011, 01:28:25 AM »

Azure, is that an indication that Rome had not accepted the canons of Constantinople I?

"Apostolic See" seems like a bit of a red herring. The issue at hand is whether or not Constantinople was to be granted the second place of honor instead of Alexandria as established at Nicaea I.

No, Rome didn't accept the 28th canon. Even when it grudgingly allowed it to happen, despite protest and demand for a new council (which Constantinople's Emperor ignored), Leo made it clear that Constantinople's place in the Church is due to Political and Economic power and nothing to do with Apostolic origin. (Rome, Antioch, Jerusalem, and Alexandria are Sees originating from the Apostles themselves)
Logged


I'm going to need this.
deusveritasest
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: None
Jurisdiction: None
Posts: 7,528



WWW
« Reply #20 on: January 20, 2011, 01:30:49 AM »

Azure, is that an indication that Rome had not accepted the canons of Constantinople I?

"Apostolic See" seems like a bit of a red herring. The issue at hand is whether or not Constantinople was to be granted the second place of honor instead of Alexandria as established at Nicaea I.

No, Rome didn't accept the 28th canon. Even when it grudgingly allowed it to happen, despite protest and demand for a new council (which Constantinople's Emperor ignored), Leo made it clear that Constantinople's place in the Church is due to Political and Economic power and nothing to do with Apostolic origin. (Rome, Antioch, Jerusalem, and Alexandria are Sees originating from the Apostles themselves)

I was actually referring to the 3rd canon of Constantinople I.
Logged

I stopped posting here in August 2011 because of stark disagreement with the policies of the administration and moderating team of the forums. If you desire, feel free to PM me, message me on Facebook (link in profile), or email me: cddombrowski@gmail.com
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #21 on: January 20, 2011, 01:31:06 AM »

There is no such thing as a first among equals; this is a nonsensical term.

If someone is first, the others are not equal; if all are equal, then none is first.
 
But the phrase is used as code to convey an ecclesiological concept.  Unfortunately we are not agreed on the code.  :-)
Logged
deusveritasest
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: None
Jurisdiction: None
Posts: 7,528



WWW
« Reply #22 on: January 20, 2011, 01:34:30 AM »

There is no such thing as a first among equals; this is a nonsensical term.

If someone is first, the others are not equal; if all are equal, then none is first.
 
But the phrase is used as code to convey an ecclesiological concept.  Unfortunately we are not agreed on the code.  :-)


Father, "first among equals" is really referring to two different categories. "First" as in first in honor, "equal" as in equal in authority. It is only nonsensical if this is not realized.
Logged

I stopped posting here in August 2011 because of stark disagreement with the policies of the administration and moderating team of the forums. If you desire, feel free to PM me, message me on Facebook (link in profile), or email me: cddombrowski@gmail.com
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #23 on: January 20, 2011, 01:35:28 AM »

Leo made it clear that Constantinople's place in the Church is due to Political and Economic power and nothing to do with Apostolic origin. (Rome, Antioch, Jerusalem, and Alexandria are Sees originating from the Apostles themselves)

Byzantium and Apostolic origin


This is from Halsall at Fordham:

Demetrius Kymenas, deriving his comments from the Thriskeftiki kai Ethiki Encyclopaedia (Athens 1962-8) sums up the situation as follows:-

It is difficult to say where the legend stops and where reality begins. However, the Apostle Andrew preached in the general area and according to the tradition he ordained the first bishop of Byzantium (Stachys), the first  bishop of Nicaea (Drakonteios), the first bishop of Chalkedon (Tychikos), the first bishop of Sinope (Philologos), the first bishop of Thracian Herakliea (Apellis), etc. (He ordained many of the Seventy Apostles as bishops in cities of Asia Minor, Thrace and Greece).

Because the lord of the small city of Byzantium, Xeuxikus, was brutal and a fanatic pagan who used to tie and throw in the sea any Christian who visited his city,  Andrew resided in nearby Argyroupolis (later a suburb of Constantinople), and there he stayed for two years during which time he managed to create a Christian community of 2000 people along with their church and episcopate. It is not clear if Stachys is the same person with the one the Apostle Peter calls "dear" in his letter to the Romans, but his memory is celebrated by the Orthodox church on October 31.

http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/byzantium/texts/byzpatcp.html

Byzantium, out of which Constantinople sprang, was a small, well-fortified town, occupying most of the territory comprised in the two hills nearest the head of the promontory, and in the level ground at their base. The landward wall started from a point near the present Stamboul custom-house, and reached the ridge of the 2nd hill, a little to the east of the point marked by Chemberli Tash (the column of Constantine). There the principal gate of the town opened upon the Egnatian road. From that gate the wall descended towards the Sea of Marmora, touching the water in the neighbourhood of the Seraglio lighthouse. The Acropolis, enclosing venerated temples, crowned the summit of the first hill, where the Seraglio stands....

http://en.metapedia.org/wiki/Constantinople

In the time of Saint Andrew Byzantium was a very busy mercantile and maritime city, full of loose sailors and bad women, and it makes perfect sense that it would have been a place to go and preach the Gospel.
Logged
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #24 on: January 20, 2011, 01:37:31 AM »

There is no such thing as a first among equals; this is a nonsensical term.

If someone is first, the others are not equal; if all are equal, then none is first.
 
But the phrase is used as code to convey an ecclesiological concept.  Unfortunately we are not agreed on the code.  :-)


Father, "first among equals" is really referring to two different categories. "First" as in first in honor, "equal" as in equal in authority. It is only nonsensical if this is not realized.

But this is not the way the Pope understands it.  As I said, it is a code with varying meanings.

And of coursed it in unthinkable that the man who has inflicted so much harm upon the Church over the last millennium should assume any position of "first in honour."  His place must be "first among the penitents" for quite some time.
« Last Edit: January 20, 2011, 01:41:44 AM by Irish Hermit » 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: 37,590



« Reply #25 on: January 20, 2011, 01:46:51 AM »

Azure, is that an indication that Rome had not accepted the canons of Constantinople I?

"Apostolic See" seems like a bit of a red herring. The issue at hand is whether or not Constantinople was to be granted the second place of honor instead of Alexandria as established at Nicaea I.

No, Rome didn't accept the 28th canon. Even when it grudgingly allowed it to happen, despite protest and demand for a new council (which Constantinople's Emperor ignored), Leo made it clear that Constantinople's place in the Church is due to Political and Economic power and nothing to do with Apostolic origin. (Rome, Antioch, Jerusalem, and Alexandria are Sees originating from the Apostles themselves)
The Fathers of Constantinople and Chalcedon made it clear that Rome's place in the Church was due to Political and Economic power and nothing to do with Apostolic origin.
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
Aindriú
Faster! Funnier!
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

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



WWW
« Reply #26 on: January 20, 2011, 01:53:33 AM »

Azure, is that an indication that Rome had not accepted the canons of Constantinople I?

"Apostolic See" seems like a bit of a red herring. The issue at hand is whether or not Constantinople was to be granted the second place of honor instead of Alexandria as established at Nicaea I.

No, Rome didn't accept the 28th canon. Even when it grudgingly allowed it to happen, despite protest and demand for a new council (which Constantinople's Emperor ignored), Leo made it clear that Constantinople's place in the Church is due to Political and Economic power and nothing to do with Apostolic origin. (Rome, Antioch, Jerusalem, and Alexandria are Sees originating from the Apostles themselves)

I was actually referring to the 3rd canon of Constantinople I.

Oh, I'm sorry. Yes. Rome did not recognize this "prerogative of honor" (2EC) as an actual authoritative change "superior to all others" (Justinian). In fact, it was openly rejected by both Pope Leo I and, later even, by Pope Gregory I, preferring the original three Apostolic Sees of Rome, Alexandria and Antioch (in that order).
Logged


I'm going to need this.
Aindriú
Faster! Funnier!
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

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



WWW
« Reply #27 on: January 20, 2011, 01:55:45 AM »

Azure, is that an indication that Rome had not accepted the canons of Constantinople I?

"Apostolic See" seems like a bit of a red herring. The issue at hand is whether or not Constantinople was to be granted the second place of honor instead of Alexandria as established at Nicaea I.

No, Rome didn't accept the 28th canon. Even when it grudgingly allowed it to happen, despite protest and demand for a new council (which Constantinople's Emperor ignored), Leo made it clear that Constantinople's place in the Church is due to Political and Economic power and nothing to do with Apostolic origin. (Rome, Antioch, Jerusalem, and Alexandria are Sees originating from the Apostles themselves)
The Fathers of Constantinople and Chalcedon made it clear that Rome's place in the Church was due to Political and Economic power and nothing to do with Apostolic origin.

Really? Not all. So certainly not "clear".

Most eastern Fathers (external to these canons) when taken in context, are either ambiguous to Rome's authority, or do not address it entirely.
« Last Edit: January 20, 2011, 01:56:12 AM by Azurestone » 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: 37,590



« Reply #28 on: January 20, 2011, 02:01:34 AM »

To the Empress he wrote with still greater violence:  “As for the resolution of the bishops which is contrary to the Nicene decree, in union with your faithful piety, I declare it to be invalid and annul it by the authority of the holy Apostle Peter” (Ep. cv.).

The papal annulling does not appear to have been of much force, for Leo himself confesses, in a letter written about a year later to the Empress Pulcheria (Ep. cxvi.), that the Illyrian bishops had since the council subscribed the xxviiith canon.

The pope had taken occasion in his letter in which he announced his acceptance of the doctrinal decrees of Chalcedon to go on further and express his rejection of the canons.  This part of the letter was left unread throughout the Greek empire, and Leo complains of it to Julian of Cos (Ep. cxxvij.).
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf214.xi.xviii.xxix.html

Indeed.

So it seems, that the Roman Church, and Pope Leo himself, had full understanding that their power had a certain authority. However, as was often the case in the East, sporadic acceptance of the Papal authority is to be observed. When a group desired something themselves, they willfully ignored any desires from Rome. However, this is not shocking, in any total sense, considering human nature, as well as even modern RC politics. Especially, considering the continued push for Constantinople power in the region.
Indeed indeed.

On the one hand, Pope St. Leo claims that canon 3 of Constantinople was unknown at Rome.

On the other hand, Rome complains the Patriarch St. Flavian of Constantinople didn't get his place ahead of Pope Diosocros of Alexandria at Ephesus II.

Then he claims that 80 years of Rome's "winking" at the canon means nothing.

He claims canons for Nicea that do not exist as basis of his authority, and has to admit that his own bishops in Illyria were, over his protest, recognizing Constantinople's authority.

However, as was often the case in Rome, sporadic acceptance of reality is to be observed. When a group desired something themselves, they willfully ignored any facts from the Fathers. However, this is not shocking, in any total sense, considering human nature, as well as even modern RC politics. Especially, considering Rome's continued loss of power in the empire. That it overcompensated for its decline like a dowager faced with a debutant coming out in her prime is to be expected.
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
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: 37,590



« Reply #29 on: January 20, 2011, 02:02:57 AM »

Azure, is that an indication that Rome had not accepted the canons of Constantinople I?

"Apostolic See" seems like a bit of a red herring. The issue at hand is whether or not Constantinople was to be granted the second place of honor instead of Alexandria as established at Nicaea I.

No, Rome didn't accept the 28th canon. Even when it grudgingly allowed it to happen, despite protest and demand for a new council (which Constantinople's Emperor ignored), Leo made it clear that Constantinople's place in the Church is due to Political and Economic power and nothing to do with Apostolic origin. (Rome, Antioch, Jerusalem, and Alexandria are Sees originating from the Apostles themselves)

I was actually referring to the 3rd canon of Constantinople I.

Oh, I'm sorry. Yes. Rome did not recognize this "prerogative of honor" (2EC) as an actual authoritative change "superior to all others" (Justinian). In fact, it was openly rejected by both Pope Leo I and, later even, by Pope Gregory I, preferring the original three Apostolic Sees of Rome, Alexandria and Antioch (in that order).
yet in Alexandria, Antioch (and Jerusalem), Constantinople came before them.
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
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: 37,590



« Reply #30 on: January 20, 2011, 02:04:01 AM »

Azure, is that an indication that Rome had not accepted the canons of Constantinople I?

"Apostolic See" seems like a bit of a red herring. The issue at hand is whether or not Constantinople was to be granted the second place of honor instead of Alexandria as established at Nicaea I.

No, Rome didn't accept the 28th canon. Even when it grudgingly allowed it to happen, despite protest and demand for a new council (which Constantinople's Emperor ignored), Leo made it clear that Constantinople's place in the Church is due to Political and Economic power and nothing to do with Apostolic origin. (Rome, Antioch, Jerusalem, and Alexandria are Sees originating from the Apostles themselves)
The Fathers of Constantinople and Chalcedon made it clear that Rome's place in the Church was due to Political and Economic power and nothing to do with Apostolic origin.

Really? Not all. So certainly not "clear".

Most eastern Fathers (external to these canons) when taken in context, are either ambiguous to Rome's authority, or do not address it entirely.
Really? Do tell the ultramontanist quote mines.
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
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 32,167


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #31 on: January 20, 2011, 02:10:17 AM »

In keeping with the OP's request in the clarifying reply he posted immediately after starting this thread, let us focus on primacy as it is understood in the Orthodox Church. If you wish to turn this into yet another debate about the primacy of Rome, please take that to the Orthodox-Catholic board. Thank you.
« Last Edit: January 20, 2011, 02:10:49 AM by PeterTheAleut » Logged
HabteSelassie
Ises and I-ity
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo Church
Posts: 3,332



« Reply #32 on: January 20, 2011, 12:12:19 PM »

Greetings in that Divine and Most Precious Name of Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ!
There is no such thing as a first among equals; this is a nonsensical term.

If someone is first, the others are not equal; if all are equal, then none is first.
 
But the phrase is used as code to convey an ecclesiological concept.  Unfortunately we are not agreed on the code.  :-)


Father, "first among equals" is really referring to two different categories. "First" as in first in honor, "equal" as in equal in authority. It is only nonsensical if this is not realized.
^^ thank you, somebody needed to clarify this for the forum, it seems to have been overlooked.  All bishops are reverent as are all priests and even deacons, but the concept of first is specifically in regards to this concept of honor.  It is the first or ranking Bishop (who is generally a Patriarch) who is mentioned first in prayers and litanies, and who is honored in social reverence and Apostolic honor, as a Spiritual representative of the Holy Apostles themselves in authority and respect, by virtue of the laying of hands of Apostolic Succession.  So the Patriach is a first amongst equals in regards to Bishops, and various jurisdictions retain this first status in a meeting or liturgy with multiple Patriarchs representing.  For example, if the Patriarch of Ethiopia, the Bishop of the See of Tekle Haimanot attends a service of conference with the Patriarch of Alexandria and Egypt, then the Alexandrian supremacy gives prayers and honor due firstly to the Patriarch of Alexandria.  They are equals in the Apostolic sense as ministers of the Divine Mysteries, as there is no rank in such matters.  The baptism by the Patriarch is equal to the baptism by a parish priest, but in regards to ordination, the first amongst equals takes supremacy in this ecclesiastic decisions. 


Stay Blessed,
Habte Selassie
Logged

"Yet stand aloof from stupid questionings and geneologies and strifes and fightings about law, for they are without benefit and vain." Titus 3:10
deusveritasest
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: None
Jurisdiction: None
Posts: 7,528



WWW
« Reply #33 on: January 20, 2011, 05:16:03 PM »

Greetings in that Divine and Most Precious Name of Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ!
There is no such thing as a first among equals; this is a nonsensical term.

If someone is first, the others are not equal; if all are equal, then none is first.
 
But the phrase is used as code to convey an ecclesiological concept.  Unfortunately we are not agreed on the code.  :-)


Father, "first among equals" is really referring to two different categories. "First" as in first in honor, "equal" as in equal in authority. It is only nonsensical if this is not realized.
^^ thank you, somebody needed to clarify this for the forum, it seems to have been overlooked.  All bishops are reverent as are all priests and even deacons, but the concept of first is specifically in regards to this concept of honor.  It is the first or ranking Bishop (who is generally a Patriarch) who is mentioned first in prayers and litanies, and who is honored in social reverence and Apostolic honor, as a Spiritual representative of the Holy Apostles themselves in authority and respect, by virtue of the laying of hands of Apostolic Succession.  So the Patriach is a first amongst equals in regards to Bishops, and various jurisdictions retain this first status in a meeting or liturgy with multiple Patriarchs representing.  For example, if the Patriarch of Ethiopia, the Bishop of the See of Tekle Haimanot attends a service of conference with the Patriarch of Alexandria and Egypt, then the Alexandrian supremacy gives prayers and honor due firstly to the Patriarch of Alexandria.  They are equals in the Apostolic sense as ministers of the Divine Mysteries, as there is no rank in such matters.  The baptism by the Patriarch is equal to the baptism by a parish priest, but in regards to ordination, the first amongst equals takes supremacy in this ecclesiastic decisions. 


Stay Blessed,
Habte Selassie

Well, I must point out something in response:

I was referring to the typical relationship between autocephalous heads. In particular, the principle I was talking about would apply to the relationship, for instance, between HH Pope Shenouda III and HH Patriarch Ignatius Zakka I. Pope Shenouda (canonically speaking) would be the first in honor, but the authority of the two would be completely equal. Some of the relationships that you referred to, however, are different. The relationships between a Priest and his Bishop, a Bishop and his Patriarch (for instance Abune Ewosatewos and Abune Paulos), a Patriarch and the Patriarch of his Mother Church which has spiritual supremacy (for instance Abune Paulos and Pope Shenouda), or the first mentioned relationship of the Coptic and Syrian Patriarchs, are all somewhat different relationships which could be described differently.
Logged

I stopped posting here in August 2011 because of stark disagreement with the policies of the administration and moderating team of the forums. If you desire, feel free to PM me, message me on Facebook (link in profile), or email me: cddombrowski@gmail.com
Tags: Primacy 
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 0.189 seconds with 61 queries.