Roman Falsification of Church Canons

Michael Seraphim

Sr. Member
Warned
Post Moderated
Joined
Feb 27, 2018
Messages
152
Reaction score
12
Points
18
Location
Indonesia
'Daniel the Notary read the Commonitorium. To our brother Faustinus and to our sons, the presbyters Philip and Asellus, Zosimus, the bishop. You well remember that we committed to you certain businesses, and now [we bid you] carry out all things as if we ourselves were there (for), indeed, our presence is there with you; especially since you have this our commandment, and the words of the canons which for greater certainty we have inserted in this our commonitory. For thus said our brethren in the Council of Nicaea when they made these decrees concerning the appeals of bishops:
But it seemed good that if a bishop had been accused, etc. [Here follows verbatim Canon v. of Sardica.]
Ancient epitome: If bishops shall have deposed a bishop, and if he appeal to the Roman bishop, he should be benignantly heard, the Roman bishop writing or ordering.
And when this had been read, Alypius, bishop of the Tagastine Church, and legate of the province of Numidia, said: On this matter there has been some legislation in former sessions of our council, and we profess that we shall ever observe what was decreed by the Nicene Council; yet I remember that when we examined the Greek copies of this Nicene Synod, we did not find these the words quoted — Why this was the case, I am sure I do not know. For this reason we beg your reverence, holy Pope Aurelius, that, as the authentic record of the decrees of the Council of Nicaea are said to be preserved in the city of Constantinople, you would deign to send messengers with letters from your Holiness, and not only to our most holy brother the bishop of Constantinople, but also to the venerable bishops of Alexandria and Antioch, who shall send to us the decrees of that council with the authentification of their signatures, so that hereafter all ambiguity should be taken away, for we failed to find the words cited by our brother Faustinus; notwithstanding this however we promise to be ruled by them for a short time, as I have already said, until reliable copies come to hand. Moreover the venerable bishop of the Roman Church, Boniface, should be asked likewise to be good enough to send messengers to the aforementioned churches, who should have the same copies according to his rescript, but the copies of the aforementioned Nicene Council which we have, we place in these Acts

Faustinus the bishop, legate of the Roman Church, said: Let not your holiness do dishonour to the Roman Church, either in this matter or in any other, by saying the canons are doubtful, as our brother and fellow bishop Alypius has vouchsafed to say: but do you deign to write these things to our holy and most blessed pope, so that he seeking out the genuine canons, can treat with your holiness on all matters decreed. But it suffices that the most blessed bishop of the city of Rome should make enquiry just as your holiness proposes doing on your part, that there may not seem to have arisen any contention between the Churches, but that you may the rather be enabled to deliberate with fraternal charity, when he has been heard from, what is best should be observed

And when this had been read, Augustine, the bishop of the Church of Hippo of the province of Numidia, said: We promise that this shall be observed by us, provided that upon more careful examination it be found to be of the Council of Nicaea. Aurelius the bishop said. If this also is pleasing to the charity of you all, give it the confirmation of your vote. The whole Council said: Everything that has been ordained by the Nicene Council pleases us all. Jocundus, the bishop of the Church of Suffitula, legate of the province of Byzacena, said: What was decreed by the Nicene Council cannot in any particular be violated

Faustinus the bishop, legate of the Roman Church, said: So far as has developed by the confession of your holiness as well as of the holy Alypius, and of our brother Jocundus, I believe that some of the points have been made weak and others confirmed, which should not be the case, since even the very canons themselves have been brought into question. Therefore, that there may be harmony between us and your blessedness, let your holiness deign to refer the matter to the holy and venerable bishop of the Roman Church, that he may be able to consider whether what St. Augustine vouchsafed to enact, should be conceded or not, I mean in the matter of appeals of the inferior grade. If therefore there still is doubt, on this head it is right that the bishop of the most blessed see be informed, if this can be found in the canons which have been approved...'
 

Michael Seraphim

Sr. Member
Warned
Post Moderated
Joined
Feb 27, 2018
Messages
152
Reaction score
12
Points
18
Location
Indonesia
Answers from Cyril of Alexandria and Atticus of Constantinople

Canon 135. (Not numbered in the Greek.)
Here begin the rescripts to the African Council from Cyril bishop of Alexandria in which he sends the authentic proceedings of the Nicene Council, translated from the Greek by Innocent the presbyter: these letters with the same Nicene council were also sent through the aforementioned presbyter Innocent and by Marcellus a subdeacon of the Church of Carthage, to the holy Boniface, bishop of the Roman Church, on the sixth day before the calends of December in the year 419.

To the most honourable lords, our holy brethren and fellow bishops, Aurelius, Valentinus, as well as to the whole holy synod met in Carthage, Cyril salutes your holiness in God.

I have received with all joy at the hands of our son, the presbyter Innocent, the letters of your reverence so full of piety, in which you express the hope that we will send you most accurate copies of the decrees of the holy Fathers at the Synod held at Nice the metropolis of Bithynia from the archives of our church; with our own certificate of accuracy attached thereto. In answer to which request, most honourable lords and brethren, I have thought it necessary to send to you, with our compliments, by our son, Innocent the presbyter, the bearer of these, most faithful copies of the decisions of the synod held at Nice in Bithynia. And when you have sought in the history of the church, you will find them there also. Concerning Easter, as you have written, we announce to you that we shall celebrate it on the xviii before the calends of May of the next indiction. The subscription. May God and our Lord preserve your holy synod as we desire, dear brethren.

Canon 136. (Not numbered in the Greek but with a new heading.)
Here begins the letter of Atticus, bishop of Constantinople to the same


To our holy lords, and rightly most blessed brethren and fellow bishops, Aurelius, Valentine, and to the other beloved ones met together in the Synod held at Carthage, Atticus the bishop.

By our son Marcellus the subdeacon, I have received with all thanksgiving the writings of your holiness, praising the Lord that I enjoyed the blessing of so many of my brethren. O my lords and most blessed brethren, you have written asking me to send you most accurate copies of the canons enacted at the city of Nice, the metropolis of Bithynia, by the Fathers for the exposition of the faith. And who is there that would deny to his brethren the common faith, or the statutes decreed by the Fathers. Wherefore by the same son of mine, Marcellus, your subdeacon, who was in great haste, I have sent to you the canons in full as they were adopted by the Fathers in the city of Nice; and I ask of you that your holy synod would have me much in your prayers. The subscription. May our God keep your sanctity, as we desire, most holy brethren.

Canon 137. (Continuation of the last in the Greek.)
Here begin the examples of the Nicene Council, sent on the sixth day before the calends of December in the year 419, after the consulate of the most glorious emperor Honorius for the XIIth time, and Theodosius for the IX th time, Augustuses, to Boniface the bishop of the City of Rome.

We believe in one God etc....the Catholic and Apostolic Church anathematizes them.

To this symbol of the faith there were also annexed copies of the statutes of the same Nicene Councils from the aforenamed pontiffs, in all respects as are contained above; which we do not think it necessary to write out here again.
 

Michael Seraphim

Sr. Member
Warned
Post Moderated
Joined
Feb 27, 2018
Messages
152
Reaction score
12
Points
18
Location
Indonesia
Rome tried to pass off a Sardican Canon [Canon V] as an Ecumenical Canon [of Nicaea] to justify meddling in the affairs of the Church of Africa. The Church of Africa didn't just take Rome's word for it, and sent letters to check with the Churches of Constantinople, Alexandria, and Antioch

Papal delegates actually tried to prevent the Church of Africa from doing this, and begged them to deign to refer the matter to Boniface

But this wasn't the only time Rome tried to falsify Church Canon
 

Michael Seraphim

Sr. Member
Warned
Post Moderated
Joined
Feb 27, 2018
Messages
152
Reaction score
12
Points
18
Location
Indonesia
Michael Seraphim, you were just given two verbal warnings for spamming threads, which you have ignored. I am giving you 200 points for 2 weeks for this most recent salvo of posts. If you wish to appeal, you may do so vis PM. Thanks. —Ainnir

HOLY AND ECUMENICAL SYNOD OF CHALCEDON
Extracts from the Acts.

Session XVI.

'Paschasinus and Lucentius, the most reverend bishops, holding the place of the Apostolic See, said: If your magnificence so orders, we have something to lay before you.

The most glorious judges, said: Say what you wish...

...The most glorious judges said: Let each party quote the canon.

Paschasinus, the most reverend bishop and representative, read: Canon Six of the 318 holy fathers, “The Roman Church hath always had the primacy. Let Egypt therefore so hold itself that the bishop of Alexandria have the authority over all, for this is also the custom as regards the bishop of Rome. So too at Antioch and in the other provinces let the churches of the larger cities have the primacy...

...Constantine, the secretary, read from a book handed him by Aëtius, the archdeacon; Canon Six of the 318 holy Fathers. “Let the ancient customs prevail, those of Egypt, 294so that the bishop of Alexandria shall have jurisdiction over all, since this also is the custom at Rome. Likewise at Antioch and in the rest of the provinces, let the rank (πρεσβεῖα) be preserved to the churches. For this is absolutely clear that if anyone contrary to the will of the metropolitan be ordained bishop, such an one the great synod decreed should not be a bishop. If however by the common vote of all, founded upon reason, and according to the canons, two or three moved by their own obstinacy, make opposition, let the vote of the majority stand...'
 

xariskai

OC.Net Guru
Warned
Joined
Dec 27, 2008
Messages
1,664
Reaction score
21
Points
38
Tip of an iceberg.

"...perhaps half the legal documents we possess from Merovingian times and perhaps two-thirds of all documents issued to ecclesiastics before AD 1199 are fakes... The basic code of canon law, Gratian's Decretum, contains some five hundred forged legal texts" (Anthony Grafton, Forgers and Critics (Princeton University Press, 1990), pp. 224f.).
 

Michael Seraphim

Sr. Member
Warned
Post Moderated
Joined
Feb 27, 2018
Messages
152
Reaction score
12
Points
18
Location
Indonesia
The reason Rome mistakenly quoted a canon from Sardica as a Nicene canon was not because of forgery or a an attempt to associate Nicaea with this canon but because in the Roman list of canons there was no break or separation between the canons of Nicaea and those of Sardica so it was so it was easy to make this mistake (if you weren’t informed)

For someone who is quoting heavily on this episode, you should know this.
It could have been an honest mistake, sure. But the reaction of the Roman delegate was very telling. When Aurelius and his brother Bishops made the decision to send letters of inquiry to the Greek Churches, the Roman delegate Faustinus begged them to not do this. Why would Rome react in this manner, if it was all an honest mistake?

And when this had been read, Augustine, the bishop of the Church of Hippo of the province of Numidia, said: We promise that this shall be observed by us, provided that upon more careful examination it be found to be of the Council of Nicaea. Aurelius the bishop said. If this also is pleasing to the charity of you all, give it the confirmation of your vote. The whole Council said: Everything that has been ordained by the Nicene Council pleases us all. Jocundus, the bishop of the Church of Suffitula, legate of the province of Byzacena, said: What was decreed by the Nicene Council cannot in any particular be violated

Faustinus the bishop, legate of the Roman Church, said: So far as has developed by the confession of your holiness as well as of the holy Alypius, and of our brother Jocundus, I believe that some of the points have been made weak and others confirmed, which should not be the case, since even the very canons themselves have been brought into question. Therefore, that there may be harmony between us and your blessedness, let your holiness deign to refer the matter to the holy and venerable bishop of the Roman Church, that he may be able to consider whether what St. Augustine vouchsafed to enact, should be conceded or not, I mean in the matter of appeals of the inferior grade. If therefore there still is doubt, on this head it is right that the bishop of the most blessed see be informed, if this can be found in the canons which have been approved...'

Another thing to consider is the position of the misrepresented Canon, which is Canon V of Sardica = very near the beginning of the set

Sneaky sneaky once tampering always tampering...
 
Last edited:

Ainnir

Taxiarches
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
Apr 29, 2015
Messages
5,951
Reaction score
173
Points
63
Age
37
Michael Seraphim, you'll notice this reply was moved from a different thread. From now on, keep these and all such posts in Religious Topics, where debate and light polemics are actually allowed. If any more polemical posts of yours find their way into nonpolemical fora, you will receive more points. Thanks.
--Ainnir
 

Wandile

Archon
Warned
Post Moderated
Joined
Nov 14, 2012
Messages
3,265
Reaction score
21
Points
38
Location
Johannesburg, South Africa
It could have been an honest mistake, sure. But the reaction of the Roman delegate was very telling. When Aurelius and his brother Bishops made the decision to send letters of inquiry to the Greek Churches, the Roman delegate Faustinus begged them to not do this. Why would Rome react in this manner, if it was all an honest mistake?

And when this had been read, Augustine, the bishop of the Church of Hippo of the province of Numidia, said: We promise that this shall be observed by us, provided that upon more careful examination it be found to be of the Council of Nicaea. Aurelius the bishop said. If this also is pleasing to the charity of you all, give it the confirmation of your vote. The whole Council said: Everything that has been ordained by the Nicene Council pleases us all. Jocundus, the bishop of the Church of Suffitula, legate of the province of Byzacena, said: What was decreed by the Nicene Council cannot in any particular be violated

Faustinus the bishop, legate of the Roman Church, said: So far as has developed by the confession of your holiness as well as of the holy Alypius, and of our brother Jocundus, I believe that some of the points have been made weak and others confirmed, which should not be the case, since even the very canons themselves have been brought into question. Therefore, that there may be harmony between us and your blessedness, let your holiness deign to refer the matter to the holy and venerable bishop of the Roman Church, that he may be able to consider whether what St. Augustine vouchsafed to enact, should be conceded or not, I mean in the matter of appeals of the inferior grade. If therefore there still is doubt, on this head it is right that the bishop of the most blessed see be informed, if this can be found in the canons which have been approved...'

Another thing to consider is the position of the misrepresented Canon, which is Canon V of Sardica = very near the beginning of the set

Sneaky sneaky once tampering always tampering...
This is not a theory, it’s fact. The Roman list of Canons did not separate those of Nicaea from Sardica. It’s not up for debate. It’s historical fact. This is why this happened.

What’s important is Rome was actually quoting a real canon which even North African church accepted when their members attended Sardica. The reason why this became controversial was because of the incorrect attribution to Nicaea of a Sardican canon (Bare in mind the whole church accepted Sardica).
 

Wandile

Archon
Warned
Post Moderated
Joined
Nov 14, 2012
Messages
3,265
Reaction score
21
Points
38
Location
Johannesburg, South Africa
Tip of an iceberg.

"...perhaps half the legal documents we possess from Merovingian times and perhaps two-thirds of all documents issued to ecclesiastics before AD 1199 are fakes... The basic code of canon law, Gratian's Decretum, contains some five hundred forged legal texts" (Anthony Grafton, Forgers and Critics (Princeton University Press, 1990), pp. 224f.).
Perhaps... solid that.

Nevermind that in most cases the same west you accuse is honest enough to expose forgeries in their own texts. The east, particularly the Byzantine east, seem to like to pretend that forgery doesn’t exists their side when in actual fact, forgery was more prevalent there than any other part of the church.

The Latins and Alexandrians regularly complained about this “habit” of Greeks, as they called it.
 
Last edited:

Michael Seraphim

Sr. Member
Warned
Post Moderated
Joined
Feb 27, 2018
Messages
152
Reaction score
12
Points
18
Location
Indonesia
Why doesn't the Roman list of Canons separate the Canons of Nicaea from Sardica? What would be the reason to mix the two of them together? The Synod of Nicaea was convened in 325 and the Synod of Sardica was convened in 344 = 19 years for the Canons of the Synod of Nicaea to be listed in a list by themselves

I can see why it would be important when Roma actually quoted a real Canon

You have once asserted and the second time now moving the post from 'most writers quoted forgeries, both Eastern and Western' to 'the Byzantine East pretends that forgery didn't exist on their side'. May I ask what is the reason for this shifty way of speaking?

Regardless the fact remains that Aquinas not only quoted from the Pseudo-Isidorian Decretals [136 times] in Summa Theological, but he actually used the Pseudo-Isidorian Decretals to build the justification for Papal supremacy
 

Michael Seraphim

Sr. Member
Warned
Post Moderated
Joined
Feb 27, 2018
Messages
152
Reaction score
12
Points
18
Location
Indonesia
19 years from 325 [Nicaea] to 344 [Sardica] = this period of time spanned three Bishops of Rome = Sylvester, Mark, Julius I, and you're telling me that for 19 years Rome didn't know where the Canons of Nicaea belong?

Too flimsy even for flimsy
 

xariskai

OC.Net Guru
Warned
Joined
Dec 27, 2008
Messages
1,664
Reaction score
21
Points
38
xariskai said:
Tip of an iceberg.

"...perhaps half the legal documents we possess from Merovingian times and perhaps two-thirds of all documents issued to ecclesiastics before AD 1199 are fakes... The basic code of canon law, Gratian's Decretum, contains some five hundred forged legal texts" (Anthony Grafton, Forgers and Critics (Princeton University Press, 1990), pp. 224f.)
Perhaps... solid that.

Nevermind that in most cases the same west you accuse is honest enough to expose forgeries in their own texts. The east, particularly the Byzantine east, seem to like to pretend that forgery doesn’t exists their side when in actual fact, forgery was more prevalent there than any other part of the church.

The Latins and Alexandrians regularly complained about this “habit” of Greeks, as they called it.
What?

"Nevermind that in most cases the same west you accuse..."

I made no personal accusation. Do you know what quotation marks designate?

"The east, particularly the Byzantine east, seem to like to pretend that forgery doesn’t exists..."

Nor did I or the author quoted make any remark whatsoever about "West vs. East"; it is completely irrelevant to the point the author makes.

"Perhaps... solid that."
As to contemporary scholarship, or even canon law scholarship, such assessments are standard mainstream academic fare today. If you are shocked by the content as if it is not a pretty run of the mill or suppose the author's usage of "perhaps" indicates he might after all think the degree of forgeries for the period are something less than utterly massive you might want to try reading outside the hyper-apologist internet ghetto.

The only substance in your commentary even close to trying to relate to something that was actually said is a grossly out of context interpretation of the author's word, "perhaps" in a manner which seems light years shy of reflecting the author's intended usage of it, as if it might say imply the author's reckoning of the degree of canon law forgeries for the period might really be something less than astronomical.

I haven't really interacted with you or read your posts in the past and generally wouldn't want to be unfair with a fellow on the first go, but my troll meter is off the chart here given your complete lack precision or substance, the apparent hyperdox hysteria, my troll meter is off the chart. You seem to have an axe to grind -the edge is very dull. If this is a good example of your style and you are not just having a really, really bad day you will soon be on my bore ignore list.[/QUOTE]
 
Last edited:

Wandile

Archon
Warned
Post Moderated
Joined
Nov 14, 2012
Messages
3,265
Reaction score
21
Points
38
Location
Johannesburg, South Africa
I think my aggression is spurned by a thread dedicated to smearing the west as if the east is innocent of the same crimes and charges of falsification if not even at a grander scale

It’s the Hypocrisy that annoys me.
 

Wandile

Archon
Warned
Post Moderated
Joined
Nov 14, 2012
Messages
3,265
Reaction score
21
Points
38
Location
Johannesburg, South Africa
Why doesn't the Roman list of Canons separate the Canons of Nicaea from Sardica? What would be the reason to mix the two of them together? The Synod of Nicaea was convened in 325 and the Synod of Sardica was convened in 344 = 19 years for the Canons of the Synod of Nicaea to be listed in a list by themselves
Most likely the canonist/s who wrote down the Roman list assumed everyone was familiar with the canons of each council and thus would identify them upon reading them. So simply put, sloppiness.

I can see why it would be important when Roma actually quoted a real Canon

You have once asserted and the second time now moving the post from 'most writers quoted forgeries, both Eastern and Western' to 'the Byzantine East pretends that forgery didn't exist on their side'. May I ask what is the reason for this shifty way of speaking?
I don’t see the reason why you would create a threat to smear the west as if the east is innocent of forgery on their part. This is why I keep bringing this up.

Regardless the fact remains that Aquinas not only quoted from the Pseudo-Isidorian Decretals [136 times] in Summa Theological, but he actually used the Pseudo-Isidorian Decretals to build the justification for Papal supremacy
Why are you speaking about Aquinas? Nobody mentioned Aquinas in this thread?
 

Michael Seraphim

Sr. Member
Warned
Post Moderated
Joined
Feb 27, 2018
Messages
152
Reaction score
12
Points
18
Location
Indonesia
Most likely the canonist/s who wrote down the Roman list assumed everyone was familiar with the canons of each council and thus would identify them upon reading them. So simply put, sloppiness.



I don’t see the reason why you would create a threat to smear the west as if the east is innocent of forgery on their part. This is why I keep bringing this up.



Why are you speaking about Aquinas? Nobody mentioned Aquinas in this thread?
Ridiculous. Rome had the Nicene Canons for 19 years before Sardica. Your excuse doesn't add up. It was highly probable that Zosimus deliberately misrepresented a Sardican Canon as a Nicene Canon

Facts are not smears. Live with it

You have been saying that yes. Go ahead and substantiate. We condemn forgeries, and this is why you do not find false canons or false quotations of Church Fathers underlying our Orthodox Catholic Faith. And it was not for no reason that the Bishops of Africa sought confirmation of the Nicene Canons from Alexandria, Antioch, and Constanstinople

But historically with the Papacy, one can see that falsehood was not condemned but instead perpetuated and covered up until protestors exposed the falsehood

I must have been thinking of another thread. Regardless, it is a FACT that Aquinas not only quoted from the Pseudo-Isidorian Decretals [136 times] in Summa Theological, but he actually used the Pseudo-Isidorian Decretals to build the justification for Papal supremacy

A telling fact, this
 

xariskai

OC.Net Guru
Warned
Joined
Dec 27, 2008
Messages
1,664
Reaction score
21
Points
38
"I think my aggression is spurned by a thread dedicated to smearing the west"

I don't know you well, Wandle, but I just scanned some of your posts.
As far as I can tell virtually your whole purpose of existence seems to be engaging in hyperdox RC polemics in an EO forum.
You justify "aggression" over criticism aimed at one side of an E/W divide.
It's like being called ugly by a frog.
Much of this is just history that not generally regarded as polemical. Certainly the Grafton quotation that gave you fits is in this category.


"I think my aggression is spurned"
Always follow your heart ...but take your brains with you.
"Aggression" is bad form enough of itself when not coupled with gross misrepresentation of an academic quote[1] and false personal accusations toward posters -the primary problems with your bad reply above rather than "aggression." Replaced adjcective- Pravoslavbob

"I think my aggression is spurned by a thread dedicated to smearing the west as if the east is innocent of the same crimes and charges of falsification if not even at a grander scale"

If a boy serial rapist tells us he was raped by a pedophile priest we would not in our right mind reply:
"the boy is speaking as if himself innocent" or "that boy has raped more than the priest so accusations the priest raped him are just a smear"
If the priest committed rape that is a serious crime of itself independent of whether the child-accuser was a rapist too.

And do not tell us there is some sort of "smear" going on simply on the basis the accuser (child) is not himself innocent.
A thing is not a "smear" if it is true.
If you want to start proceedings investigating the child for rape as well no one who cares about justice is going to object; rape is a serious enough matter to warrant attention no matter no matter who commits it.


"...as if the east is innocent of the same crimes and charges of falsification if not even at a grander scale"

Really? Interesting. Please start a thread.
That said I think neither the east nor virtually person or group on the planet in any century can top the west in late antiquity for sheer volume of legal forgeries, most creating and/or expanding prerogatives of the papacy, is something well beyond serious academic dispute.[1]

Meanwhile shush all this talk about forgeries in the west because the east was bad too and if the west made a mistake it was probably totally innocent. [paraphrased]

___________________________
[1] "...perhaps half the legal documents we possess from Merovingian times and perhaps two-thirds of all documents issued to ecclesiastics before AD 1199 are fakes... The basic code of canon law, Gratian's Decretum, contains some five hundred forged legal texts" (Anthony Grafton, Forgers and Critics (Princeton University Press, 1990), pp. 224f.).
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Wandile

Archon
Warned
Post Moderated
Joined
Nov 14, 2012
Messages
3,265
Reaction score
21
Points
38
Location
Johannesburg, South Africa
Ridiculous. Rome had the Nicene Canons for 19 years before Sardica. Your excuse doesn't add up. It was highly probable that Zosimus deliberately misrepresented a Sardican Canon as a Nicene Canon

Firstly you asked me to explain something based on what I thought. That’s what I think the canonists did. Bare in mind that the list of canons may have been written up any time after Nicaea and Sardica regardless of how many years the acts of Nicaea were held. The Roman list contained no separation between canons.

Sardica was a venerable council in its own right and in that time as practically ecumenical (in fact it was called as such). It did not Nicene force as the whole accepted Sardica. So yes all evidence points sloppiness and only your willfulness and determination of wanting to make Rome the big bad enemy is what is making you charge a saint in your church withdeliberate

Facts are not smears. Live with it
They become smears when you don’t present the full set of facts or present them without showing the other side to stories. Which is what you have done in this thread repeatedly. This thread was written out of pure intent to smear Rome and make Byzantium look like saints when the historical record shows Byzantium to the part of the church most plagued by the practice of forgery bar none.
You can see how well and alive this practice was during the days of Photius alone or how the Chalcedonian acts in Greek have been falsified in such a way as to rearrange the proceedings to make Canon 28 look more legitimate when in fact the Roman acts show the true picture on this matter (A fact confirmed by modern historians). We have the issue of Orgiens name being latter added to list of condemnations in the 5th council well after the council was long held and completed. I can go into more major things but suffice to say this just shows that you should look at the log in your eye before pointing out the speck in others eyes.


You have been saying that yes. Go ahead and substantiate. We condemn forgeries, and this is why you do not find false canons or false quotations of Church Fathers underlying our Orthodox Catholic Faith.
The apostolic canons are literally forgeries. The Photian council that you call the 8th ecumenical contains a forged letter of Pope John and contains in its acts, prelates/Vicars who didn’t existand bishops of sees that didn’t exist.

I am not going fight with you over this. What I mentioned alone above is enough. You must do your own homework. witThe apostolic canons are literally forgeries.

Let me just leave you with this. St Cyril in his time already complained about his letters being tampered with by the Greeks. St. Leo the Great in his “Epistle to the Palestinians” (83) already complained that, not keeping in mind his being a living witness, the Greeks had altered his “Epistle to Flavian”. Gregory (vol. V, epistle 14 to Narsis) asserted that the Constantinopolitans did corrupt the Chalcedonian Synod and that he suspected they did the same with the Ephesian Council. He adds that the Roman manuscripts are much more trustworthy than the Grecian ones, “because, as the Romans are less subtle, they are also less inclined to perfidy”.

A last example: Nicolas I in his epistle to Michael refers the Emperor to Hadrian's letter with these words:

“It is still intact, exactly as it was originally sent by the Apostolic See, in the hands of the Constantinopolitan clergy, if however, it has not been tampered with according to the Greeks' habit.”


. And it was not for no reason that the Bishops of Africa sought confirmation of the Nicene Canons from Alexandria, Antioch, and Constanstinople
Yes they identified and inaccuracy

But historically with the Papacy, one can see that falsehood was not condemned but instead perpetuated and covered up until protestors exposed the falsehood
The western church themselves exposed most of these forgeries so I don’t know what nonsense this is.

I must have been thinking of another thread. Regardless, it is a FACT that Aquinas not only quoted from the Pseudo-Isidorian Decretals [136 times] in Summa Theological, but he actually used the Pseudo-Isidorian Decretals to build the justification for Papal supremacy

A telling fact, this
First and foremost Aquinas didn’t know they were forged as they were only later exposed to be forged (by westerners the themselves) and as a matter of accuracy, the decretals form the least basis of his justification of the papacy so this completely falls apart.
 
Last edited:

Wandile

Archon
Warned
Post Moderated
Joined
Nov 14, 2012
Messages
3,265
Reaction score
21
Points
38
Location
Johannesburg, South Africa
"Really? Interesting. Please start a thread.
That said I think neither the east nor virtually person or group on the planet in any century can top the west in late antiquity for sheer volume of legal forgeries, most creating and/or expanding prerogatives of the papacy, is something well beyond serious academic dispute.
Wait until you study the history of forgery in Byzantium. It will make the west look like saints. I have seen that a lot of the time you guys take it for granted that because a document is written in Greek, that it’s authentic. But no I haven’t got time to create thread to smear the east for forgeries (which would be a relatively easy task) as I have a life and this would severe nobody any good
 

Michael Seraphim

Sr. Member
Warned
Post Moderated
Joined
Feb 27, 2018
Messages
152
Reaction score
12
Points
18
Location
Indonesia
Firstly you asked me to explain something based on what I thought. That’s what I think the canonists did. Bare in mind that the list of canons may have been written up any time after Nicaea and Sardica regardless of how many years the acts of Nicaea were held. The Roman list contained no separation between canons.

Sardica was a venerable council in its own right and in that time as practically ecumenical (in fact it was called as such). It did not Nicene force as the whole accepted Sardica. So yes all evidence points sloppiness and only your willfulness and determination of wanting to make Rome the big bad enemy is what is making you charge a saint in your church withdeliberate



They become smears when you don’t present the full set of facts or present them without showing the other side to stories. Which is what you have done in this thread repeatedly. This thread was written out of pure intent to smear Rome and make Byzantium look like saints when the historical record shows Byzantium to the part of the church most plagued by the practice of forgery bar none.
You can see how well and alive this practice was during the days of Photius alone or how the Chalcedonian acts in Greek have been falsified in such a way as to rearrange the proceedings to make Canon 28 look more legitimate when in fact the Roman acts show the true picture on this matter (A fact confirmed by modern historians). We have the issue of Orgiens name being latter added to list of condemnations in the 5th council well after the council was long held and completed. I can go into more major things but suffice to say this just shows that you should look at the log in your eye before pointing out the speck in others eyes.




The apostolic canons are literally forgeries. The Photian council that you call the 8th ecumenical contains a forged letter of Pope John and contains in its acts, prelates/Vicars who didn’t existand bishops of sees that didn’t exist.

I am not going fight with you over this. What I mentioned alone above is enough. You must do your own homework. witThe apostolic canons are literally forgeries.

Let me just leave you with this. St Cyril in his time already complained about his letters being tampered with by the Greeks. St. Leo the Great in his “Epistle to the Palestinians” (83) already complained that, not keeping in mind his being a living witness, the Greeks had altered his “Epistle to Flavian”. Gregory (vol. V, epistle 14 to Narsis) asserted that the Constantinopolitans did corrupt the Chalcedonian Synod and that he suspected they did the same with the Ephesian Council. He adds that the Roman manuscripts are much more trustworthy than the Grecian ones, “because, as the Romans are less subtle, they are also less inclined to perfidy”.

A last example: Nicolas I in his epistle to Michael refers the Emperor to Hadrian's letter with these words:

“It is still intact, exactly as it was originally sent by the Apostolic See, in the hands of the Constantinopolitan clergy, if however, it has not been tampered with according to the Greeks' habit.”



Yes they identified and inaccuracy



The western church themselves exposed most of these forgeries so I don’t know what nonsense this is.



First and foremost Aquinas didn’t know they were forged as they were only later exposed to be forged (by westerners the themselves) and as a matter of accuracy, the decretals form the least basis of his justification of the papacy so this completely falls apart.
A. Naturally you would attempt to construct hypothetical situations and moving the narrative away from the spotlight. Fact is fact. Rome had the Nicene Canons for 19 years. There were also other Synodical Canons between Nicaea and Sardica. Now what happened was that Boniface [apologies not Zosimus] most likely deliberately misrepresented a Sardican Canon as a Nicene Canon, because that Sardican Canon contained a tenor that would seem to privilege Rome's claim to supremacy

B. The reverse did not hold true for the [supposedly forged] Apostolic Canons, which contain nothing that can be construed as benefitting the Eastern Church. The Apostolic Canons were also universally accepted before Rome started, for some reason, to cast doubts on them

C. Substantiate your assertion that the letter of John VIII was genuine. Substantiate Nicholas' claim. Western people back then exposed the forgeries, against the will of Papacy. That's why we had the Reformation in Continental and Anglican church in Britain happening in the 16th century. Now you try to claim credit for exposing forgeries for a vague 'West'. Although I can say that this method of [mis-]representation is typical, I cannot say that it is in anyway less disappointing or not surprising

The fact remains: Rome attempted to pass of a Sardican Canon as a Nicene Canon in Carthage 419, and changed/added to Canon VI of Nicaea in Chalcedon 451
 

xariskai

OC.Net Guru
Warned
Joined
Dec 27, 2008
Messages
1,664
Reaction score
21
Points
38
An angel does not get its wings when a hyperdox attempt to defend the "relative honor" of forgeries by claiming everybody is a forger.

Wandle's little list hardly compares bulk-wise to 2/3 of all letters to clerics in the west before 1199 being forged and half it's entire corpus of canon law. It's like comparing peanuts to elephants.

Wantle's whole insubstantial "argument" boils down to the Fallacy of Relative Privation (AKA Not As Bad As Fallacy).
As Lucius Annaeus Seneca famously remarked, "To be good it is not enough to be better than the worst." Replaced adjective - Pravoslavbob

Formal fallacies are themselves forgeries of the truth; in that sense Wandle is just another sort of forger as far as I can tell, but not a very effective one. It does not absolve a crime to simply allege similar crimes by another party. Crimes are criminal.

Wandle said:
Sardica was a venerable council in its own right and in that time as practically ecumenical
Augustine and Carthage didn't recognize Sardica as an authoritative council = "practically ecumenical" haha
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Wandile

Archon
Warned
Post Moderated
Joined
Nov 14, 2012
Messages
3,265
Reaction score
21
Points
38
Location
Johannesburg, South Africa
A. Naturally you would attempt to construct hypothetical situations and moving the narrative away from the spotlight. Fact is fact. Rome had the Nicene Canons for 19 years. There were also other Synodical Canons between Nicaea and Sardica. Now what happened was that Boniface [apologies not Zosimus] most likely deliberately misrepresented a Sardican Canon as a Nicene Canon, because that Sardican Canon contained a tenor that would seem to privilege Rome's claim to supremacy
Changing from Pope St Zosmius to Pope St Boniface doesn’t help you as Pope St Boniface is also a saint in your church and you’re accusing him with a deliberate attempt to lie for selfish ambition. Look where your disdain of Rome is taking you... Realize, with wisdom, the ungodly source of this disdain.

You do realize that Rome was already regularly involved in the affairs of the African church for long time before and after this affair, and in the same manner as this affair. The only difference is that in this matter, the African bishops became annoyed because the pope was becoming heavy handed and micromanaging and identified also and inaccuracy of a canon attributed to Nicaea that was front the venerable Sardica (A council whom the African participated in and accepted). This is the reason why in all the councils held Carthage they always seek and have Roman attendance and seek Roman confirmation for the conciliar decrees.

The Sardica canon quoted a practice which your church readily affirms of Rome since antiquity. The right of Rome to final judgement on all cases.

B. The reverse did not hold true for the [supposedly forged] Apostolic Canons, which contain nothing that can be construed as benefitting the Eastern Church. The Apostolic Canons were also universally accepted before Rome started, for some reason, to cast doubts on them
The apostolic canons are from the 5th century, not from the age of the apostles and quote directly from the canons of the council of Antioch in 341. As regards your second claim of universally accepted before they started to be doubted, that is actually the reverseIn fact from their first appearance in the West they aroused suspicion. Canon 46 for example, that rejected all heretical baptism, was notoriously opposed to Roman and Western practice then well established and confirmed by the ecumenical councils. In the so-called "Decretum" of (429-96) they are denounced as an apocryphal book though this note of censure was probably not in the original "Decretum", but with others was added under Pope St Horsmisdas(514-23). Consequently in a second edition of his "Collectio canonum", prepared under the latter pope, Dionysius Exiguus omitted them; even in the first edition he admitted that very many in the West were loath to acknowledge them (quamplurimi quidem assensum non prœbuere facilem). Hincmar the Archbishop of Reims (died 882) declared that they were not written by the Apostles, and as late as the middle of the eleventh century, Western theologians (Cardinal Humbert, 1054) distinguished between the eighty-five Greek canons that they declared apocryphal, and the fifty Latin canons recognized as "orthodox rules" by antiquity, not apostolic.

It is a pretty much well established fact that these canons are forgeries and are not apostolic by any stretch of the imagination

C. Substantiate your assertion that the letter of John VIII was genuine.
It’s 14th century forgery. Case closed. Father Francis Dvornik, in his work on the Photian schism, despite his total allegiance Photius himself admitted the forged nature of this letter from the 14th century (This letter was used by your church members at the council of Florence ironically for their cause). Itis consensus amongst all historians that this letter is forged.

Substantiate Nicholas' claim.
Pope St Nicholas was referring to the practice, already rife during the Photian time, where Photius
Held a pseudo synod that made use forgeries and fake prelates the refuse and reject Pope St Nicholas’ judgment of Photius and thus resulting in the restoration of St Ignatius to the Constantinopolitan see after his illegal deposition.
The council of Constantinople 869 (The Catholic 8th ecumenical council which was accepted by the whole church for 10 years) makes mention of this:

“For Photius was lifted up to the heights of arrogance in attacking the most blessed pope of old Rome, Nicholas, and he vomited out the poison of his evil. He gathered together false vicars from three supposedly eastern sees, set up what was thought to be a synodical council, and, making lists of the names of accusers and witnesses, fashioning profiles and speeches which seemed to be suited to each person who plays a part in a synodical investigation, and making up, writing down and organizing forged records as accounts of those proceedings, he had the audacity to anathematize the aforementioned most blessed pope Nicholas and all those in communion with him.”

Western people back then exposed the forgeries, against the will of Papacy. That's why we had the Reformation in Continental and Anglican church in Britain happening in the 16th century.

The Reformation had nothing to do with forgeries but had everything to do with politics. On the theological side of the reformation, almost all the theological points that were raised by the Protestants as a reason for their heresy were points of view which even your church disagreewith. In fact your church literally used the decrees of the Council of Trent to refute the Protestants.
Now you try to claim credit for exposing forgeries for a vague 'West'. Although I can say that this method of [mis-]representation is typical, I cannot say that it is in anyway less disappointing or not surprising

The fact remains: Rome attempted to pass of a Sardican Canon as a Nicene Canon in Carthage 419, and changed/added to Canon VI of Nicaea in Chalcedon 451
The reason for the change in wording of the Nicene was not out of malice. From antiquity the canons differences in wording between Greek and Latin. This seen at Chalcedon where the Latin acts , as they were translated, were worded differently to that of the Greek acts. The Latin wording of the Nicene does not change the meaning of the canon. The canon in both Greek and Latin is based on Roman primacy and the privileges that it gave Rome and based on that Alexandria and Antioch were granted similar privileges at a patriarchal level.
 

Wandile

Archon
Warned
Post Moderated
Joined
Nov 14, 2012
Messages
3,265
Reaction score
21
Points
38
Location
Johannesburg, South Africa
An angel does not get its wings when a hyperdox attempt to defend the "relative honor" of forgeries by claiming everybody is a forger.
What a way to misrepresent what I’m saying. I’m saying what scripture teaches in Matthew 7:5 :

“Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye”

Wandle's little list hardly compares bulk-wise to 2/3 of all letters to clerics in the west before 1199 being forged and half it's entire corpus of canon law. It's like comparing peanuts to elephants.
First and foremost this claim is not historically accurate and is untenable. Or you going to come with more “perhaps” and “I suspect”. Secondly I didn’t attempt to even try show a list of similar magnitude though such could easily be done of the Byzantine east. Like I said, I have a life. Go study the history of forgery in Byzantium and your eyes will open.

Wantle's whole insubstantial "argument" boils down to the Fallacy of Relative Privation (AKA Not As Bad As Fallacy).
As Lucius Annaeus Seneca famously remarked, "To be good it is not enough to be better than the worst."
Wow very Christian of you.

Secondlu you’re lying again. Worst of all you want to lie in my very presence about me. I reiterate that
What a way to misrepresent what I’m saying. I’m saying what scripture teaches in Matthew 7:5 :

“Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye”


Formal fallacies are themselves forgeries of the truth; in that sense Wandle is just another sort of forger as far as I can tell, but not a very effective one. It does not absolve a crime to simply allege similar crimes by another party. Crimes are criminal.
Straw man and thus a waste of virtual text

Augustine and Carthage didn't recognize Sardica as an authoritative council = "practically ecumenical" haha
The North African church literally attended Sardica and accepted its decisions but okay, more lying. In fact specifically about St Augustine, I can go into serious depth showing how he accepted the claims of Rome in the canon they quoted. Do not ever mention St Augustine in this matter as that will only work against if you are in way familiar with this affair and the history of relation between St Augustine, Rome and the African church.

Wandile: If you had not just received a warning in another thread, you would certainly have received one here for accusing another poster of lying and for using Scripture to accuse him of great hypocrisy. DON'T do it again in the public boards. Pravoslavbob, Section Moderator.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Michael Seraphim

Sr. Member
Warned
Post Moderated
Joined
Feb 27, 2018
Messages
152
Reaction score
12
Points
18
Location
Indonesia
Changing from Pope St Zosmius to Pope St Boniface doesn’t help you as Pope St Boniface is also a saint in your church and you’re accusing him with a deliberate attempt to lie for selfish ambition. Look where your disdain of Rome is taking you... Realize, with wisdom, the ungodly source of this disdain.

You do realize that Rome was already regularly involved in the affairs of the African church for long time before and after this affair, and in the same manner as this affair. The only difference is that in this matter, the African bishops became annoyed because the pope was becoming heavy handed and micromanaging and identified also and inaccuracy of a canon attributed to Nicaea that was front the venerable Sardica (A council whom the African participated in and accepted). This is the reason why in all the councils held Carthage they always seek and have Roman attendance and seek Roman confirmation for the conciliar decrees.

The Sardica canon quoted a practice which your church readily affirms of Rome since antiquity. The right of Rome to final judgement on all cases.



The apostolic canons are from the 5th century, not from the age of the apostles and quote directly from the canons of the council of Antioch in 341. As regards your second claim of universally accepted before they started to be doubted, that is actually the reverseIn fact from their first appearance in the West they aroused suspicion. Canon 46 for example, that rejected all heretical baptism, was notoriously opposed to Roman and Western practice then well established and confirmed by the ecumenical councils. In the so-called "Decretum" of (429-96) they are denounced as an apocryphal book though this note of censure was probably not in the original "Decretum", but with others was added under Pope St Horsmisdas(514-23). Consequently in a second edition of his "Collectio canonum", prepared under the latter pope, Dionysius Exiguus omitted them; even in the first edition he admitted that very many in the West were loath to acknowledge them (quamplurimi quidem assensum non prœbuere facilem). Hincmar the Archbishop of Reims (died 882) declared that they were not written by the Apostles, and as late as the middle of the eleventh century, Western theologians (Cardinal Humbert, 1054) distinguished between the eighty-five Greek canons that they declared apocryphal, and the fifty Latin canons recognized as "orthodox rules" by antiquity, not apostolic.

It is a pretty much well established fact that these canons are forgeries and are not apostolic by any stretch of the imagination



It’s 14th century forgery. Case closed. Father Francis Dvornik, in his work on the Photian schism, despite his total allegiance Photius himself admitted the forged nature of this letter from the 14th century (This letter was used by your church members at the council of Florence ironically for their cause). Itis consensus amongst all historians that this letter is forged.



Pope St Nicholas was referring to the practice, already rife during the Photian time, where Photius
Held a pseudo synod that made use forgeries and fake prelates the refuse and reject Pope St Nicholas’ judgment of Photius and thus resulting in the restoration of St Ignatius to the Constantinopolitan see after his illegal deposition.
The council of Constantinople 869 (The Catholic 8th ecumenical council which was accepted by the whole church for 10 years) makes mention of this:

“For Photius was lifted up to the heights of arrogance in attacking the most blessed pope of old Rome, Nicholas, and he vomited out the poison of his evil. He gathered together false vicars from three supposedly eastern sees, set up what was thought to be a synodical council, and, making lists of the names of accusers and witnesses, fashioning profiles and speeches which seemed to be suited to each person who plays a part in a synodical investigation, and making up, writing down and organizing forged records as accounts of those proceedings, he had the audacity to anathematize the aforementioned most blessed pope Nicholas and all those in communion with him.”




The Reformation had nothing to do with forgeries but had everything to do with politics. On the theological side of the reformation, almost all the theological points that were raised by the Protestants as a reason for their heresy were points of view which even your church disagreewith. In fact your church literally used the decrees of the Council of Trent to refute the Protestants.
Now you try to claim credit for exposing forgeries for a vague 'West'. Although I can say that this method of [mis-]representation is typical, I cannot say that it is in anyway less disappointing or not surprising



The reason for the change in wording of the Nicene was not out of malice. From antiquity the canons differences in wording between Greek and Latin. This seen at Chalcedon where the Latin acts , as they were translated, were worded differently to that of the Greek acts. The Latin wording of the Nicene does not change the meaning of the canon. The canon in both Greek and Latin is based on Roman primacy and the privileges that it gave Rome and based on that Alexandria and Antioch were granted similar privileges at a patriarchal level.
A. Eh? I was correcting a mistake. The Pope at that time was Boniface, not Zosimus

B. The point from the African Bishops being exactly that Rome had no right to interfere = bye bye bye bye bye Papal supremacy = try reading the Canons of the Synod of Carthage 419


C. Are you aware that the Canons of the Holy Apostles were confirmed by the Trullo Ecumenical Synod, and that the Bishop of Rome Hadrian admitted/accepted all the Canons of Trullo, 'including the one regarding the depiction of the Lamb and the Forerunner'? And who made Rome the authority on genuineness of document? That's hillarious to the point of absurdity

D. 14th century forgery? You are aware that Photius lived in the ninth century, aren't you?

E. Nicholas = heretic. John VIII joined in the condemnation on changing/adding to the Creed in the Synod of Constantinople 867, under which anathema Nicholas fell. Not the first time for a Pope. Refer to Honorius

F. Eh? When did I [or 'we'] claim credit for exposing your forgeries? Where/when did I say such a thing? There were valid reasons for the English and the Protestants to reject illegal Papal claim of supremacy

G. HA HA HA HA. 'Worded differently' = yeah it's called CHANGING/ADDING TO Canon VI of Nicaea. The sheer amount of mental gymnastic/self-deception constantly required to be a believing Latin has never ceased to amaze me. You would frame a thief as a judge just because you could. I was beginning to wonder when you would say something about this episode [Session XVI of Chalcedon], and you didn't fail to entertain

Yeah so the GIST/FACT remains: Rome attempted to PASS OFF a Sardican Canon as a Nicene Canon to impose claim of Papal supremacy, and CHANGED/ADDED TO Canon VI of Nicaea

'The wording is different', 'the Canons were put in one continuous list' [after a period of 19 years]

Who do you think you're talking to? Children?
 

xariskai

OC.Net Guru
Warned
Joined
Dec 27, 2008
Messages
1,664
Reaction score
21
Points
38
Wandle said:
that claim is not historically accurage Or you going to come with more “perhaps
"Perhaps" -it has already been explained- didn't mean what you misrepresented it to mean in that quote.

"...perhaps half the legal documents we possess from Merovingian times and perhaps two-thirds of all documents issued to ecclesiastics before AD 1199 are fakes... The basic code of canon law, Gratian's Decretum, contains some five hundred forged legal texts" (Anthony Grafton, Forgers and Critics (Princeton University Press, 1990), pp. 224f.)

Prof. Grafton is not intending he thinks the extent of forgery in the west is less than astronomical by that first word "perhaps" -period.

If Grafton was to say "perhaps someone is 2/3 average" we would not reasonably suppose he might *actually* intend 1/2 genius simply because the clause begins with the word "perhaps." Indirect personal attack removed - Pravoslavbob.

This has already been pointed out; it is hard not to conclude either Wandle is incapable of reading/learning accurately two times in a row (1/ original quote 2. Wandle's misrepresentation underscored) or Wandle thinks it's just fine to misrepresent in the service of hyperdoxy,. If the latter is the case Wandle is in effect creating forgeries.

Wandle said:
The North African church literally attended Sardica and accepted its decisions.
Context:
Wandle: "Sardica was a venerable council in its own right and in that time as practically ecumenical"
To which: "Carthage didn't recognize Sardica as an authoritative council = "practically ecumenical" haha"

Now he deigns claim Carthage's rejection of Sardica is "a lie."
Wrong again.

"...almost all of the Greek bishops had seceded from the Council of Sardica before the enactment of the canons, which were then drafted by a group of nearly ninety bishops, almost all of whom were from the Latin West. Even so, the canons were repudiated by the African Church in 418 and 424 (cf. Hefele-Leclercq, "Conciles", 2, 1 (Paris, 1908), 195 (can. 17), 214 f.)
Cf. http://www.myriobiblos.gr/texts/english/milton1_5.html

Trullo centuries later would accept the authority of Sardica, however Wandel's claim was that it was "in that time.. practically ecumenical" which invites the obvious reply it was rejected by Carthage.

Wandle said:
xariskai said:
Wantle's whole insubstantial "argument" boils down to the Fallacy of Relative Privation (AKA Not As Bad As Fallacy).
As Lucius Annaeus Seneca famously remarked, "To be good it is not enough to be better than the worst."
Wow very Christian of you.
No, just accurate. Your main line of reply is a formal logical fallacy.
An angel does not get its wings when a hyperdox attempts to defend the "relative honor" of forgeries by claiming everybody is a forger.
It does not absolve a crime to simply allege similar crimes by another party. Crimes are criminal.

Indirect personal attack removed.

Honestly almost everything you state is so contrived, hysterical-hyperdox, and prone to blatant error I find it necessary to regard you as being here with the intention to troll, while having a highly questionable understanding of pretty much any quote before you in particular in addition to history in general.

(Removed)
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Wandile

Archon
Warned
Post Moderated
Joined
Nov 14, 2012
Messages
3,265
Reaction score
21
Points
38
Location
Johannesburg, South Africa
"Perhaps" -it has already been explained- didn't mean what you misrepresented it to mean in that quote.

"...perhaps half the legal documents we possess from Merovingian times and perhaps two-thirds of all documents issued to ecclesiastics before AD 1199 are fakes... The basic code of canon law, Gratian's Decretum, contains some five hundred forged legal texts" (Anthony Grafton, Forgers and Critics (Princeton University Press, 1990), pp. 224f.)

Prof. Grafton is not intending he thinks the extent of forgery in the west is less than astronomical by that first word "perhaps" -period.

You have completely missed the reason as to why I keep bringing up the word “perhaps” and why it dents the confidence in which you believe the extent of forgery to be.

If Grafton was to say "perhaps someone is 2/3 average" we would not reasonably suppose he might *actually* intend 1/2 genius simply because the clause begins with the word "perhaps."
What are you even on about? This is not even close to what I was thinking when highlighting the word “perhaps”. Wow can anyone be more off base?

out; it is hard not to conclude either Wandle is incapable of reading/learning accurately two times in a row (1/ original quote 2. Wandle's misrepresentation underscored) or Wandle thinks it's just fine to misrepresent in the service of hyperdoxy,. (Removed.)
This has to have been said with trolling intent.

Secondly you can do better with your insults if you’re gonna try insult me.

Context:
Wandle: "Sardica was a venerable council in its own right and in that time as practically ecumenical"
To which: "Carthage didn't recognize Sardica as an authoritative council = "practically ecumenical" haha"
Now to the meat *as I smile and rub my hands*

Sardica was first and foremost called as an ecumenical council. It was accepted by all except the arians, who tended to be Greek. The Alexandrians accepted it in the person of St Athanasius who was at the council.

Here are the facts. Hosius of Cordova (the same President from Nicaea) presided over the council of about 170 bishops, of whom about 90 were mostly of the Western Homoousian faction and about 80 were mostly of the Eastern Eusabian (Arian) faction.

Pope St Julius I was represented by the priests Archidamus and Philoxenus, and the deacon Leo. St Athanasius reported that bishops attended from Roman diocese of Hispania, Gaul, Britain, Italy Egypt, Syria, Thrace, Pannonia and Africa. 96 Western bishops attended the council and if you didn’t know, western bishops include the Africans.

Now he deigns claim Carthage's rejection of Sardica is "a lie."
Wrong again.
Hmmm let’s see if you have something here or is it more misrepresentation.

"...almost all of the Greek bishops had seceded from the Council of Sardica before the enactment of the canons, which were then drafted by a group of nearly ninety bishops, almost all of whom were from the Latin West. Even so, the canons were repudiated by the African Church in 418 and 424 (cf. Hefele-Leclercq, "Conciles", 2, 1 (Paris, 1908), 195 (can. 17), 214 f.)
Cf. http://www.myriobiblos.gr/texts/english/milton1_5.html
I hope you know that “Latin west” includes the Africans.

Interesting. So apparently your source claims these canons were repudiated in 418 and 424. Well... a problem arises as the council of Carthage in 418 never dealt with Sardica and only issued 8 canons that had nothing to do with Sardica. The only thing that is relevant is the the rejection of appeals to Rome (the fact this was done already on numerous occasions by African prelates is evidence that the Africans knew of canonical laws regarding the right to appeal to Rome) which was done on the basis of Rome having contradicted the African judgement to the annoyance of the African prelates when Rome restored Celestius. They do not mention Sardica at all in their statement but purely their desire that Rome leave them alone as Rome was contradicting them and they felt undermined.

The council of Carthage in 416 appealed to Pope St Innocent for confirmation of their decrees against Pelagiansim when it asks him to judge the matter. In the same year the council of Milevis also appealed to Pope St Innocent saying:


“Be so good as to apply your pastoral care to the great dangers of the weaker members of Christ...”

And if he heretics concerned, that they would:

“more easily yield to the authority of your holiness which is derived from the authority of the holy Scriptures.”

The Africans and St Augustine already knew of Roman finality in it’s decisions when he accounts:

Already two councils on this question have been sent to the Apostolic See and replies have come from there. The case is finished; if only the error might be finished as well!”

The same St Augustine brandished Rome’s decision in the face of the Pelagians. He appealed to Rome during the controversy of Honorius in a matter concerning the violation by Honorius of Canon 15 of Nicaea. It’s odd that he could appeal to the pope and subject the matter to the popes decision potentially over the decrees of Nicaea

Of Pope St Innocent’s involvement in the affairs Africa, specifically relating to the Council of Milevis, St Augustine says:

“He [The Pope] answered us as to all these matters as it was religious and becoming in the Bishop of the apostolic see.”


As regards 424, the council directly addressed a letter to the bishop of Rome, Celestine, protesting against his claim to appellate jurisdiction, and urgently requesting the immediate recall of his legate, and advising him to send no more judges to Africa. Again no mention of Sardica is made. In fact this is evidence that many of the judges at the Carthaginian synods weren’t aware or had forgotten from where Rome canonically had the right to judge matters in Africa (Sardica, which they attended a century earlier). However it’s more clearly evidence of how the African church knew of Rome’s authority and used it when it was in their favor but pretended to not know of it when it went against them. This is seen as early as the days of St Cyprian.

(Removed) - Pravoslavbob
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Sethrak

Protokentarchos
Joined
May 15, 2017
Messages
4,142
Reaction score
5
Points
38
Location
California & Nevada ranches
It could have been an honest mistake, sure. But the reaction of the Roman delegate was very telling. When Aurelius and his brother Bishops made the decision to send letters of inquiry to the Greek Churches, the Roman delegate Faustinus begged them to not do this. Why would Rome react in this manner, if it was all an honest mistake?

And when this had been read, Augustine, the bishop of the Church of Hippo of the province of Numidia, said: We promise that this shall be observed by us, provided that upon more careful examination it be found to be of the Council of Nicaea. Aurelius the bishop said. If this also is pleasing to the charity of you all, give it the confirmation of your vote. The whole Council said: Everything that has been ordained by the Nicene Council pleases us all. Jocundus, the bishop of the Church of Suffitula, legate of the province of Byzacena, said: What was decreed by the Nicene Council cannot in any particular be violated

Faustinus the bishop, legate of the Roman Church, said: So far as has developed by the confession of your holiness as well as of the holy Alypius, and of our brother Jocundus, I believe that some of the points have been made weak and others confirmed, which should not be the case, since even the very canons themselves have been brought into question. Therefore, that there may be harmony between us and your blessedness, let your holiness deign to refer the matter to the holy and venerable bishop of the Roman Church, that he may be able to consider whether what St. Augustine vouchsafed to enact, should be conceded or not, I mean in the matter of appeals of the inferior grade. If therefore there still is doubt, on this head it is right that the bishop of the most blessed see be informed, if this can be found in the canons which have been approved...'

Another thing to consider is the position of the misrepresented Canon, which is Canon V of Sardica = very near the beginning of the set

Sneaky sneaky once tampering always tampering...

Greetings Brother ```

Where are these letters to be found that you have posted here ```


thank you
 
Joined
Apr 17, 2007
Messages
2,628
Reaction score
31
Points
48
Age
56
Location
USA
I have no illusions that dirty deeds have been done in the Catholic & Orthodox Churches ( Romans 3:23). You will also find godly people in both ( thank God) like a St. John of Kronstadt or a Frances of Assisi ( who, I believe, are both in paradise). Orthodoxy has kept the truth intact; ( Roman) Catholicism has, unfortunately, not.
 

Michael Seraphim

Sr. Member
Warned
Post Moderated
Joined
Feb 27, 2018
Messages
152
Reaction score
12
Points
18
Location
Indonesia
I have no illusions that dirty deeds have been done in the Catholic & Orthodox Churches ( Romans 3:23). You will also find godly people in both ( thank God) like a St. John of Kronstadt or a Frances of Assisi ( who, I believe, are both in paradise). Orthodoxy has kept the truth intact; ( Roman) Catholicism has, unfortunately, not.
Sure. But Rome has done dirty deeds as an institution as a whole, not [just] individually
 

xariskai

OC.Net Guru
Warned
Joined
Dec 27, 2008
Messages
1,664
Reaction score
21
Points
38
"Perhaps" -it has already been explained- didn't mean what you misrepresented it to mean in that quote.
"...perhaps half the legal documents we possess from Merovingian times and perhaps two-thirds of all documents issued to ecclesiastics before AD 1199 are fakes... The basic code of canon law, Gratian's Decretum, contains some five hundred forged legal texts" (Anthony Grafton, Forgers and Critics (Princeton University Press, 1990), pp. 224f.)
Prof. Grafton is not intending he thinks the extent of forgery in the west is less than astronomical by that first word "perhaps" -period.
Wandle eplied:
"You have completely missed the reason as to why I keep bringing up the word “perhaps” and why it dents the confidence.. in... the extent of forgery "

It doesn't.
But please do why you suppose it does (reaches for popcorn).

====

Context:
Wandle: "Sardica was a venerable council in its own right and in that time as practically ecumenical"
To which: "Carthage didn't recognize Sardica as an authoritative council = "practically ecumenical" haha"

Wandle: "The North African church literally attended Sardica and accepted its decisions but okay, you're lying.
To which: Wrong again genius
"...almost all of the Greek bishops had seceded from the Council of Sardica before the enactment of the canons, which were then drafted by a group of nearly ninety bishops, almost all of whom were from the Latin West. Even so, the canons were repudiated by the African Church in 418 and 424 (cf. Hefele-Leclercq, "Conciles", 2, 1 (Paris, 1908), 195 (can. 17), 214 f.)
Cf. http://www.myriobiblos.gr/texts/english/milton1_5.html
Trullo centuries later would accept the authority of Sardica, however Wandel's claim was that it was "in that time.. practically ecumenical" which invites the obvious reply it was rejected by Carthage.

Wandle: Interesting. So apparently your source claims these canons were repudiated in 418 and 424.
To which: yep.

Wandle: "Well... a problem arises as the council of Carthage in 418... only issued 8 canons
To which: Wrong again. Carthage May 418 issued 19 canons (cf. Hefele op cit)
Wandle: ""Well... a problem arises as the council of Carthage in 418 ..The only thing that is relevant is the the rejection of appeals to Rome.
To which: Bingo.

Carthage 418/ Canon17
“If priests, deacons, and inferior clerics complain of a sentence of their own bishop, they shall, with thec onsent of their bishop, have recourse to the neighboring bishops, who shall settle the dispute. If they desire to makea further appeal, it must only be to their primates or to African Councils. But whoever appeals to a court on the other side of the sea (Rome), may not again bereceived into communion by any one in Africa.”
This opposes what Sardica laid down on right of appeals, just as Prof. Milton V. Anastos affirmed.

"Even so, the canons [of Sardica] were repudiated by the African Church in 418 and 424."
http://www.myriobiblos.gr/texts/english/milton1_5.html

Wandle said:
you can do better with your insults if you’re gonna try insult me
I could but it is not my desire to actually insult *YOU* Your fallacious reasoning and duplicity with history and scholarship and etc. in this thread are another matter -that I regard as fair game for criticism. Personal attacks removed. - Pravoslavbob
 
Last edited by a moderator:

noahzarc1

High Elder
Site Supporter
Joined
Apr 22, 2018
Messages
742
Reaction score
47
Points
28
"The Canons of Sardica have come down to us both in Greek and Latin, and some writers such as Richer (Histoire Conc. Générale, Tom. i., p. 98), have been of opinion that the Latin text alone was the original, while others, such as Walch (Gesch. der Kirchenvers., p. 179), have arrived at a directly opposite conclusion. Now, however, chiefly owing to the investigations of the Ballerini and of Spittler, the unanimous opinion of scholars— so says Hefele - is that the canons were originally drawn up in both languages, intended as they were for both Latins and Greeks. I may perhaps remind the reader that in many Western collections of canons the canons of Sardica immediately follow those of Nice without any break, or note that they were not enacted at that council. It will also be well to bear in mind that they were received by the Greeks as of Ecumenical authority by the Council in Trullo, and as such are contained in the body of the Greek Canon Law. I have provided the reader with a very accurate translation of each text."

Canon 5

Greek
Bishop Hosius said: Decreed, that if any bishop is accused, and the bishops of the same region assemble and depose him from his office, and he appealing, so to speak, takes refuge with the most blessed bishop of the Roman church, and he be willing to give him a hearing, and think it right to renew the examination of his case, let him be pleased to write to those fellow bishops who are nearest the province that they may examine the particulars with care and accuracy and give their votes on the matter in accordance with the word of truth. And if any one require that his case be heard yet again, and at his request it seem good to move the bishop of Rome to send presbyters a latere, let it be in the power of that bishop, according as he judges it to be good and decides it to be right— that some be sent to be judges with the bishops and invested with his authority by whom they were sent. And be this also ordained. But if he think that the bishops are sufficient for the examination and decision of the matter let him do what shall seem good in his most prudent judgment.

The bishops answered: What has been said is approved.


Latin
Bishop Hosius said: Further decreed, that if a bishop is accused, and the bishops of that region assemble and depose him from his office, if he who has been deposed shall appeal and take refuge with the bishop of the Roman church and wishes to be given a hearing, if he think it right that the trial or examination of his case be renewed, let him be pleased to write to those bishops who are in an adjacent and neighbouring province, that they may diligently inquire into all the particulars and decide according to the word of truth. But if he who asks to have his case reheard, shall by his entreaty move the Bishop of Rome to send a presbyter a latere it shall be in the power of that bishop to do what he shall resolve and determine upon; and if he shall decide that some be sent, who shall be present and be judges with the bishops invested with his authority by whom they were appointed, it shall be as he shall choose. But if he believe that the bishops suffice to give a final decision, he shall do what he shall determine upon in his most wise judgment.

Source. Translated by Henry Percival. From Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Second Series, Vol. 14. Edited by Philip Schaff and Henry Wace. (Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Publishing Co., 1900.) Revised and edited for New Advent by Kevin Knight. <http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/3815.htm>.
 

Michael Seraphim

Sr. Member
Warned
Post Moderated
Joined
Feb 27, 2018
Messages
152
Reaction score
12
Points
18
Location
Indonesia
"The Canons of Sardica have come down to us both in Greek and Latin, and some writers such as Richer (Histoire Conc. Générale, Tom. i., p. 98), have been of opinion that the Latin text alone was the original, while others, such as Walch (Gesch. der Kirchenvers., p. 179), have arrived at a directly opposite conclusion. Now, however, chiefly owing to the investigations of the Ballerini and of Spittler, the unanimous opinion of scholars— so says Hefele - is that the canons were originally drawn up in both languages, intended as they were for both Latins and Greeks. I may perhaps remind the reader that in many Western collections of canons the canons of Sardica immediately follow those of Nice without any break, or note that they were not enacted at that council. It will also be well to bear in mind that they were received by the Greeks as of Ecumenical authority by the Council in Trullo, and as such are contained in the body of the Greek Canon Law. I have provided the reader with a very accurate translation of each text."

Canon 5

Greek
Bishop Hosius said: Decreed, that if any bishop is accused, and the bishops of the same region assemble and depose him from his office, and he appealing, so to speak, takes refuge with the most blessed bishop of the Roman church, and he be willing to give him a hearing, and think it right to renew the examination of his case, let him be pleased to write to those fellow bishops who are nearest the province that they may examine the particulars with care and accuracy and give their votes on the matter in accordance with the word of truth. And if any one require that his case be heard yet again, and at his request it seem good to move the bishop of Rome to send presbyters a latere, let it be in the power of that bishop, according as he judges it to be good and decides it to be right— that some be sent to be judges with the bishops and invested with his authority by whom they were sent. And be this also ordained. But if he think that the bishops are sufficient for the examination and decision of the matter let him do what shall seem good in his most prudent judgment.

The bishops answered: What has been said is approved.


Latin
Bishop Hosius said: Further decreed, that if a bishop is accused, and the bishops of that region assemble and depose him from his office, if he who has been deposed shall appeal and take refuge with the bishop of the Roman church and wishes to be given a hearing, if he think it right that the trial or examination of his case be renewed, let him be pleased to write to those bishops who are in an adjacent and neighbouring province, that they may diligently inquire into all the particulars and decide according to the word of truth. But if he who asks to have his case reheard, shall by his entreaty move the Bishop of Rome to send a presbyter a latere it shall be in the power of that bishop to do what he shall resolve and determine upon; and if he shall decide that some be sent, who shall be present and be judges with the bishops invested with his authority by whom they were appointed, it shall be as he shall choose. But if he believe that the bishops suffice to give a final decision, he shall do what he shall determine upon in his most wise judgment.

Source. Translated by Henry Percival. From Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Second Series, Vol. 14. Edited by Philip Schaff and Henry Wace. (Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Publishing Co., 1900.) Revised and edited for New Advent by Kevin Knight. <http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/3815.htm>.
Now I may perhaps remind you that it is a flimsy excuse that doesn't hold up at all because 'the Canons of Sardica directly following the Canons of Nicaea without break in the Western list ' doesn't at all change the fact that Rome had the Canons of Nicaea for 19 years prior to Sardica. And to boot, prefacing this flimsy pretext with 'some think that the Latin was the original... or the opposite... in fact some believed it was drawn up in both languages...' = smokescreen = has no bearing whatsoever on the fact, I shall repeat, that:

1. Rome had the Nicene Canons for 19 full years spanning three Bishops of Rome: Sylvester, Mark, Julius = the alternative conclusion being Bishops of Rome were ignorant of Church Canons
2. The way the Roman delegate reacted upon desire of the African Bishops to sent for clarification to the Churches of Constantinople, Alexandria, and Antioch, begging them to send for clarification/comparison to Boniface instead = very telling reaction


Who do you think you're talking to with your 'now' and 'may perhaps' and 'remind'? You're fooling nobody but yourself

The GIST/FACT remains: Rome attempted to PASS OFF a Sardican Canon as a Nicene Canon to impose claim of Papal supremacy, and CHANGED/ADDED TO Canon VI of Nicaea
 

Wandile

Archon
Warned
Post Moderated
Joined
Nov 14, 2012
Messages
3,265
Reaction score
21
Points
38
Location
Johannesburg, South Africa
It doesn't.
But please do why you suppose it does (reaches for popcorn).
I’m about to bow out of this threat too because the amount of falsehood and downright misrepresentation and insults are enough for me. This is a very unchristian environment. So take whatever you want from the whole perhaps issue. I’ve lost all interest in explaining it you.


Wandle: Interesting. So apparently your source claims these canons were repudiated in 418 and 424.
To which: yep.
Nope :)

Wandle: "Well... a problem arises as the council of Carthage in 418... only issued 8 canons
To which: Wrong again. Carthage May 418 issued 19 canons (cf. Hefele op cit)
Oh yes my initial source only listed the anti pelagian canons not the other procedural ones. I just notices this. What I considered a simple statement of the bishops was canon 17. However this doesn’t help your case still lol We will see why just now. I urge you to read the facts surrounding this canon with

Wandle: ""Well... a problem arises as the council of Carthage in 418 ..The only thing that is relevant is the the rejection of appeals to Rome.
To which: Bingo.

Carthage 418/ Canon17
If priests, deacons, and inferior clerics complain of a sentence of their own bishop, they shall, with thec onsent of their bishop, have recourse to the neighboring bishops, who shall settle the dispute. If they desire to makea further appeal, it must only be to their primates or to African Councils. But whoever appeals to a court on the other side of the sea (Rome), may not again bereceived into communion by any one in Africa.”
This opposes what Sardica laid down on right of appeals, just as Prof. Milton V. Anastos affirmed.
See this canon is very carefully worded for good reason.
It only forbade priests, deacons and lower clergy to do so. That's because priests and lower clergy are under the direct omophor of their local bishop, not the Pope. Your reading makes the whole affair Vern more odd considering the history of appeals to Rome by the Africans and the fact that this seems odd considering that the Synod of Hippo, which St Augustine attended, needed confirmation from “the other side of the Sea” as well. Additionally as noted earlier Sardica was nowhere addressed in the canons nor the facts that led to the writing up of this canon.

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


Now as regards 424; See the canon is quite clear in what it says. It’s procedural. What the canon is speaking of that is necessary to be observed is the practice of having commendatory letters in order to be able to appeal to Rome. Such letters were forbidden to lower clergy, but they were absolutely necessary for bishops appealing to Rome. The canon is saying that the bishop of Rome should not be hasty about receiving appeals unless the appealing bishop has commendatory letters from his local head bishop. Such commendatory letters would include not only permission for the appeal, but also the WHOLE story, not a one-sided version of events from the appealling bishop (which is exactly what happened in this affair and caused this canon to be written up).

Here is the relevant part of the canon:

lest those who had been
suspended from communion in their own province might seem to be restored to communion hastily
or unfitly by your Holiness
."

This would be understood if you see surrounding controversy that brought this canons (the controversy had nothing to do with Sardica nor does the council nor the canon address Sardica anywhere).
 
Last edited:

Michael Seraphim

Sr. Member
Warned
Post Moderated
Joined
Feb 27, 2018
Messages
152
Reaction score
12
Points
18
Location
Indonesia
I’m about to bow out of this threat too because the amount of falsehood and downright misrepresentation and insults are enough for me. This is a very unchristian environment. So take whatever you want from the whole perhaps issue. I’ve lost all interest in explaining it you.




Nope :)



Oh yes my initial source only listed the anti pelagian canons not the other procedural ones. I just notices this. What I considered a simple statement of the bishops was canon 17. However this doesn’t help your case still lol We will see why just now. I urge you to read the facts surrounding this canon with



See this canon is very carefully worded for good reason.
It only forbade priests, deacons and lower clergy to do so. That's because priests and lower clergy are under the direct omophor of their local bishop, not the Pope. Your reading makes the whole affair Vern more odd considering the history of appeals to Rome by the Africans and the fact that this seems odd considering that the Synod of Hippo, which St Augustine attended, needed confirmation from “the other side of the Sea” as well. Additionally as noted earlier Sardica was nowhere addressed in the canons nor the facts that led to the writing up of this canon.

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


Now as regards 424; See the canon is quite clear in what it says. It’s procedural. What the canon is speaking of that is necessary to be observed is the practice of having commendatory letters in order to be able to appeal to Rome. Such letters were forbidden to lower clergy, but they were absolutely necessary for bishops appealing to Rome. The canon is saying that the bishop of Rome should not be hasty about receiving appeals unless the appealing bishop has commendatory letters from his local head bishop. Such commendatory letters would include not only permission for the appeal, but also the WHOLE story, not a one-sided version of events from the appealling bishop (which is exactly what happened in this affair and caused this canon to be written up).

Here is the relevant part of the canon:

lest those who had been
suspended from communion in their own province might seem to be restored to communion hastily
or unfitly by your Holiness
."

This would be understood if you see surrounding controversy that brought this canons (the controversy had nothing to do with Sardica nor does the council nor the canon address Sardica anywhere).
How about substantiating your assertion of 'falsehood, downright misrepresentation, and insult'?

From the two instances [Carthage 419 and Chalcedon 451], we have seen falsehood and misrepresentation from those who attempted to misrepresent and to change/add to Church Canons

The records speak for themselves
 

xariskai

OC.Net Guru
Warned
Joined
Dec 27, 2008
Messages
1,664
Reaction score
21
Points
38
Warned for strong polemics and personal attacks which were sometimes veiled and sometimes direct.
1. CONTEXT

Wandle: "Sardica was a venerable council in its own right and in that time as practically ecumenical"
To which: "Carthage didn't recognize Sardica as an authoritative council = "practically ecumenical" haha"

Wandle: "The North African church literally attended Sardica and accepted its decisions but okay, you're lying.
To which: Wrong again.
"...almost all of the Greek bishops had seceded from the Council of Sardica before the enactment of the canons, which were then drafted by a group of nearly ninety bishops, almost all of whom were from the Latin West. Even so, the canons were repudiated by the African Church in 418 and 424 (cf. Hefele-Leclercq, "Conciles", 2, 1 (Paris, 1908), 195 (can. 17), 214 f.)
Cf. http://www.myriobiblos.gr/texts/english/milton1_5.html
Trullo centuries later would accept the authority of Sardica, however Wandel's claim was that it was "in that time.. practically ecumenical" which invites the obvious reply it was rejected by Carthage.

Wandle: Interesting. So apparently your source claims these canons were repudiated in 418 and 424.
To which: yep.

Wandle: "Well... a problem arises as the council of Carthage in 418... only issued 8 canons
To which: Wrong again. Carthage May 418 issued 19 canons (cf. Hefele op cit)

Wandle: ""Well... a problem arises as the council of Carthage in 418 ..The only thing that is relevant is the the rejection of appeals to Rome.
To which: Bingo.

Carthage 418/ Canon17
“If priests, deacons, and inferior clerics complain of a sentence of their own bishop, they shall, with the consent of their bishop, have recourse to the neighboring bishops, who shall settle the dispute. If they desire to makea further appeal, it must only be to their primates or to African Councils. But whoever appeals to a court on the other side of the sea (Rome), may not again be received into communion by any one in Africa.”

This opposes what (according to Pope Zosima) Sardica laid down on right of appeals, just as Prof. Milton V. Anastos affirmed.

"Even so, the canons were repudiated by the African Church in 418 and 424."
http://www.myriobiblos.gr/texts/english/milton1_5.html


2. CONTINUATION

Wandle: "priests and lower clergy are under the direct omophor of their local bishop, not the Pope."
"[Carthage May 1, 418] only forbade priests, deacons and lower clergy to... [appeal to Rome].

May 418, the POPE had just restored a PRIEST to communion who appealed to Rome after being excommunicated by an African bishop.
The canon used by that pope to try to justify his act was from Sardica.
(Actually he said it was from Nicaea; when Carthage investigated and discovered it was instead from Sardica.
The pope's case was rejected.

Then in May 1 of 418 in the canon we are discussing Carthage forbid anyone doing precisely what the excommunicated priest had tried to do and which the pope who restored that priest to communion said was justified on the basis of a canon from the Council of Sardica.

From New Advent:

"Apiarius of Sicca A priest of the diocese of Sicca, in proconsular Africa. Interest attaches to him only because of his appeal to Rome from his bishop's sentence of excommunication, and the consequent protracted parleying between Rome and Carthage about the privileges of the African Church in regulating its own discipline. In the resentment which the peculiar circumstances of the case provoked in many African bishops opponents of the Papacy read the denial by the Church of St. Augustine of the doctrine of Papal supremacy; and thus the case of Apiarius has come to be the classical example in anti-Roman controversial works, illustrating the fifth-century repudiation of Papal claims to disciplinary control.

Apiarius, deposed by Urbanus, Bishop of Sicca, for grave misconduct, appealed to Pope Zosimus, who, in view of irregularities in the bishop's procedure, ordered that the priest should be reinstated, and his bishop disciplined. Chagrined, perhaps, at the unworthy priest's success, a general synod of Carthage, in May, 418, forbade appeal "beyond the seas" of clerics inferior to bishops. Recognizing in what was virtually a restatement of previous African legislation an expression of displeasure on the part of the African bishops, Pope Zosimus sent a delegation to defend his right to receive certain appeals, citing decrees believed by him to have been enacted at the Council of Nicaea, but which in fact were canons of the council of Sardica." https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01594a.htm


PERHAPS ISSUE
3. take whatever you want from the whole perhaps issue. I’ve lost all interest in explaining it you.

Context:
"...perhaps half the legal documents we possess from Merovingian times and perhaps two-thirds of all documents issued to ecclesiastics before AD 1199 are fakes... The basic code of canon law, Gratian's Decretum, contains some five hundred forged legal texts" (Anthony Grafton, Forgers and Critics (Princeton University Press, 1990), pp. 224f.)

Wandle: [Grafton's use of] “perhaps” ...dents the confidence.. in... the extent of forgery "

Prof. Grafton is not intending he thinks the extent of forgery in the west is less than astronomical by that first word "perhaps" -period.


I'm glad you're giving up explaining this for two reasons, Wandle. (1) I suspect you don't own the book but I do; you'll have to explain away much more than that quote if you wish to improve your argumentation. (2) The claim is just so wrong that I don't know where to begin to counter it. (Strong polemics removed.)

xariskai: The Relgious Topics board allows for polemics, but not to the rather scathing extent that you have employed here. For that, you have to go to the private fora. You also indirectly and directly levelled personal attacks at Wandile: This kind of conduct is not permitted anywhere in the public fora. You will receive a warning of 100 points that will last for 2 weeks. Your ability to interact with others on OC.net will not be impacted in any way during this time, assuming that you do not receive other warnings. FYI: Wandile would also have been officially cautioned, had he not already recently been quite heavily warned in another thread.
Please address any appeal to me. Thank you for your understanding.

Pravoslavbob
Section Moderator
 
Last edited by a moderator:

noahzarc1

High Elder
Site Supporter
Joined
Apr 22, 2018
Messages
742
Reaction score
47
Points
28
Now I may perhaps remind you that it is a flimsy excuse that doesn't hold up at all because 'the Canons of Sardica directly following the Canons of Nicaea without break in the Western list ' doesn't at all change the fact that Rome had the Canons of Nicaea for 19 years prior to Sardica. And to boot, prefacing this flimsy pretext with 'some think that the Latin was the original... or the opposite... in fact some believed it was drawn up in both languages...' = smokescreen = has no bearing whatsoever on the fact
Why is it a smokescreen? It is a fact that we have copies of the canons in both Greek and Latin.

Who do you think you're talking to with your 'now' and 'may perhaps' and 'remind'? You're fooling nobody but yourself
Did you happen to see the quotation marks at the beginning and end of the first paragraph I cited from where came the 'now,' 'may perhaps' and 'remind'? Did you per chance notice the citation at the end of the comment I posted? I even put in bold, "Source. Translated by Henry Percival. From Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Second Series, Vol. 14. Edited by Philip Schaff and Henry Wace. (Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Publishing Co., 1900.) Revised and edited for New Advent by Kevin Knight."

The GIST/FACT remains: Rome attempted to PASS OFF a Sardican Canon as a Nicene Canon to impose claim of Papal supremacy, and CHANGED/ADDED TO Canon VI of Nicaea
It seems to me your claim is that Rome never had a claim to Papal supremacy until Nicaea? The entire premise of your argument is that they "passed off" Sardican Canon as a Nicene Canon to make a claim to papal supremacy. Stepping away from the Sardican canon for a moment, I would like to ask you:

1. Does Rome have papal supremacy? If so, it was not granted by the Council of Nicaea.
2. If Rome does not have papal supremacy, then how could they pass of a Sardican Canon as a Nicene Canon to make a claim to something the Roman see does not have?

Anyway, you've mentioned Canon V and Canon VI, and how these canons were misused for a claim to papal supremacy. However, Canon 3 of Sardica is really where one would find the canon noting the primacy of the Roman Pontiff. I would also note the wording in Latin and Greek is almost identical when it comes to the section of Canon 3 on the Primacy of the Roman Pontiff.
 

Michael Seraphim

Sr. Member
Warned
Post Moderated
Joined
Feb 27, 2018
Messages
152
Reaction score
12
Points
18
Location
Indonesia
Why is it a smokescreen? It is a fact that we have copies of the canons in both Greek and Latin.

Did you happen to see the quotation marks at the beginning and end of the first paragraph I cited from where came the 'now,' 'may perhaps' and 'remind'? Did you per chance notice the citation at the end of the comment I posted? I even put in bold, "Source. Translated by Henry Percival. From Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Second Series, Vol. 14. Edited by Philip Schaff and Henry Wace. (Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Publishing Co., 1900.) Revised and edited for New Advent by Kevin Knight."

It seems to me your claim is that Rome never had a claim to Papal supremacy until Nicaea? The entire premise of your argument is that they "passed off" Sardican Canon as a Nicene Canon to make a claim to papal supremacy. Stepping away from the Sardican canon for a moment, I would like to ask you:

1. Does Rome have papal supremacy? If so, it was not granted by the Council of Nicaea.
2. If Rome does not have papal supremacy, then how could they pass of a Sardican Canon as a Nicene Canon to make a claim to something the Roman see does not have?

Anyway, you've mentioned Canon V and Canon VI, and how these canons were misused for a claim to papal supremacy. However, Canon 3 of Sardica is really where one would find the canon noting the primacy of the Roman Pontiff. I would also note the wording in Latin and Greek is almost identical when it comes to the section of Canon 3 on the Primacy of the Roman Pontiff.

You used the fact of us having the copies of the Canons in Greek and Latin as smokescreen, since this fact has no bearing whatsoever on the gist of the matter

1. Rome never had Papal supremacy. Nicaea gave Primacy, not supremacy, to Rome. Refer to Vigilius, Honorius, and Nicholas
2. They attempted to misrepresent the Sardican Canon to bolster claim fo supremacy. This doesn't mean that Rome had supremacy, just that Rome claimed it and sought pretext to impose this claim

For 19 [325-344] years spanning three Bishops of Rome [Sylvester, Mark, Julius] they had the Canons of Nicaea [325] without the Canons of Sardica [344]. That excuse doesn't hold up at all. The supposition of 'the Canons of Nicaea and Sardica [and supposedly not other Canons] being written in one continuous unbroken list [why would they do such a thing?]' only highlights/sharpens what must seem like attempt to misrepresent/pass off a Canon that seems to be able to be used to bolster claim fo supremacy as an Ecumenical Canon
 

noahzarc1

High Elder
Site Supporter
Joined
Apr 22, 2018
Messages
742
Reaction score
47
Points
28
You used the fact of us having the copies of the Canons in Greek and Latin as smokescreen, since this fact has no bearing whatsoever on the gist of the matter

1. Rome never had Papal supremacy. Nicaea gave Primacy, not supremacy, to Rome. Refer to Vigilius, Honorius, and Nicholas
2. They attempted to misrepresent the Sardican Canon to bolster claim fo supremacy. This doesn't mean that Rome had supremacy, just that Rome claimed it and sought pretext to impose this claim

For 19 [325-344] years spanning three Bishops of Rome [Sylvester, Mark, Julius] they had the Canons of Nicaea [325] without the Canons of Sardica [344]. That excuse doesn't hold up at all. The supposition of 'the Canons of Nicaea and Sardica [and supposedly not other Canons] being written in one continuous unbroken list [why would they do such a thing?]' only highlights/sharpens what must seem like attempt to misrepresent/pass off a Canon that seems to be able to be used to bolster claim fo supremacy as an Ecumenical Canon
You kept using the word supremacy. I also noted "primacy," which is at the end of my comments, "Canon 3 of Sardica is really where one would find the canon noting the primacy of the Roman Pontiff. I would also note the wording in Latin and Greek is almost identical when it comes to the section of Canon 3 on the Primacy of the Roman Pontiff."
 

Michael Seraphim

Sr. Member
Warned
Post Moderated
Joined
Feb 27, 2018
Messages
152
Reaction score
12
Points
18
Location
Indonesia
You kept using the word supremacy. I also noted "primacy," which is at the end of my comments, "Canon 3 of Sardica is really where one would find the canon noting the primacy of the Roman Pontiff. I would also note the wording in Latin and Greek is almost identical when it comes to the section of Canon 3 on the Primacy of the Roman Pontiff."
I was clarifying that supremacy never existed in the history of the Church. The Church, through Synods, gave Primacy to the Bishop of Rome, including Universal Primacy because of Rome being the capital of the Empire
 
Top