My opponent begins with a
claim well over the bounds of what I have defined at primacy, a far reaching
claim of a ‘divinely-established’ authority on the part of the Roman Papacy is untenable
in the Fathers of the Church. NONE of the quotes listed demonstrate such a
primacy in their historical context.
My opponent begins with
part of the liturgical texts of the Church for the feast of St Silvester. I
refer the reader back to his opening.
While sounding impressive
(Byzantine liturgy must, since most of the liturgical texts are sung), there is
no reference to Papal primacy. From the text of the First-Second Council in my
opening (and we can adorn that canon with others and Patristic references if my
opponent disputes it) the Orthodoxy (and personal holiness) of a Bishop, and
certainly a senior hierarch, such as the Pope of Rome, is the criterion for
sainthood. Both of these qualities are available in the above reference. The
key to understanding this is the Greek ‘coryphaeus’: "head of the
choir". But no one disputes that St Peter is the head of the Apostolical
choir; I believe I noted that in my opening! Does this equate into a Papal
primacy, since even St Silvester earned the title ‘adorning the throne of the
coryphaeus’ through his Orthodoxy? I say no. And I defy my opponent to
demonstrate otherwise. However, allow me to show what I am saying, rather than
just state without proof. The text for the Feast of St Gregory Palamas, without
noting the term ‘coryphaeus’, uses almost identical wording otherwise.
Kathisma 1: With hymns do we extol the divine
Christian bishop, who like a cloud of light and a pillar of fire, in
Spirit does precede today the new people of Israel, and who leads them into
the intelligible land of peace, the metropolis of those in Christ who are
firstborn. We praise the great Gregory.
Second Canon. Adhering faithfully to
the courses of your godly teachings, we escape the wiles of the heretics. And
through your sacred treatises we put to flight all their arrays, O most divine
father Gregory. Possessing the hypostatic wisdom of God in your
heart, you put an end unto the foolish sophistries of heretics, O blessed one,
and thus did you obliterate their unsound snortings resoundingly. (St
Gregory Palamas, November 14. Matins.)
The Menaion I have access
to, that excellent one of Archimandrite Ephrem in England available online to
the public, uses the text "Prince" as opposed to
"choir-master",--however, what was omitted in the Ikos of the
feast is telling:
Enriched with the throne of the Prince of
the Apostles, you were revealed as a most wondrous Minister of God, making
lovely, establishing and magnifying the Church by divine doctrines.
Three words make all the
difference: because it is demonstrated that the "Primacy" of St
Silvester was not assumed by the Church, but revealed through the Orthodox
Faith which he held.
From the Synaxarion for
Matins of the Fathers of Nicea:
Of these holy Fathers, two hundred and
thirty two were Bishops, eighty six Priests, Deacons and Monks; those present
numbering three hundred and eighteen. The most outstanding were Silvester,
Bishop of Rome and Metrophanes of Constantinople who was sick. They were
represented by legates. Alexander of Alexandria with Athanasios the Great, who
was archdeacon at the time, Efstathios of Antioch and Makarios of Jerusalem,
Hosios, bishop of Cordoba, Paphnutios the confessor, Nicholas myrovlitis and
Spyridon of Trimytheus….
If the Divine St Silvester
actually held the Primacy my opponent discusses, the Church never made any
mention of it.
My opponent discusses Pope
Julius: "The Eusebians believed that since Rome reserved the right to
depose Novation without the East the East should have the freedom to depose
Athanasius without interference from the West." Again, historically
inaccurate. This was only one part of the argument the Arians put forth against
the Orthodox Pope Julius, who recognized the Orthodox St Athanasius of
Alexandria and Paul of Antioch as the rightful Bishops of their sees, both of
whom had been forcibly removed from their sees by Arians appealing to the
Imperial court. (Remember that canon of the council of 870—heretical Bishops
aren’t real bishops at all.) Pope Julius, the only untouched Orthodox head of a
Petrine See was the only Bishop who was capable of judging this case.
(More on multiple Petrine Sees in a moment.) Sozomen:
THUS were the schemes of those who upheld
various heresies in opposition to truth successfully carried into execution;
and thus did they depose those bishops who strenuously maintained throughout
the East the supremacy of the doctrines of the Nicaean Council. These heretics
had taken possession of the most important sees…. The ruler of the Church at
Rome and all the priests of the West regarded these deeds as a personal insult;
for they had accorded from the beginning with all the decisions in the vote
made by those convened at Nice, nor did they now cease from that way of
thinking. On the arrival of Athanasius, they received him kindly, and espoused
his cause among themselves. Irritated at this interference, Eusebius wrote to
Julius, exhorting him to constitute himself a judge of the decrees that had
been enacted against Athanasius by the council of Tyre. (III, x)
Pope Julius was not quite
within his ‘rights’ yet, since Eusebius asks him to ‘constitute himself’ a
judge—a selection of words that would not indicate Papal right, but an appeal
to an Orthodox Bishop who had submitted to the Nicene decrees. The
actual argument placed forth by the Arians was that Rome was worthy of
universal honor—but there was included a veiled threat not to interfere with
the depositions. Rome’s response would be the council of Sardica: but my
opponent has not quoted a single canon of Sardica to demonstrate the Roman
primacy. Indeed, the Senior Hierarch of the Orthodox Catholic Church has the
prerogative of an ‘all-embracing apostolic care’, in the words of Bp Kallistos
of Diokleia, and demonstrated by Sardica, but this simply does not translate
into a divine right, nor a primatial right of jurisdiction, but simply a final
court of appeal (and in this case involving the second and third ranking
hierarchs of the Orthodox Church!)
Without getting into a
detailed discussion of the "Vicariate of Rome" my opponent contrives,
I note that none of the statements of Pope Boniface had Ecumenical sanction.
Indeed, in his reference to St Cyril my opponent ignores crucial notes at the
decisions of Ephesus. He references a discussion with between St Cyril of
Alexandria and Pope Celestine which is telling: "Wherefore, having assumed
unto yourself the authority of our See, and using our stead and our place with
authority, you shall execute this sentence with the utmost strictness."The
Pope’s phrase is interesting because my opponent assumes that the use of the term
"our" refers solely to the Roman Church. This does not match the
interpretation given, however, by St Gregory the Great, Pope of Rome:
St Gregory , Pope of Rome, Epistle XL, To
Eulogius of Alexandria: Your most sweet Holiness has spoken much in your letter
to me about the chair of Saint Peter, Prince of the apostles, saying that he
himself now sits on it in the persons of his successors. And indeed I
acknowledge myself to be unworthy, not only in the dignity of such as preside,
but even in the number of such as stand. But I gladly accepted all that has
been said, in that he has spoken to me about Peter's chair who occupies Peter's
chair. …And to him it is said by the voice of the Truth, To thee I will give
the keys of the kingdom of heaven (Matth. xvi. 19). And again it is said to
him, And when thou art converted, strengthen thy brethren (xxii. 32). And once
more, Simon, son of Jonas, lovest thou Me? Feed my sheep (Joh. xxi. 17).
Wherefore though there are many apostles, yet with regard to the principality
itself the See of the Prince of the apostles alone has grown strong in
authority, which in three places is the See of one.
Clearly St Gregory is
referring back to the canons of the Council of Nicea (325, see opening) which
label the three Patriarchal sees as Rome, Alexandria and Antioch. All three are
Petrine: Antioch was established by St Peter’s disciple, St Mark: and St Peter
established the Church in Alexandria before enduring martyrdom in Rome. St
Gregory would then attack St John the Faster’s use of the title
"Ecumenical Patriarch" for Constantionople on the basis that the
authority of both Alexandria and Antioch would be subverted. While the Papal
legates judge Nestorius at the Council of Ephesus, it should be noted that the
judgment required the ratification of the Council, headed by St Cyril: Cyril,
the bishop of Alexandria said: The professions which have been made by Arcadius
and Projectus, the most holy and pious bishops, as also by Philip, the most
religious presbyter of the Roman Church, stand manifest to the holy Synod. For
they have made their profession in the place of the Apostolic See, and of the
whole of the holy synod of the God-beloved and most holy bishops of the West.
Wherefore let those things which were defined by the most holy Coelestine, the
God-beloved bishop, be carried into effect, and the vote east against Nestorius
the heretic, by the holy Synod, which met in the metropolis of Ephesus be
agreed to universally; for this purpose let there be added to the already
prepared acts the proceedings of yesterday and today, and let them be shewn to
their holiness, so that by their subscription according to custom, their
canonical agreement with all of us may be manifest. (Session III.)
I give no credence to the
appeals of the heretics following Dioscorus. If we were to do so, one could
credibly argue that the heretical council that "deposed" Pope Julius
acted in a wholly canonical manner.
While my opponent correctly
quotes the legates to the Council of Chalcedon (though there remains the argument
due to the poor Latin that the text has been corrupted), he neglects to mention
that the judges considered it insufficient to point solely to Rome’s authority,
and the Legates are forced to point out that a man under judgement should not
sit among judges:
The most glorious judges and the full
senate, said: It is proper that you should set forth specifically in what he
hath goneastray. Lucentius, the venerable bishop and holding the place of the
Apostolic See, said: We will not suffer so great a wrong to be done us and you,
as that he who is come to be judged should sit down [as one to give
judgment].The glorious judges and the whole senate said: If you hold the office
of judge, you ought not to defend yourself as if you were to be judged.(LC Concilia,
tome iv col 93)
My opponent claims that the
Papal Legates simply condemned Dioscorus and the Synod obeyed. He neglects the
actual judgment of the Synod, which was that Dioscorus had violated the canons
in the formation of the robber-council in terms of refusing to come to judgment
by the selfsame Synod:
We do you to wit that on
the thirteenth day of the month of October you were deposed … by the holy and
ecumenical synod, on account of your disregard of the divine canons, and of
your disobedience to this holy and ecumenical synod and on account of the other
crimes of which you have been found guilty, for even when called to answer your
accusers three times by this holy and great synod according to the divine
canons you did not come. (LC Concilia tom iv col 459)
I will not waste time with
the sorry affair of the Libellus of Hormisdas, an unclear document that was
signed by the majority of the Eastern Bishops under duress -- which my opponent
admits-- unless called upon it later. Such a crudely "adopted"
document carried no ecumenical sanction and certainly no Patristic weight.
The case of St Maximus the
confessor is interesting. There is certainly no real implication of what my
opponent is attempting to prove, since Sts Martin and Maximus were fighting a heresy;
I refer back yet again to the canon of the First-Second Council. As to whether
St Maximus recognized Roman Primacy, since he solely held communion with Rome
and had broken communion with the monothelite sees. From the life of St Maximus
the confessor (print: HTM, Boston 1982):
"To which church
do you belong? To that of Byzantium, of Rome, Antioch, Alexandria, or
Jerusalem?"… To this the righteous man wisely replied, "Christ the
Lord called that Church the Catholic Church which maintains the true and saving
confession of the Faith. It was for this confession that He called Peter
blessed, and He declared that He would found His Church upon this confession.
However, I wish to know the contents of your confession, on the basis of which
all churches, as you say, have entered into communion. If it is not opposed to
the truth, then neither will I be separated from it."
The confession which they were proposing
to the Saint was not Orthodox, of course, and so he refused to comply with
their coercions….
The Saint said,
"They [the Patriarchs of Constantinople and Alexandria and all the other
heretical bishops of the East] have been deposed and deprived of the priesthood
at the local synod
which took place recently in Rome. What Mysteries, then, can they perform? Or
what spirit will descend upon those who are ordained by them?"
[To this the
interrogator asked if St Maximus alone would be saved; he replies that he
cannot say, but that he would rather die than unite to heresy.—JS.]
"But what will
you do," inquired the envoys, "when the Romans are united to the
Byzantines? Yesterday, indeed, two delegates arrived from Rome and tomorrow,
the Lord's day, they will communicate the Holy Mysteries with the Patriarch.
"
The Saint replied,
"Even if the whole universe holds communion with the Patriarch, I will not
communicate with him. For I know from the writings of the holy Apostle Paul:
the Holy Spirit declares that even the angels would be anathema if they should
begin to preach another Gospel, introducing some new teaching."
The Pope who would
introduce the succumb to the teaching of monothelitism in the Roman Church
would be Pope Honorius, condemned by the Sixth Ecumenical Council.
The premise remains for
nothing of substance has been demonstrated to the contrary.