The Pope: A Discussion of the Roman Primacy

Edited by Akolouthos - 22-Dec-2007 at 16:24

Originally posted by Menumorut I see that I haven't with whom to discuss, because you are afraid to put in discussion the corectitude of the Church's tradition and I will not continuate any more, but my apreciation is that you are not interested for the truth but for something else.

Edited by Akolouthos - 26-Dec-2007 at 01:32

arch.buff,

arch.buff,

I am enjoying this discussion, and I assure you that I will continue to tolerate your lack of punctuality if you continue to tolerate mine. It is nice to have a discussion on AE where I do not feel pressured to post a response as soon as possible, and it certainly gives us both ample opportunity to research.

Originally posted by arch.buff Good responses! I fear this bit of response will be rather short and will address a single topic, that of St. Cyprian. You must be careful in your assumptions!! First off, it should only be seen as proper that I, in my search for truth, am at the moment trying to schedule an appointment with my local Priest on the subject of St. Cyprian. He happens to be an immensely educated and faithful man that Im sure can shed more light on this issue for me.

And what assumptions, dear arch.buff, must I be careful of?

I certainly look forward to hearing what you priest has to say about the matter. It is always interesting to hear the views of a learned man with whom I disagree. What is really interesting about discussions such as this is that while two educated individuals may disagree, they are bound largely -- though not entirely -- by the same scholarship. Anyway, let me know what he says.

Lets first start off with what we know of St. Cyprian. He was a very educated man, and he was indeed a man(adult) upon his conversion and very soon after that conversion found himself Bishop. For all the education St. Cyprian had there were many to testify that he did not possess an abundance of knowledge in theology or philosophy and at times could be very near-sighted and unable to see where the road traveling down would take him.

With regard to your second assertion, concerning Cyprian being near-sighted, I certainly agree, and will note that near-sightedness is a common malady, among ecclesiastics and laymen alike. With regard to your first assertion, that Cyprian "did not possess an abundance of knowledge in theology or philosophy," I must vehemently disagree. In addition to De Unit. Eccles. -- which is currently under discussion, and which should have given you ample proof that Cyprian was a gifted theologian, there are many other extant treatises which bear witness to his skill in theology, philosophy, and ecclesiology. Though Cyprian, like all the fathers, has been criticized (sometimes justly, sometimes unjustly), he has been praised as well. If you would care to cite some specific criticism, we can discuss it; if you are simply issuing a general challenge to his credentials, I shall simply offer a general refutation. 

As for the Roman editing you spoke of, can you produce some evidence for this?   http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04583b.htm - look under Church Unity

Interesting. So there is an entirely new theory, in addition to those mentioned above. With regard to this, I will simply repeat what I said on this point earlier, to give the proper context:

We will find, however, that this Roman interpretation is flawed, for two reasons. First, there exist two versions, as well as some evidence of interpolation, or, at very least, redaction. The text you have quoted is the longer recension (or "Primacy Text")... The textual issues are outlined in the second elucidation of the text in the Ante-Nicene Fathers set, which ascribes their origin to a corruption of the text by the "Romish editors".  It would appear that more recent scholarship has tended to ascribe the textual anomalies to a redaction, possibly made by Cyprian himself either 1) to reemphasize the collegiality of all bishops, that he consistently upheld throughout his career, against misinterpretations by those who supported the later Roman interpretation of the passage and/or 2) to counter the pretensions of Stephen, bishop of Rome, in the controversy over the rebaptism of heretics. [Akolouthos]

With regard to evidence of the editing/redactions, you may find a full scholarly treatment of the issue in the elucidation mentioned above. The elucidation is a bit dated, as is the Catholic Encyclopedia (both were published around the turn of the century), but I think you will find it useful.

In any case if we take the first text of Ch. 4 that is found everywhere are we still to toss out this "Roman interpretation"? Is unity still not derived from one? Can unity be seen as communion? If not, what is the difference?

Communion is an essential part of unity; indeed, it is because the bishop of Rome is not in communion with the Church that an onlooker can know that he is not part of the Church. Communion with the bishop of Rome as it has been interpreted by the Vatican, however, is not necessary for an individual to be a member of the body of Christ. Rather, the Cyprianic ideal, which is one of collegiality, as we have demonstrated above, is the only true manner in which we may consider the communion of bishops with one another. Finally, unity is derived from One, not one -- unity is derived from Christ, the invisible bishop who guides His body.

Now to address the Seventh Council of Carthage, which was in itself a simple synod. In the synod held under St. Cyprian he sent envoys to Rome for the Popes approval but only found that the Pope treated them as heretics. He writes as if all bishops are equal and that baptism is a concern only for the local church and that if the details differed from church to church, that this was permissible. To God alone is the local bishop responsible. This would seem contrary to his theory of 254 that bishops are to be judged by the people who elected them and, if bad, deposed.

Could you please provide a citation from Cyprian's letter to the pope, as well as a citation with regard to his assertion that bishops are responsible to the people?

There is no contradiction here, for one who is versed in early ecclesiology. A bishop -- and especially a bishop in the early Church -- is/was responsible to his flock, in that he is entrusted with the preservation of their souls and the integrity of their faith. Eusebius of Caesarea, who felt the need to justify his subscription to the Nicene decrees to the people of his diocese, provides a perfect example. In addition to this, a bishop is responsible to his fellow bishops, in that the communion of bishops who hold the true faith is an expression of the unity of the Church. Ultimately, however, a bishop is responsible to God alone, because he presides over his flock in persona Christi, and must seek their good in spite of the wiles of the evil one. As you can undoubtedly see, there is not a contradiction if the matter is considered in context.

It would seem he weaves theories to jusify his policies.

Of course Cyprian, like all bishops, was sometimes guilty of weaving his theories to justify his policies. In point of fact, it is in precisely this way that the Roman interpretation of primacy developed over the centuries. Heavenly treasures, earthen vessels. Still, the issue -- with Cyprian, as with the Roman interpretation of the primacy -- is not why the early ecclesiastics arrived at the conclusions at which they arrived, but rather whether or not those conclusions are valid. While we must seek to consider peripheral issues in order to gain a true understanding of the context in which thought developed, we must never allow the consideration of these peripheral issues to obscure the central question.

In his declaration(letter to Rome) he elaborates that the validity of baptism is one that bishops of the Catholic faith can differ. A far cry from his explanation to Marcian in 255 that it was an article of faith. In any case the errors of the 7th of Carthage were retracted in a synod under Gratus (345-348)   To me, St. Cyprians writings of Roman primacy are very evident and his actions, like so many of his contradictions, at times did not mirror this. The Roman ruling of baptism, or should we say the custom, was that of the Church universal. St. Augustine is very clear on this and even goes onto state that through St. Cyprians martyrdom he atoned for his anger.

First, I would note that the Roman ruling on baptism was not the view of the Church universal at the time. This is borne out by the fact that Cyprian was able to secure support from those in his own province as well as one as far away as Firmilian of Caesarea. Incidentally, the fact that Firmilian supported Cyprian against Pope Stephen, and the fact that he rebuked Stephen for his pompous language, demonstrates, beyond even the faintest shadow of a doubt, that what would become the Roman interpretation of the primacy -- an interpretation which was then in its infancy -- was utterly unknown in the East at this point. Rather, collegiality according to the Cyprianic ideal was the manner in which the unity of the Church was conceived by the fathers.

Second, I would note that the manner in which heretics are received is still a matter of contention in the Church. We do have some hints from the fathers of the early Church, since it was a major issue for them. Generally, it would appear that the manner of receiving heretics depended upon what kind of heretics they were. The early Church always sought to exercise oikonomia, but certain heresies were so far from the Truth that they required rebaptism -- the original "baptism" having not been valid. The Council of Constantinople (A.D. 381) actually dealt with this question, and we may turn to it for an indication of how we should act today.

I am rather interested in St. Cyprian, theres a reason he is a Saint. I would love a in depth dialogue on him. Sorry for not addressing your other responses. I assure you, my reply draws near however at the moment I seem to be knee-deep in essays, Already!! Sorry if this response is sloppy, I blew right thru it and did I mention Im at work! Dont tell on me!   God bless,   arch.buff

First, in the interest of transparency and for the benefit of those reading our discussion, I would like to note that at least part of the reason arch.buff has not responded to my earlier points is not because he did not feel up to the task, but rather because I asked him to wait on my reply to his post regarding Cyprian, which I have delayed writing due to a series of time constraints. I would also like to thank arch.buff for doing this, so I will: thank you, arch.buff.

That aside, I would certainly enjoy a discussion of St. Cyprian, but I would suggest that we confine it to the periphery, unless it deals specifically with the question of the perceptions of the Roman primacy. I look forward to hearing what your priest has to say, as I look forward to your response to the other points I raised in my last post. That said, feel free to take your time, as you have so graciously allowed me to do. God bless and keep you, arch.buff.

-Akolouthos

Sorry, I really chopped that last post up. I meant to seperate my responses from your previous posts, really donked that one I guess. However, my responses are there. You'll just have to carefully sift through the post as our words are lumped together in one large quote. Again, my apologies.

Edited by arch.buff - 19-Mar-2008 at 19:09

Originally posted by Akolouthos Hey arch.buff,   I had some spare time, and decided to get back with you a bit earlier than has been my habit. Please do not get used to it; punctuality has never been my strong suit. Still, since this conversation provides a pleasant diversion from the cares of the world, I must hasten to it when I can.   Originally posted by arch.buff To your testimony of St. Cyprian being praised I would only add an AMEN! However, as has already been stated, St. Cyprian had not been in the ecclesiological sphere very long and there were times where this was made painstakingly apparent. As for your request of citations of Cyprian's lack of "abundance of theology and philosophy", here are a few-   "His gift of eloquence is evident in his writings. He was not a thinker, a philosopher, a theologian, but eminently a man of the world and an administrator, of vast energies, and of forcible and striking character."  --Taken from the new advent site from which we have been dealing.   http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04583b.htm    'It has been well said of St. Cyprian that "He was a practical man without any philosophy or theology." He repeats the tradition; he borrows very largely from Tertullian; he writes a highly cultivated Latin; but there is nowhere evidence that he possessed any power of seeing general principles in the learning he had, nor of deducing thence, in his day to day application of it, further general truths. The one subject which he ventures to explore is this question of the Church and its nature. He explores it simply because exploration of it is forced on him by controversies he cannot escape. And it is in the spirit of a practical controversialist, eager to find arguments and confirmation of his policy, that he explores it. The pitfalls to which such a character is exposed, in such a work, are very easy to imagine. St. Cyprian was to experience them in very full measure.'   http://www.ewtn.com/library/CHISTORY/HUGHHIST.TXT -Copy of Hughes' book on internet but if you like there is a treatment on Google books. Sadly they have pages missing, naturally.   This, I believe, is a very accuarte, broad, and general description of Cyprian.   I concur, at least within the proper context. I will add another description, for the purposes of expanding that context:   The second African theologian, Cyprian of Carthage, was a personality totally different from Tertullian. He had nothing of the latter's intemperance nor of his domination genius, but rather those noble qualities of heart that attract charity and gentleness, prudence and spirit of union; these Tertullian lacked. [Quasten, Patrology, Vol. 2]   Cyprian's literary activity was intimately connected withy his life and times. All of his works are written for specific occasions and served practical purposes. He was a man of action, interested in the direction of souls rather than in theological speculation. He had neither Tertullian's depth and gift of expression nor his fiery passionateness. On the other hand, his practical wisdom avoids the exagerrations and provocations which did so much harm to the other. His language and style are more polished, and show a greater influence of the vocabulary and imagery of the Bible... In Christian antiquity, as in the Middle Ages, he was one of the most popular authors and his writings are extant in a great number of manuscripts. [Quasten, Patrology, Vol. 2]   The reason I have cited the quotes from above is to demonstrate that we must needs examine Cyprian within the context of this discussion. True, he was not a master speculative theologian. As Quasten notes, he was more concerned with the practical aspects of the faith. Still, it is precisely this practical wisdom that is relevant to our discussion of De Unit. Eccles. If we were speaking of his opinion on the transmigration or pre-existence of souls, on apocatastasis, or on any of the variations of Adoptionism that were to cause so much trouble, we would need to consider his gifts for speculative theology. Since we are speaking of his ecclesiology, defined in terms of his views of the episcopacy, it is much more important that we take into account his "noble qualities of heart that attract charity and gentleness, prudence and spirit of union," as well as the fact that "all of his works are written for specific occasions and served practical purposes."   Within this context, St. Cyprian's interpretation of his own writings, as well as his view of how his ecclesiology manifests itself, becomes very important.   I will definately take a look at the elucidation once I get some real free time. This quote taken from the site seems pretty clear:    "The old contention that it is a Roman forgery is at all events quite out of the question.   As I have noted, I do not personally hold to the Roman forgery theory. That said, it is a theory, and I am certainly not surprised that the Catholic Encyclopedia believes that its validity is "out of the question." After all, you wouldn't expect them to credit it, would you?   Still, it is worth noting that only a couple of decades had passed between the publishing of the Ante-Nicene Fathers -- from which the elucidation is drawn -- and the Catholic Encyclopedia, and I would doubt that enough was gleaned in the intervening years to dismiss the theory out of hand. It is far more likely that the ANF and the Catholic Encyclopedia are simply manifesting the biases of their respective editors. Still, I'd suggest you read that elucidation. The editors of the ANF have posited one particularly interesting piece of evidence for their interpretation. That said, I continue to prefer the view that St. Cyprian, himself, redacted the text when it became apparent that it had been misinterpreted/abused by Pope Stephen.   What is apparent -- and, more importantly, what is relevant to our discussion -- is that the collegiality of bishops is upheld in both the "primacy text" and, in more specific terms, in the variant. The acceptance of this view of the collegiality of bishops is corroborated generally by what we know of the history of the Church to this point, and specifically by the testimony of Firmillian of Caesarea -- you have done nothing to refute this. The Roman account is corroborated by the Catholic Encyclopedia. Take your pick.   It is certain that where internal discipline was concerned he considered that Rome should not interfere, and that uniformity was not desirable -- a most unpractical notion. We have always to remember that his experience as a Christian was of short duration, that he became a bishop soon after he was converted, and that he had no Christian writings besides Holy Scripture to study besides those of Tertullian. He evidently knew no Greek, and probably was not acquainted with the translation of Irenaeus. Rome was to him the centre of the Church's unity; it was inaccessible to heresy, which had been knocking at its door for a century in vain. It was the See of Peter, who was the type of the bishop, the first of the Apostles. Difference of opinion between bishops as to the right occupant of the Sees of Arles or Emerita would not involve breach of communion, but rival bishops at Rome would divide the Church, and to communicate with the wrong one would be schism. http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04583b.htm   First, the Roman interpretation of Irenaeus' Adv. Haer. -- which is, I assume, what the article is referring to -- is historically and theologically untenable for the same reasons that the Roman interpretation of St. Cyprian's De Unit. Eccles. is historically and theologically untenable. I have treated this subject previously here:   http://www.allempires.net/forum_posts.asp?TID=16338&PN=2   Second, if there was anyone who believe that Rome was "inaccessible to heresy", they were to be disabused of this notion in the seventh century.   Third, it would appear that the editors of the Catholic Encyclopedia are attempting to cast St. Cyprian as a man who held that Rome was the center of Church unity, according to the Roman interpretation, and who held that Rome should not interfere in matters of internal discipline -- which is not held according to the Roman interpretation. Once again, the collegiality of bishops is the chief point Cyprian was trying to get across, and, according to this, Stephen was not permitted to interfere with the affairs of the African church.   "They dare to sail...to the chair of Peter and to the principal church whence sacredotal unity has sprung."   Quoted from both books "Papal Primacy- From its Origins to the Present" by Klaus Schatz and "Scribe of the Kingdom: Essays on Theology and Culture" by Aidan Nichols   First off, I would suggest to you a very good read in Schatzs' "Papal Primacy". Written by a Catholic in one of the most un-partial pieces I have read to date. It is a purely historical treatment and emphasizes the development of papal primacy.   Hm. It would seem that Schatz's scholarship actually supports the traditional view of Cyprian's collegial theory, and refutes the traditional Roman interpretation of De. Unit. Eccles. Take special note of the following quote from Papal Primacy:   The issue here was the "acknowledgement of a higher authority belonging to Peter's successors that cannot be adequately described in juridical terms. In principle, the Roman bishop had no greater authority than any other bishop, but in the hierarchy of authorities, his decision took the foremost place."   On the other hand, Cyprian regarded every bishop as the successor of Peter, holder of the keys to the kingdom of heaven and possessor of the power to bind and loose. For him, Peter embodied the original unity of the Church and the episcopal office, but in principle these were also present in every bishop   For Cyprian, responsibility for the whole Church and the solidarity of all bishops could also, if necessary, be turned against Rome. There is a striking example of this from the same period involving two Spanish bishops, Basilides and Martial. During the persecution they had not sacrificed to the idols, but like many other Christians they had bribed officials to obtain "certificates of sacrifice" (libellie). As a result, they had lost credibility in their congregations and had been expelled. Nevertheless (in Cyprian's opinion by misrepresenting facts) they succeeded in obtaining recognition from Stephen of Rome. Cyprian reacted immediately by calling an African synod to warn the two communities to reject Stephen's decision and refuse to readmit the two bishops. [Schatz, Papal Primacy]   Also Nichols' "Scribes of the Kingdom" goes on to say:   "This interpretation of Cyprian's view of the Roman see, drawn from his Letters, enables us to say that both versions of the De Unitae may be authentic. Both versions are compatible with Cyprian's doctrine as thus expounded."   Both versions of the text are compatible with Cyprian's doctrine; what they are not compatible with is the Roman interpretation. This, I repeat, is the most likely explanation for the fact that there are two texts: Cyprian redacted it to counter the pretensions of Pope Stephen, which subsequently became the basis for the Roman interpretation of the text.   I would refer you to the following passage from Nichols' Scribes of the Kingdom:    In principle, it is possible that Cyprian's interest in Rome depended on Rome's civil position within the empire. Since so many local churches had dealings with Rome, a Roman schism would -- purely empirically -- divide the Church more successfully than any other. But it is also equally possible that Cyprian regarded Rome as occupying a theologically unique position within the intercommunion of episcopally ordered churches. [Nichols, Scribes of the Kingdom]   The text in bold sums up the view of the history of the ante-Nicene era which was prevalent at the Ecumenical Councils. It is also relevant to our discussion. If you wish to debate Nichols' views on the papacy, we can do so; I actually have quite a lot to say. For the purposes of brevity, however, I shall confine myself to this passage and suggest that we resolve the issues currently pending in our discussion.   "We can, however, note the affair as a cause of discord between St. Cyprian and Rome at the very beginning of St. Stephen's pontificate, and we can also note, m connection with it, the appearance of some disturbing new theories in St. Cyprian's theology of Church government. One such theory is that it is for the people to depose bishops who are sinners. They are the judges."   http://www.ewtn.com/library/CHISTORY/HUGHHIST.TXT   I believe there are more, let me know if you wish for me to dig some up.   I would actually like a citation from one of Cyprian's writings to this effect, so I could see the proper context. Mind you, I don't doubt that he said it -- the laity in the early Church had much more say than the laity in the modern Church. I would also like to see an account of Cyprian's communication with Stephen, if we are to discuss it.   Dear Ako, I fail to see you can not discern Cyprian's contradictions He feels that baptism, a crucial aspect of salvation, can be an option for each bishop of his flock?? It is an issue of the utmost importance, yet bishops can differ as they see fit!   As for the supposed contradiction you posited before, you were, if you will recall, referring to the issue of lay influence on the episcopacy. I responded to this. If you would like, we can discuss it. As I said earlier:   There is no contradiction here, for one who is versed in early ecclesiology. A bishop -- and especially a bishop in the early Church -- is/was responsible to his flock, in that he is entrusted with the preservation of their souls and the integrity of their faith. Eusebius of Caesarea, who felt the need to justify his subscription to the Nicene decrees to the people of his diocese, provides a perfect example. In addition to this, a bishop is responsible to his fellow bishops, in that the communion of bishops who hold the true faith is an expression of the unity of the Church. Ultimately, however, a bishop is responsible to God alone, because he presides over his flock in persona Christi, and must seek their good in spite of the wiles of the evil one. As you can undoubtedly see, there is not a contradiction if the matter is considered in context.   As for the supposed contradiction which you now posit, I cannot address the issue in context without the citation I have requested from you, as well as an outline of where you feel the contradiction lies. Please provide both.   On the contrary, I must enthusiastically disagree with you. What conclusion the church ultimately came to [re. the rebaptism of heretics -Ako] is exactly the point of the issue at hand. One who wishes to do no injustice to historical realities will concede this orthodox interpretation, or ruling rather, on Rome's part seems to be a familiar stance she often takes, even in the face of eloquent bishops who would take opposition against her.   I agree that it is important, but only insofar as it speaks to their validity/invalidity. As we shall see below, the issue is nowhere near as simple as modern Roman apologetics posit.   "Now at Rome, as at Alexandria, the teaching had always been that the baptism of heretics was valid, as it had been the teaching in Africa until about thirty years before St. Cyprian's time."   Excuse me I mispoke, I was trying to convey the point that the church adopted the Roman ruling. Now, before this ruling took place there were differences in re-baptism but as Hughes notes this was no problem for Rome or Alexandria and at a time, North Africa herself.   But earlier you said:   Dear Ako, I fail to see you can not discern Cyprian's contradictions He feels that baptism, a crucial aspect of salvation, can be an option for each bishop of his flock?? It is an issue of the utmost importance, yet bishops can differ as they see fit! -arch.buff   May I now assume that you are no longer confused regarding my position on the matter?     St. Jerome explains in better detail:   "Blessed Cyprian attempted to avoid heresy, and therefore rejected the baptism conferred by heretics, sent [the acts of] an African Council on this matter to Stephen, who was then Bishop of the city of Rome, and twenty-second from St. Peter; but his attempt was in vain. Eventually those very Bishops, who had decreed with him that heretics were to be rebaptized, returned to the ancient custom, and published a new decree."   This is how St. Stephen views the matter:   "If therefore anyone shall come to you from any heresy whatsoever, let there be no innovation contrary to what has been handed down, namely that hands be imposed upon them in [sign of] penance."   Hm. The only place I could find the Jerome quote was at an apologetics site, which noted that it couldn't be corroborated. It would be interesting to know what happened. As for the Stephen quote, I will note that he had every right to venture a personal opinion and define the rules for his own diocese. If the quote is taken as a command to the Church universal, it should be noted that the Ecumenical Councils were only too happy to correct him, but more on this below. The Roman ruling was not universally held throughout Church history, as we shall see in a moment.   That the Easterners differ on re-baptism, as with other issues, is of no cause for surprise. Rome, however, in what has been handed down to her, has no such dilemma.   And here we get to the meat of the issue. Rome does not define the rules regarding baptism for the Church universal. In fact, she does not even define the rules regarding baptism for her own diocese if she is overruled by an Ecumenical Council, and the Roman Church has recognized this. First, we shall cite Canon VII of the Second Ecumenical Council (Const. AD 381):   Those who from heresy turn to orthodoxy, and to the portion of those who are being saved, we receive according to the following method and custom: Arians, and Macedonians, and Sabbatians, and Novatians, who call themselves Cathari or Aristori, and Quarto-decimans or Tetradites, and Apollinarians, we receive, upon their giving a written renunciation [of their errors] and anathematize every heresy which is not in accordance with the Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church of God. Thereupon, they are first sealed or anointed with the holy oil upon the forehead, eyes, nostrils, mouth, and ears; and when we seal them, we say, "The Seal of the gift of the Holy Ghost." But Eunomians, who are baptized with only one immersion, and Montanists, who are here called Phrygians, and Sabellians, who teach the identity of Father and Son, and do sundry other mischievous things, and [the partisans of] all other heresies--for there are many such here, particularly among those who come from the country of the Galatians:--all these, when they desire to turn to orthodoxy, we receive as heathen. On the first day we make them Christians; on the second, catechumens; on the third, we exorcise them by breathing thrice in their face and ears; and thus we instruct them and oblige them to spend some time in the Church, and to hear the Scriptures; and then we baptize them. [Const. I, Can. 7]   It should be noted that this canon probably cannot be authentically attributed to the Second Ecumenical Council, but rather represents a later recognition of ancient practices regarding rebaptism. Still, what it does demonstrate is that there were differences regarding the practice of receiving heretics around two centuries after the conflict between Cyprian and Stephen. These differences centered upon the degree to which any given heresy deviated from the orthodox faith. Still, this is the least of the problems a modern Roman apologist will face in treating the acts of the Second Ecumenical Council (one of which being that there weren't even any Roman representatives present; we may discuss these problems further, if you like ), so let us turn to the acts of the First Ecumenical Council (Nicaea I, AD 325):   Concerning the Paulianists who have flown for refuge to the Catholic Church, it has been decreed that they must by all means be rebaptized; and if any of them who in past time have been numbered among their clergy should be found blameless and without reproach, let them be rebaptized and ordained by the Bishop of the Catholic Church; but if the examination should discover them to be unfit, they ought to be deposed. Likewise in the case of their deaconesses, and generally in the case of those who have been enrolled among their clergy, let the same form be observed. And we mean by deaconesses such as have assumed the habit, but who, since they have no imposition of hands, are to be numbered only among the laity. [Nicaea I, Can. 19]   The Roman legates assented to the promulgation of the canons of Nicaea. Thus, the Roman church has not always held to a universal decree regarding the validity of the baptism of heretics, anymore than any of the other churches have done so. As we have seen, the practice regarding the rebaptism of heretics was a matter to be defined on a case by case basis with a general set of principles in place.   And thank you, Akolouthos. I too look forward to all discussions in and around this subject of church history, especially with such a learned sophisticate such as Akolouthos. Might I be so bold as to fancy myself a Stephen, outmatched in eloquence and persuasiveness by my opposition, yet holing steadfast in what is truth?    God bless,   arch.buff   You might, but I would prefer that you actually hold to the truth, rather than just fancy yourself as doing so.   Seriously though, this is quite the interesting discussion. I'm actually learning a lot about St. Cyprian as we go along, which is a great blessing. I doubt I would've cracked several of these books had I not had a purpose in doing so, and I certainly wouldn't have gotten this much of a feel for the character of one of the most popular figures -- as well as one of the most oft-recurring controversies (after all, the issue of rebaptism is still a matter much discussed) -- in Church history. For this you have my thanks.  I eagerly await your reply.   -Akolouthos

Originally posted by Akolouthos   Pope Leo's refusal to accept canon 28 did nothing to prevent it from going into force, as he, himself, lamented. He stated, in a letter to the Empress Pulcheria (Ep. CXVI) that the Illyrian bishops, who were in the Roman ecclesiastical sphere, had subscribed to the decree. Indeed, his words were as the squeakings of a mouse, and echoed only in those parts of the West where the canon was not intended to have all that much practical effect, anyway.   Let us turn, however, to the actions of the Roman legates, which render untenable Leo's assertion that Roman objections were based upon the fact that the 28th canon of Chalcedon overstepped the 6th of Nicaea. At the first session of Chalcedon, the acts of the Latrocinium (robber-council of Ephesus) of A.D. 449,  were examined, and it was noted that Flavian, who was then bishop of Constantinople, was given the fifth place. When Anatolius, who was the reigning bishop of Constantinople at Chalcedon, inquired, "Why did not Flavian receive his position?", Paschasinus, who was a Roman legate, stated: "We will, please God, recognize the present bishop Anatolius of Constantinople as the first [i.e. after us], but Dioscorus made Flavian the fifth."   Later, the Roman legates objected to the 28th canon of Chalcedon on the grounds that it referred to the Council of Constantinople, the canons of which, they said, were not to be found in Roman collections. This was probably true, since you will note that the Council of Constantinople -- the Second Ecumenical Council -- to which the Pope was not even invited (incidentally, Chalcedon was called in spite of the objections of Pope Leo), was provided over by Meletius of Antioch, who was out of communion of Rome (and died in that state, though he is now venerated  as a saint in both the East and the West), decided against the wishes of Damasus in the matter of the Antiochene episcopal succession, and prayed for the emperor Theodosius, not the pope, to validate what had been decreed. Back to the matter, at the first session of Chalcedon, the Roman legates already recognized Constantinople as second in honor among the ecclesiastical sees, despite their objections that the canonical decrees of Constantinople had not been promulgated in the West. The fact that they recognized this is clear proof of the duplicity of Pope Leo's later statements.   Anyway, the whole thing is a moot point. None of the Patriarchs has the authority to exercise a line-item veto. Revisionist Roman theory on this point simply does not match up with historical fact. This is borne out by the fact that Leo's refusal to accept the canon did not prevent it from going into force; you might say that the Holy Spirit guided the Church away from such presumption. The whole question, however, is purely academic in light of the subsequent actions of the Church during the Ecumenical Period. The 28th canon of Chalcedon was approved by the 31st of Trullo (Quinisext), and all of the canons of Trullo were approved by canon 1 of the Second Council of Nicaea (Seventh Ecumenical) in A.D. 787. Incidentally, I do not see how the Roman Church can reject the Trullan canons in light of their acceptance by Nicaea II, which condemned Iconoclasm.   Now onto the subject more in depth of the 28th where Constantinople assumes Rome owes its authority to its location as the ancient capital of the Roman Empire. This, I would gather, is more the reason for Romes rejection of this Canon. This very logic at its core seems "un-christian", but if we are to follow this logic then what are we to do with Ravenna or Milano? They too were once the capitals of the Roman Empire.   I assure you it is not. It is the principle of "territorial accomodation", and has always been an essential part of the nature of the Church. If I have led you to believe that this is a mere geographical principle -- through imprecise -- or even incorrect -- phrasing, I apologize. It rather has to do with the status of the city, which involves the accrued "dignity" in both secular and religious affairs. The treatment of Aelia Capitolina (Jerusalem) by the seventh canon of Nicaea is a perfect example of this:   Can. 7 Since custom and ancient tradition have prevailed that the Bishop of Aelia should be honored, let him, saving its due dignity to the Metropolis, have the next place of honor.   Jerusalem was to be honored, due to that city's religious status, as well as an existing tradition within the Church, yet her bishop was not to possess the jurisdictional authority due to a proper metropolitan. This was, however, amended by Chalcedon, which enumerated the bishops of Jerusalem among the ancient Pentarchs. As you can see, the rules are not as simple as they are often made out to be; this is precisely why the ranking of the sees -- which is, as is evident from the history of the Ecumenical Era, an ongoing process -- is reserved to the Ecumenical Councils. Remember, for a long time the bishops of Lyons verged on a semi-Patriarchal status, and while he is still afforded the title "Primate of Gaul" in the Roman Church, he has little canonical authority. Oh, and the reason that Ravenna and Milan were not enumerated in the rankings of the Councils, quite simply, is because they did not last as centers of prominence, or were overshadowed by metropolitan or Patriarchal sees.   That said, Ambrose of Milan provides another interesting example of the principle of territorial accomodation as it existed in a specific time, and specifically as it pertains to Rome. This example will also, I trust, serve to elucidate the nature of the status of Rome and the other ancient churches in the early Church. You will note that Ambrose was far more influential in ecclesiastical affairs than Damasus -- indeed, it is Ambrose who imposed a penance upon Theodosius, and it was to Ambrose that Theodosius came to repent of his massacre of the citizens of Thessalonica. Indeed, Ambrose was the most influential churchman in the West. Still, Damasus generally appears before Ambrose on letters written to the bishops of the West. Why? Quite simply because while Milan may have been a rising city with an influential bishop, and Rome might have been in the early stages of her decline, Rome still possessed a greater measure of Christian dignity. Thus, while Ambrose was influential in reality, the bishops -- even Ambrose -- were always deferential to the head of the Roman Church, by virtue of the respect due to the dignity of the Roman see.   Why have I provided these examples? To demonstrate that the question of the ranking of ecclesiastical sees is not as simple as you may think. It is not something to be grasped, but rather something to be sought after. There are so many things to be taken into account that oversimplifications present a host of problems. Thus, the principle of territorial accomodation, while it may be difficult to understand, and while it may seem un-ecclesiastical -- though I would not go so far as to say "un-Christian"; after all, the practical concerns related to a bishop's ability to serve his flock, which are the foundation of the principle, are very Christian in nature -- it was certainly a great part of the reason for the ranking of the sees, as Nicaea, Constantinople, and Chalcedon bear out. We must seek to understand the question in its proper historical context, as the holy fathers of the fifth century understood it. Here we turn to a reiteration of the 28th canon of Chalcedon and the 3rd of Constantinople, as well as the analysis of two noted ecclesiastical historians. (I'm requoting the canons so that people can keep up with what we are talking about).   Can. 28 Following in all things the decisions of the holy Fathers, and acknowledging the canon, which has been just read, of the One Hundred and Fifty Bishops beloved-of-God (who assembled in the imperial city of Constantinople, which is New Rome, in the time of the Emperor Theodosius of happy memory), we also do enact and decree the same things concerning the privileges of the most holy Church of Constantinople, which is New Rome. For the Fathers rightly granted privileges to the throne of old Rome, because it was the royal city. And the One Hundred and Fifty most religious Bishops, actuated by the same consideration, gave equal privileges to the most holy throne of New Rome, justly judging that the city which is honoured with the Sovereignty and the Senate, and enjoys equal privileges with the old imperial Rome, should in ecclesiastical matters also be magnified as she is, and rank next after her; so that, in the Pontic, the Asian, and the Thracian dioceses, the metropolitans only and such bishops also of the Dioceses aforesaid as are among the barbarians, should be ordained by the aforesaid most holy throne of the most holy Church of Constantinople; every metropolitan of the aforesaid dioceses, together with the bishops of his province, ordaining his own provincial bishops, as has been declared by the divine canons; but that, as has been above said, the metropolitans of the aforesaid Dioceses should be ordained by the archbishop of Constantinople, after the proper elections have been held according to custom and have been reported to him." [Chalcedon, 451]    Can. 3 "The Bishop of Constantinople, however, shall have the prerogative of honour after the Bishop of Rome; because Constantinople is New Rome." [Constantinople, 381]    They really speak for themselves, and I don't feel that I need to explain anything further. I will simply note that it seemed good to the Holy Spirit and the Council Fathers -- to paraphrase the blessed Evangelist -- to accept the principle of territorial accomodation as a factor in ranking the sees. But is this how it was understood by secular historians of the day? As the ecclesiastical historian Sozomenus noted, in the mid 5th century:   They likewise decreed that the affairs of each church should be subjected to the investigation and control of a council of the province; and that the bishop of Constantinople should rank next in point of precedence to the bishop of Rome, as occupying the see of New Rome; for Constantinople was not only already favored with this appellation, but was also in the enjoyment of many privileges, -- such as a senate of its own, and the division of the citizens into ranks and orders; it was also governed by its own magistrates, and possessed contracts, laws, and immunities in equal degree with those of Rome in Italy. [Soz., Hist. Eccles., 7.9]   ...and Socrates confirms:   The same prelates moreover published a decree, prescribing 'that the bishop of Constantinople should have the next prerogative of honor after the bishop of Rome, because that city was New Rome.' They also again confirmed the Nicene Creed. [Soc., Hist. Eccles., 5.8]   In closing, I will also turn to the letter of Anatolius of Constantinople. And first I want to thank you for providing me with a link to this source -- although since I googled it, you and I may be looking at different articles (if so, thanks for the quote, which helped me find an article that I thought I'd never see again). When I first encountered it, long ago, I couldn't stop laughing at one point -- and, never fear; this has naught to do with the translation of the letter. The thing I couldn't get over, when I first read this, was the following quote:   Originally posted by Some guy who doesn't know what he's talking about Thereafter, Pope Leo succeeded in getting both Emperors to call the Council of Chalcedon in 451.     Suffice it to say that we have already noted that the Council of Chalcedon was called by the emperor over the express objections of Pope Leo; that someone would assert that he called it...  It is sad that some people's modern biases blind them to the historical realities of an era long-since past. I do not fault you here, for the source does contain a fair bit of reliable information, and it is written -- if not researched -- in a manner consistent with scholarly style. I am actually quite glad that you found it; it speaks to the fact that you have been doing a fair amount of reserach -- as I recall, it was somewhat difficult to find (I think I was searching for something specific). Anyway, moving right along...   If you study the subject long enough, you will start to view letters like this in a manner entirely different than the way you view them now. I would recommend searching for as many collections as you can find, checking them out, and going over them, paying particular attention to forms of address. I would imagine that this letter began in an extremely self-effacing manner, the which is nothing out of the ordinary, and ended with profuse blessings and professions of undying love in Christ. The text, as you have implied, is decidedly self-effacing in tone.   Have you ever seen what he was responding to?   For all of his saintliness, Leo was a decidedly arrogant and intractable man. Upon reception of the decrees of the Council he began a letter campaign against Anatolius and the 28th canon of Chalcedon. He wrote a series of increasingly inflammatory letters to the emperor Marcian and the empress Pulcheria, the Patriarch Anatolius, and the Gallic bishops. Anatolius was, to use the language of Scripture, humbling himself that he may be exalted; that is to say that he was abasing himself in order to maintain the unity of the Church, which was being threatened by Leo's arrogant, futile, and ultimately embarrasing attempts to destroy it. Anatolius responds to Leo's accusations that it was he who procured his own elevation by noting that it was called for by others. In essence, Leo is guilty of the very crime of which he accuses Anatolius -- pride -- and Anatolius is guilty (if it imparts any guilt) only of humility.   Well done, well done! This is certainly a fascinating conversation, and your willingness to delve into the depths of the sources with me is fully appreciated. I do not often get the chance for a thourough conversation like this, on an ecclesiological/theological topic. God bless you for providing me with one. Feel free to take as long as you want with your reply; the Lord knows I have been horribly slow in getting back to you.   May God bless and keep you and yours.   -Akolouthos

"But some one will say, perhaps, Shall there, then, be no progress in Christ's Church? Certainly; all possible progress. For what being is there, so envious of men, so full of hatred to God, who would seek to forbid it? Yet on condition that it be real progress, not alteration of the faith. For progress requires that the subject be enlarged in itself, alteration, that it be transformed into something else. The intelligence, then, the knowledge, the wisdom, as well of individuals as of all, as well of one man as of the whole Church, ought, in the course of ages and centuries, to increase and make much and vigorous progress; but yet only in its own kind; that is to say, in the same doctrine, in the same sense, and in the same meaning.

The growth of religion in the soul must be analogous to the growth of the body, which, though in process of years it is developed and attains its full size, yet remains still the same. There is a wide difference between the flower of youth and the maturity of age; yet they who were once young are still the same now that they have become old, insomuch that though the stature and outward form of the individual are changed, yet his nature is one and the same, his person is one and the same. An infant's limbs are small, a young man's large, yet the infant and the young man are the same. Men when full grown have the same number of joints that they had when children; and if there be any to which maturer age has given birth these were already present in embryo, so that nothing new is produced in them when old which was not already latent in them when children. This, then, is undoubtedly the true and legitimate rule of progress, this the established and most beautiful order of growth, that mature age ever develops in the man those parts and forms which the wisdom of the Creator had already framed beforehand in the infant. Whereas, if the human form were changed into some shape belonging to another kind, or at any rate, if the number of its limbs were increased or diminished, the result would be that the whole body would become either a wreck or a monster, or, at the least, would be impaired and enfeebled.

In like manner, it behoves Christian doctrine to follow the same laws of progress, so as to be consolidated by years, enlarged by time, refined by age, and yet, withal, to continue uncorrupt and unadulterate, complete and perfect in all the measurement of its parts, and, so to speak, in all its proper members and senses, admitting no change, no waste of its distinctive property, no variation in its limits..."

I have felt necessary to at least touch upon this subject since it directly relates to our subject matter at hand. Perhaps, though, this specific doctrine warrants its own discussion? Either way, I would love to hear what you have to say, as always.

Hey arch.buff,

Originally posted by arch.buff Originally posted by Akolouthos   1) Could Rome be reduced in rank in a reunited Church? - I believe it is possible. After all, Constantinople was elevated above Alexandria and Antioch. Right now, the official position of the Church is that Rome is outside of the body of believers and consequently her bishop does not enjoy any primacy. That said, by precedent it would seem that the only body that has the authority to establish the rank of various patriarchal sees would be an Ecumenical Council. I'd imagine Moscow must be eager to revisit this matter.   -Akolouthos   Hey Ako!   Thank you for your answer. As for Ecumenical Councils "establishing" ranks of patriarchal sees, this is something that definitely has shown itself through the progress of church history. Having said that, I do not believe Rome was ever ranked in and of itself. The Ecumenical councils, however, have recognized Rome; which is a word I believe fits better given the context of our discussion.     "Let the ancient customs in Egypt, Libya and Pentapolis prevail, that the Bishop of Alexandria have jurisdiction in all these, since the like is customary for the Bishop of Rome also. Likewise in Antioch and the other provinces, let the Churches retain their privileges." (Coun. Nice Canon 6)   If we are to note every subetly, it immediately becomes recognizable that Rome here is never given any formal priviledges(although it is assumed), such as Antioch and Alexandria are. Rome is only used as that one example. "Let Alexandria", "let Antioch", are all foreign to the way Rome is approached. Furthermore, Rome here is never, formally, declared first see. But from the years 325 to 381, the next Ecumenical coucil(which wasnt even seen as such for quite some time) was held and in between this time, and also long before, we can already see that Rome is regarded as the most eminent. Now, you can argue why Rome was seen as most eminent, but it is certainly clear that no council set up Rome as the first see. As Pope St. Damasus notes:   "Likewise it is decreed: . . . We have considered that it ought to be announced that . . . the holy Roman Church has been placed at the forefront not by the conciliar decisions of other churches, but has received the primacy by the evangelic voice of our Lord and Savior..." (Decree of Damasus from the Roman council of 382 where he states the 73 canonical books that were to be accepted by the church)   Just a short reply to your answer. Hope to from you soon, but before this; take care of bitnez first!   God bless,   arch.buff

Originally posted by arch.buff     Originally posted by Akolouthos   As to the 6th canon of Nicaea, the majority of canonical scholars usually agree that it recognizes rights and priviledges that were already being exercised by all of the Patriarchal sees -- in essence, it recognizes de jure what had already been true de facto. And yes, the major point of disagreement would be whether or not there is a significant difference as to the evolution of these priviledges. As for the Council of Constantinople (2nd Ecumenical), which is also deemed the Council of Saints, whether or not it was recognized as Ecumenical from the start is irrelevant to the current discussion -- the fact is that it is Ecumenical, and presents real problems for the Roman interpretation of the primacy. As for Damasus, I would expect him to hold that opinion, but it is certainly nothing more than the interpretation of one of the holy Fathers; in fact, that is precisely what we are discussing.  The essence of the dispute is not how Damasus viewed the situation, but what the Nicene Fathers felt they were doing when they enumerated the sees.   -Akolouthos   As to your last point, I completely agree! I would only add that we also observe the way in which they went about dealing with the sees. However, I must disagree with you in your assertion of the irrelevancy of the historical ecumenical character of Constantinople I and its relation to Rome as regards our discussion, as broad as it may be. Also, it would do us well to not belittle the words of Damasus especially in light of the time in which he spoke them. There had only been only one Ecumenical council that had been recognized by the church universal(highlight Const. I), and still this early on Damasus professes that it is not conciliar decisions that render the apostolic see first, but is due to divine institution. Really this belief stretches farther back still. Just one example   God bless,   arch.buff