• Please remember: Pray for Ukraine in the Prayer forum; Share news in the Christian News section; Discuss religious implications in FFA: Religious Topics; Discuss political implications in Politics (and if you don't have access, PM me) Thank you! + Fr. George, Forum Administrator

The "Arabic" Canons of Nicaea being pro-Papist?

Wandile

Archon
Joined
Nov 14, 2012
Messages
3,331
Reaction score
48
Points
48
Location
Johannesburg, South Africa
Faith
Catholic Church - Roman rite
Jurisdiction
Archdiocese of Pretoria
The Tome was accepted on the basis of its compatibility with Cyril's Christology, as the acts of Chalcedon make clear. It's then basically memory-holed in Eastern Christological discourse in favor of Cyril's anathemas and then the 5th council, which Rome was uh... not enthusiastic about.

Abu Qurra's statements about Rome are interesting, but they're recognized as being outliers. His Arabic works aren't critically edited and lots of manuscripts have rather different material in these passages. Lamoreaux, whose translation is the closest we currently have to a text-critical reading based on multiple manuscripts, argues (probably correctly) that the material about Rome is original, but that it's a sign of Abu Qurra's polemical creativity, since it's an entirely novel argument in Christological polemic. I've read more Arabic and Syriac Christological texts than really is healthy, and the only other one I'm aware of that makes a sustained argument ecclesiology is an unpublished 10th century text, probably also from Northern Syria, that has a rather different take as Abu Qurra- that is, any issue where one patriarchate is in the wrong, it's clear who's in the wrong. The argument being that Rome's error in the filioque was just as obvious as Dioscorus' about Chalcedon.

In terms of Ibn al-Tayyib, he obviously didn't believe that Rome had any particular authority about doctrine, what with his not accepting any council from Ephesus on.

The point is that you can't cherry-pick poorly translated, uncontextualized quotes randomly strung together and expect people to take you seriously. If people actually thought of the papacy like you think they did, the entire picture of Church history would be different. But if you're familiar with the life of the Church in the Eastern Mediterranean and further afield prior to the Crusades, Rome just wasn't that big a deal to anyone besides Constantinople (which was for obvious, and unfortunate, reasons of power-politics).
So IOW, after all this verbiage, you don’t have a rebuttal. Okay got it.

About Chalcedon you are quite frankly wrong and I urge you to go read the acts. Leo’s tome was accepted on its face and not against St Cyrils (That came after a small group bishops questioned it). I’ll reiterate: Please don’t even attempt to try bring up the small group of bishops who questioned the tome, as having read the acts, it’s clear the tome taken was orthodox on its face and after its acceptance a small of group of bishops questioned the tome because of language as they held strictly to the cyrlian use of “one” (Ironically St Cyril himself wasn’t even as strictly tied to the use of “one” as they were). The council showed how from a point of common ground, as both parties accepted Cyril from the third council, how the two saints taught the same doctrine despite using different words.

As regards the 5th council, Rome and the whole west weren’t happy about it because initially it sought to undermine he faith of the 4th ecumenical council and rightly so the objected. The council actually ended up listening to westerners about how to avoid turning on the 4th council which is why they, in the end, condemned the works and not the persons (This suggestion came from the west if you’d don’t know). The reason why St Cyril was used in the 5th council was because the council was held to appease the non-Chalcedonian Cyrilians who held strictly to his wording. It’s only logical what they did.

As to Ibn Al-Tayyib. Him writing that passage down as matter of instruction to the Assyrians about ecclesiology and faith is evidence he believed that otherwise why would he write it in the first place ? You make him a liar and deceptive.

The Assyrians main gripe about the third council is not about Rome but about St Cyril and how they feel he was unfair at the council towards Nestorius. That’s why they easily established communion Rome later with very little qualms.
 
Last edited:

Wandile

Archon
Joined
Nov 14, 2012
Messages
3,331
Reaction score
48
Points
48
Location
Johannesburg, South Africa
Faith
Catholic Church - Roman rite
Jurisdiction
Archdiocese of Pretoria
When we say "Nicene Creed", it is simply shorthand for "Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed". Easier to just say "Nicene". The finalized version is what was determined to be a perfect statement of Faith and was formally established into the Liturgy.
Who made this rule?

The only explicit prohibition to altering the creed comes from the third council which actually was referring to the creed of Nicaea I and the 318 fathers.

Secondly, as a matter of historical accuracy and interest, the Nicene-Constantinopolitan creed wasn’t even from the 2nd ecumenical council.That council actually promulgated no creed. That creed we recite in the liturgy every Sunday is simply the baptismal creed of Constantinople that was accepted by the local Synod of Constantinople in 382 and later at Chalcedon, but isn’t the Nicene creed nor an expanded version of it.
 

Samn!

OC.Net Guru
Joined
Sep 14, 2010
Messages
1,216
Reaction score
349
Points
83
Jurisdiction
Patriarchaat van Erps-Kwerps
About Chalcedon you are quite frankly wrong and I urge you to go read the acts. Leo’s tome was accepted on its face and not against St Cyrils
That's not what I said. The Tome was accepted because and inasmuch as it conformed to Cyril's faith-- the acclamation was "this is the faith of Cyril!" This is important, because it shows it wasn't accepted because of Rome's authority but because it could be interpreted in a manner conforming to correct faith. (That it could also very easily be interpreted otherwise is a different can of worms).


As to Ibn Al-Tayyib. Him writing that passage down as matter of instruction to the Assyrians about ecclesiology and faith is evidence he believed that otherwise why would he write it in the first place ? You make him a liar and deceptive.
Yeah, that's not how it works. If you read a text and it seems to go against obvious reality, first you remember that you can't use a polemical translation of a translation as your basis for reading it, then you realize that you're probably not putting the text in its proper context. Had the Church of the East believed what you say they believed, then they would've simply accepted the council on the basis of Rome's authority.

If later on Rome decided to say it was cool with Nestorius in order to convert some Assyrians, that's also a different issue....
 

noahzarc1

High Elder
Site Supporter
Joined
Apr 22, 2018
Messages
763
Reaction score
74
Points
28
Faith
Orthodox
Jurisdiction
Antioch
I'm just presenting to you the Orthodox view of dogma vs the Roman view. Dogmas are expressions of eternal and theological truths. They do not concern things like church governance or circumcision.
My brother, not exactly. In Luke 2:1, when Caesar issued a "decree" he issued what could be interpreted as a "dogma." In the theological sense, yes, dogmas are doctrines and moral precepts taught by Christ or by the apostles, and a distinction can be made between Divine, Apostolical, and Ecclesiastical dogmas. To the point of your own argument about the creed, first I would say we look at the gospels, which give us the record of what doctrines were taught by Christ. The creed is what was delivered by the apostles and then you have basically a third element, the (Nicene Creed 325) and the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed (381) as having been delivered to the faithful by the Church. By 225 AD, Tertullian a presbyter in Carthage, had already stated the Church at Carthage had received the rule of faith of the creed from the Church at Rome.

Regarding church governance, well if the Orthodox Church had no authority (or authority to govern) how can they declare a creed for example to be dogmatic? There must be some level of authority there so that you can know what they say is dogmatic is in fact dogmatic. This is where Protestants get into trouble. They reject Church authority time and again until they have to solve a problem, to which they look to their local church's authority. It can be a two edged sword for them.

When we say "Nicene Creed", it is simply shorthand for "Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed". Easier to just say "Nicene". The finalized version is what was determined to be a perfect statement of Faith and was formally established into the Liturgy.
My brother, I fully accept what you're saying about the Orthodox view of the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed. My question is really why is ok in your understanding that "the perfect statement of faith of the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed" can come nearly 400 years after the earliest statements and be accepted as both dogmatic and unchangeable, when one can compare the earliest creeds to that creed and see the development? Surely one must accept that while expressing the same faith, there was also development of the creed to its formulation in 381? I'm just sharing is that the Catholic Church also accepts that other dogmas were hammered out in the same fashion and some took much longer for the Church to come to a decision on.

I'm not sure I'm following your parents and children analogy.
Sorry. All I was saying is that on the day when a father and mother become parents they have all the authority they will ever have over their child. Probably easier to explain in person than in writing. I never pretended to be a good writer!

God Bless You.
 

Wandile

Archon
Joined
Nov 14, 2012
Messages
3,331
Reaction score
48
Points
48
Location
Johannesburg, South Africa
Faith
Catholic Church - Roman rite
Jurisdiction
Archdiocese of Pretoria
That's not what I said. The Tome was accepted because and inasmuch as it conformed to Cyril's faith-- the acclamation was "this is the faith of Cyril!"
That was not the acclamation:

“After the reading of the foregoing epistle [The Tome], the most reverend bishops cried out: This is the faith of the fathers, this is the faith of the Apostles. So we all believe, thus the orthodox believe. Anathema to him who does not thus believe. Peter has spoken thus through Leo. So taught the Apostles. Piously and truly did Leo teach, so taught Cyril. Everlasting be the memory of Cyril. Leo and Cyril taught the same thing, anathema to him who does not so believe. This is the true faith. Those of us who are orthodoxthus believe. This is the faith of the fathers. Why were not these things read at Ephesus [i.e. at the heretical synod held there, where the Tome was not read]? These are the things Dioscorus hid away.”


Your case is hinged on a mistake. The fathers accepted the Tome on its face and gave it the status of apostolic teaching saying “This is the faith of the fathers. This is the faith of the apostles” not “This is the faith of Cyril”. It’s most important that they said Peter has spoken through Leo, that is the conviction from which they draw their faith in Leo’s Tome. The Petrine authority of the apostolic see.

It’s also important to note that the bishops asked “Why were these things not read at Ephesus?”. This is because the tome and it’s teaching would have condemned the robber council of Ephesus. As we know Leo personally condemned this council and it’s from him that the church rejected it and got its name “the council of robbers”.

The latter mentioning of Cyril has to do with the fact that they read the acts of the third council in the previous session and then likened the decisions of this council to the previous council so as to show the continuity of orthodox faith in the councils previously held and the current council being held (This customary at all councils)

Lastly in writing up the dogmatic definition of faith, the Fathers Chalcedon adopted the language and formulation of St Leo, not St Cyril’s.


Yeah, that's not how it works. If you read a text and it seems to go against obvious reality, first you remember that you can't use a polemical translation of a translation as your basis for reading it, then you realize that you're probably not putting the text in its proper context. Had the Church of the East believed what you say they believed, then they would've simply accepted the council on the basis of Rome's authority.
That is actually how would works. What you fail to understand is that despite an acknowledgement of authority you undermine the rebelliousness of human nature. Even today in the Catholic Church that amongst all the clergy and Bishops that accept the 21 ecumenical councils and the universal teaching on papal authority, there is a diocese in Nigeria that has for over two years rejected a bishop sent to it from Rome despite knowing that Rome has the authority, as patriarch of the Latin church and as Pope who has universal jurisdiction, to do so. Let’s not even get into the Germans and their refusal to listen to Rome on numerous occasions despite accepting the dogmatic constitution of the church.

Like I said when the Assyrians came into communion they had no issues with papal authority in fact they readily acknowledged it and said what they said. As I quoted earlier, that Chaldean patriarch was the second patriarch of the current Chaldean Catholic Church after the union had been formed. Him and his predecessor were trained as a priests in typical Assyrian training and would have know if they thought Rome had such authority or not according to their training (upon accepting union with Rome) and yet the patriarch wrote what he did without Rome having defined anything close to that prior to that time or during that time.

Lastly you don’t write a theological manuals on matters of if ecclesiology for the instruction of the members of your church if you don’t believe what you wrote.

If later on Rome decided to say it was cool with Nestorius in order to convert some Assyrians, that's also a different issue....

Rome has never okayed Nestorius and the Chaldeans do not venerate him
 

PorphyriosK

OC.Net Guru
Joined
Aug 26, 2012
Messages
1,976
Reaction score
398
Points
83
Faith
Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction
ROCOR
My brother, not exactly. In Luke 2:1, when Caesar issued a "decree" he issued what could be interpreted as a "dogma." In the theological sense, yes, dogmas are doctrines and moral precepts taught by Christ or by the apostles, and a distinction can be made between Divine, Apostolical, and Ecclesiastical dogmas. To the point of your own argument about the creed, first I would say we look at the gospels, which give us the record of what doctrines were taught by Christ. The creed is what was delivered by the apostles and then you have basically a third element, the (Nicene Creed 325) and the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed (381) as having been delivered to the faithful by the Church. By 225 AD, Tertullian a presbyter in Carthage, had already stated the Church at Carthage had received the rule of faith of the creed from the Church at Rome.
Regarding Orthodox conceptions of dogma:
"The demarcation of the revelation is called dogma. Essentially, however, dogma shows Christ revealed in glory. It is an expression of the divine manifestations (theophanies) in both the Old and New Testaments. Dogma is not a simple external confession of faith, but a formulation of revelatory truth...

Dogma was not formulated by philosophers, moralists or conservatives in order to restrain people, but by Holy Fathers, who had experience of the Uncreated Glory of God. It was drawn up in order to deal with heretics and to guide the faithful to glorification. Dogma, therefore, is closely linked with the experience of glorification of the God-seeing Saints...

The foundation of dogma is the experience of the Saints. By accepting the dogmas and being in contact with glorified saints and their writings, we inherit their experience and not simply their words and the decisions that they laid down...


"Since the aim of theology is purification and illumination of the nous, and dogma is the expression of this experience of glorification, dogma is infallible in the Orthodox Church, because it is the expression of the experience of glorification of the Prophets, Apostles and Fathers of the church."

- Met. of Nafpaktos Hierotheos,
Empirical Dogmatics of the Orthodox Church

My brother, I fully accept what you're saying about the Orthodox view of the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed. My question is really why is ok in your understanding that "the perfect statement of faith of the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed" can come nearly 400 years after the earliest statements and be accepted as both dogmatic and unchangeable, when one can compare the earliest creeds to that creed and see the development? Surely one must accept that while expressing the same faith, there was also development of the creed to its formulation in 381? I'm just sharing is that the Catholic Church also accepts that other dogmas were hammered out in the same fashion and some took much longer for the Church to come to a decision on.
The Photian Council of 879-880 strictly forbade any changes to the original Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed once and for all time.

"Thus we think; in this Confession of Faith we were baptized; through this one word of truth every heresy is broken to pieces and canceled out. We enroll as brothers and fathers and coheirs of the heavenly city those who think thus. If anyone, however, dares to rewrite and call this Rule of Faith some other exposition besides that of the sacred Symbol which has been spread abroad from above by our blessed and holy Fathers even as far as ourselves, and to snatch the authority of the Confession of those divine men, and impose on it his own invented phrases (ἰδίαις εὑρεσιολογίαις) and put this forth as a common lesson to the faithful or to those who return from some kind of heresy, and display the audacity to falsify completely (κατακιβδηλεῦσαι ἀποθρασυνθείη) the antiquity of this sacred and venerable Horos (Rule) with illegitimate words, or additions, or subtractions, such a person should, according to the vote of the holy and Ecumenical Synods, which has been already acclaimed before us, be subjected to complete defrocking if he happens to be one of the clergymen, or be sent away with an anathema if he happens to be one of the lay people."

It should be noted that Council's decisions were acknowledged by Pope John VIII, and it was considered Ecumenical by Rome for the next 200 years, which is interesting because the Council also listed the Pope as first among equals and denied Papal authority over the East.

Sorry. All I was saying is that on the day when a father and mother become parents they have all the authority they will ever have over their child. Probably easier to explain in person than in writing. I never pretended to be a good writer!
You are a fine writer in my book my friend. (See what I did there?;))
God bless you.
You as well.
 
Last edited:

PorphyriosK

OC.Net Guru
Joined
Aug 26, 2012
Messages
1,976
Reaction score
398
Points
83
Faith
Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction
ROCOR
Hey Samn and Porphy

I just want to apologize for being overly agresisve in my tone. I read some of replies and that tone was really unnecessary.
It's all good. I was aggressive too and I'm sorry as well.
 

PorphyriosK

OC.Net Guru
Joined
Aug 26, 2012
Messages
1,976
Reaction score
398
Points
83
Faith
Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction
ROCOR
Who made this rule?

The only explicit prohibition to altering the creed comes from the third council which actually was referring to the creed of Nicaea I and the 318 fathers.
See my reply to noahzarc. The Photian Council of 879-880. Listed as Ecumenical by Rome until after the Schism.
 

Xavier

OC.Net Guru
Joined
Apr 5, 2015
Messages
1,276
Reaction score
23
Points
38
Age
33
Website
marianapostolate.com
Faith
Ecumenical Catholic Christian
Jurisdiction
The Pope - but my heart is for Re-Union!
In the Constantinople Council of 869, it seems Roman primacy was accepted during the Council proceedings. The debate about its ecumenicity began later. The legates who presided confirmed the decrees of Pope St. Nicholas. This was 10 years before the Council of 879.

Anyway, the discussion on primacy is an everlasting one. :)
 

PorphyriosK

OC.Net Guru
Joined
Aug 26, 2012
Messages
1,976
Reaction score
398
Points
83
Faith
Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction
ROCOR
In the Constantinople Council of 869, it seems Roman primacy was accepted during the Council proceedings. The debate about its ecumenicity began later. The legates who presided confirmed the decrees of Pope St. Nicholas. This was 10 years before the Council of 879.

Anyway, the discussion on primacy is an everlasting one. :)
Yes the Photian Council of 879 annulled the decisions of the Ignatian Council of 869. After the Schism, Latin canonists removed the Photian Council from Rome's list of Ecumenical Councils and replaced it with the annulled Council of 869.

And yes, that's why these debates will likely never be resolved unfortunately.
 

noahzarc1

High Elder
Site Supporter
Joined
Apr 22, 2018
Messages
763
Reaction score
74
Points
28
Faith
Orthodox
Jurisdiction
Antioch
Regarding Orthodox conceptions of dogma:
"The demarcation of the revelation is called dogma. Essentially, however, dogma shows Christ revealed in glory. It is an expression of the divine manifestations (theophanies) in both the Old and New Testaments. Dogma is not a simple external confession of faith, but a formulation of revelatory truth...

Dogma was not formulated by philosophers, moralists or conservatives in order to restrain people, but by Holy Fathers, who had experience of the Uncreated Glory of God. It was drawn up in order to deal with heretics and to guide the faithful to glorification. Dogma, therefore, is closely linked with the experience of glorification of the God-seeing Saints...

The foundation of dogma is the experience of the Saints. By accepting the dogmas and being in contact with glorified saints and their writings, we inherit their experience and not simply their words and the decisions that they laid down...


"Since the aim of theology is purification and illumination of the nous, and dogma is the expression of this experience of glorification, dogma is infallible in the Orthodox Church, because it is the expression of the experience of glorification of the Prophets, Apostles and Fathers of the church."

- Met. of Nafpaktos Hierotheos,
Empirical Dogmatics of the Orthodox Church
I have to admit this type of Orthodox reasoning is most likely why I did not end up ultimately in the Orthodox Church. You're going to have to explain to me what this means "the demarcation (boundary) of revelation is called dogma?" I am not at all looking to mock the good Metropolitan, but "Empirical Dogmatics of the Orthodox Church" makes me feel like I'm back in Political Science class. I just do not follow the Metropolitan's argument that heretics were dealt with because the Holy Fathers "experienced the uncreated Glory of God." How does one restrain a heretic by explaining they experienced uncreated glory? The reason we have such a problem with the burgeoning Pentecostal movement is due to this entire "experience of tongues" or their claimed experience of "the Shekinah glory." Their movement is wreaking havoc across multiple continents. It is almost impossible to try and convince a Pentecostal because of their "experience."

Next: "The foundation of dogma is the experience of the Saints. By accepting the dogmas and being in contact with glorified saints and their writings, we inherit their experience and not simply their words and the decisions that they laid down..." I am truly sorry my brother, I do love and respect you. However, I personally must be honest this is completely nonsensical and is nothing more than muddied waters. Basically the foundation of dogma is experience.

Finally: "Since the aim of theology is purification and illumination of the nous, and dogma is the expression of this experience of glorification, dogma is infallible in the Orthodox Church, because it is the expression of the experience of glorification of the Prophets, Apostles and Fathers of the church." - Earlier you told me that dogmas are expressions of eternal and theological truths, but do not concern things like circumcision. The Church does not practice circumcision anymore because that is what the first council in Acts 15 decided. This is a theological truth. Based on this quote, basically it is experience that is infallible.

I know you have your stances against Rome and I respect your opinion, but unless I see a larger context of what the good Metropolitan is saying here, basically I find that he is arguing the foundation of dogma is experience and experience is infallible. Charismatic Catholics might love something like this, but I am going to have to give a respectful but emphatic "no thank you" to his Empirical Dogmatics.
 

Wandile

Archon
Joined
Nov 14, 2012
Messages
3,331
Reaction score
48
Points
48
Location
Johannesburg, South Africa
Faith
Catholic Church - Roman rite
Jurisdiction
Archdiocese of Pretoria
See my reply to noahzarc. The Photian Council of 879-880. Listed as Ecumenical by Rome until after the Schism.
So this council is not accepted by Rome. Secondly the acceptance of the council of Pope John VIII is not historically tenable. After the council was closed, the legates returned to Rome and misrepresented to the Pope what they had done. Accordingly, Pope John sent a letter to Constantinople, thanking the emperor and others for restoring peace through the synod. In this letter, he makes his real will known, and his conditions for acceptance (which were not met at the council though his legates pretended that they were). In his letter to Basil prior to the council, he twice laid down the condition that Photius must request forgiveness from the synod for his prior crimes (usurpation of the patriarchate and calling for the deposition of the universally esteemed and renowned Pope St Nicholas). After the council, the Pope does not mention this condition (supposing, erroneously, that it had been met), but requires only that Photius must never again make any claim to Bulgaria (This was also not met).

Aside from the probable revocation of Photius’s excommunication, there is no evidence that Pope John ever assented to the content of the Photian synod of 879-880. He took no action, as far as we can tell from his numerous letters, against the addition of filioque to the Creed by Frankish clerics.

He hardly can be said to have repudiated the Council of 869-870 as wrongfully condemning Photius; on the contrary, he had asked Photius to apologize for his past crimes (which did not happen). It is practically certain, from everything we know about John’s views on papal primacy (which show even in the edited letters accepted at the Photian synod, 14th century forgeries) and his esteem for Pope St Nicholas, that he would not repudiate the previous council, and his ingratiating letter to the emperor Basil proves only that he was deceived as to the content of the Photian synod of 879/880.


A late ninth-century compiler of the acts of the Eighth Ecumenical Council (869-70) tells the following story. When the Pope learned what really happened at the Photian synod, he sent the cleric Marinus to Constantinople to declare invalid what the legates had done. Marinus was mistreated and imprisoned for thirty days. Upon Marinus’ return to Rome, Pope John stood on the pulpit and anathematized Photius and anyone who supports him. Pope Marinus I renewed the anathema when he became Pope in 882 (it was one of his first acts after being elected. Prior to his election he was papal legate to Constantinople for the prior three popes)

[Note: This is not a second photian schism but a personal condemnation of photius alone. Constantinople and Rome were not in schism anymore]

In support of this story, we find that Pope Stephen V wrote to Emperor Basil in 885-886 that Photius was still trying to get the Council of 869-70 abrogated. Naturally, this does not make sense if John had already abrogated it.

More evidence is that Pope John’s successors, following the re-excommunication of Photius, did not deem him legitimate patriarch. Pope Stephen, for his part, certainly denied the legitimacy of Photius as patriarch. When explaining to Basil why he did not write about a recently assembled Constantinopolitan synod, Pope Stephen says:

“But to whom was the Roman Church to write? To the layman Photius? If you had a patriarch, our Church would often communicate with him by letter. But for our love for you, we should have been compelled to inflict on the prevaricator Photius more severe penalties than our predecessors have done.”

The emperor Basil was dead when this letter arrived, and the new emperor Leo VI used it as justification to depose Photius in 886.
 
Last edited:

Samn!

OC.Net Guru
Joined
Sep 14, 2010
Messages
1,216
Reaction score
349
Points
83
Jurisdiction
Patriarchaat van Erps-Kwerps
In terms of Chalcedon, the "Leo and Cyril taught the same thing", etc. is my point. Leo is being held to the standard of Cyril's theology. We can see this in action at the 5th council, when that has to be made much more explicit, over and against Rome's objection.

The union of part of the Assyrians with Rome doesn't really give much evidence about the traditional beliefs of the Church of the East, given the abject material and educational state they were in when it happened and the material inducements offered by Roman missionaries.
 

PorphyriosK

OC.Net Guru
Joined
Aug 26, 2012
Messages
1,976
Reaction score
398
Points
83
Faith
Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction
ROCOR
Wandile:

"The Photian Council is not accepted by Rome". And? The point is that it once was accepted, while the Council of 869 was never accepted by the East. Once gain, I don't know exactly what you're expecting to achieve here. You have your history and claims and we have ours. But according to +Kallistos Ware, even famous RC historian Francis Dvornik acknowledged that the Photian Council ended the schism for another couple of hundred years. How could it have done that if Rome hadn't accepted it?

From eminent Greek scholar Fr. George Dragas:

"Finally in Pope John VIII's Commonitorium or Mandatum ch. 10, which was read by the papal legates at the third Session of the same Council, we find the following: "We [Pope John VIII] wish that it is declared before the Synod, that the Synod which took place against the aforementioned Patriarch Photios at the time of Hadrian, the Most holy Pope in Rome, and [the Synod] in Constantinople [869/70] should be ostracized from this present moment and be regarded as annulled and groundless, and should not be co-enumerated with any other holy Synods." The minutes at this point add: "The Holy Synod responded: We have denounced this by our actions and we eject it from the archives and anathematize the so-called [Eighth] Synod, being united to Photios our Most Holy Patriarch. We also anathematize those who fail to eject what was written or said against him by the aforementioned by yourselves, the so-called [Eighth] Synod." (Latin text: Caput 10. Volumus coram praesente synodo pomulgari ut synodus quae facta est contra praedictum patriarcham Photium sub Hadriano sanctissimo Papa in urbe Roma et Constantinopoli ex nunc sit rejecta, irrita, et sine robore; neque connumeretur cum altera sancta synodo. Sancta Synodus respondit: Nos rebus ispsis condemnavimus et abjecimus et anathematizavimus dictam a vobis synodum, uniti Photio sanctissimo nostro Patriarchae: et eos qui non rejiciunt scripta dictave nostra cum in hac dicta a vobis synodo, anathematizamus. Mansi vol. xvii, cl. 472AB. See also cls. 489/490E which repeats these points as accepted by the Synod. See also Dositheos op. cit. p. 345 and p. 361). I have included these texts here because I repeatedly encounter comments in the works of Western scholars, especially Roman Catholics, who offer confusing and even disputed information about the unanimous Eastern and Western condemnation of the anti-Photian Council of 869/870.

"The Eighth Ecumenical Council of 879-880 was affirmed by the patriarchs of Old Rome (Pope John VIII), New Rome [Constantinople] (Saint Photius), Antioch, Jerusalem, and Alexandria and by the Emperor Basil I. This council condemned any 'additions' to the Creed of Nicaea-Constantinople, condemned anyone who denied the legitimacy of the Seventh Ecumenical Council and its decree on icons, and contained an agreement that patriarchates would not interfere in each others' internal affairs. This council was regarded by (Old) Rome (present-day Rome) as the Eighth Ecumenical Council until the eleventh century. At that time, Roman Catholicism found it more convenient to replace it with a council held in Constantinople in 869 (a council that was never accepted in the East and was condemned by the Eighth Ecumenical Council of 879-880). It was at that time that Old Rome began to use the heretical Filioque in the Creed. They could no longer embrace a council which condemned that which they did."


19th Century French scholar/historian Abbe Guettee, who converted to Orthodoxy after having been given unlimited access to the Vatican library, wrote:

"The acts of the council of 879 have been found in the original in Rome itself, with all the authentic signatures, including those of the legates of Rome; and yet the ecclesiastical historians of the West insinuate that they may have been altered. On the other hand, the acts of the council of 869 were lost by the Roman legates, and are only known through Anastasius the librarian, who pretended to have a copy; and the Western historians will not allow of a doubt to their genuineness."
 

Wandile

Archon
Joined
Nov 14, 2012
Messages
3,331
Reaction score
48
Points
48
Location
Johannesburg, South Africa
Faith
Catholic Church - Roman rite
Jurisdiction
Archdiocese of Pretoria
In terms of Chalcedon, the "Leo and Cyril taught the same thing", etc. is my point. Leo is being held to the standard of Cyril's theology. We can see this in action at the 5th council, when that has to be made much more explicit, over and against Rome's objection.
That is not what happened. Leo was not held to Cyril’s standard as the acclamation of Leo’s faith is taken firstly as apostolic and then only after likened to Cyrils faith to show agreement and consistency with prior councils to quell any dissenters. If Cyrils faith was the standard, the council would have merely accepted Leo’s letter as orthodox but kept the formulation of Cyril (which was approved and used by the prior ecumenical council). The opposite happened, Leo’s theology and formulation were adopted as the dogmatic definition of conciliar faith deviate Cyril explicitly saying we should not speak two after the incarnation.

The union of part of the Assyrians with Rome doesn't really give much evidence about the traditional beliefs of the Church of the East, given the abject material and educational state they were in when it happened and the material inducements offered by Roman missionaries.
It actually does because it’s in line with the teachings of prior theologians and councils of the Church of the East like Mar Andisho in the 14th century and the 588 council and Ibn Al-Tayyib all giving testifying the same thing. There’s a , consistent witness of the same privilege, authority and prestige.

No matter what you think of them, I doubt they would assent to union with a church they considered heretical in regards to their ecclesiology. What Chaldean patriarch taught is what always knew and what his church (as evidenced by the aforementioned testimonies) has always about Rome.
 

PorphyriosK

OC.Net Guru
Joined
Aug 26, 2012
Messages
1,976
Reaction score
398
Points
83
Faith
Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction
ROCOR
I have to admit this type of Orthodox reasoning is most likely why I did not end up ultimately in the Orthodox Church. You're going to have to explain to me what this means "the demarcation (boundary) of revelation is called dogma?" I am not at all looking to mock the good Metropolitan, but "Empirical Dogmatics of the Orthodox Church" makes me feel like I'm back in Political Science class. I just do not follow the Metropolitan's argument that heretics were dealt with because the Holy Fathers "experienced the uncreated Glory of God." How does one restrain a heretic by explaining they experienced uncreated glory? The reason we have such a problem with the burgeoning Pentecostal movement is due to this entire "experience of tongues" or their claimed experience of "the Shekinah glory." Their movement is wreaking havoc across multiple continents. It is almost impossible to try and convince a Pentecostal because of their "experience."

Next: "The foundation of dogma is the experience of the Saints. By accepting the dogmas and being in contact with glorified saints and their writings, we inherit their experience and not simply their words and the decisions that they laid down..." I am truly sorry my brother, I do love and respect you. However, I personally must be honest this is completely nonsensical and is nothing more than muddied waters. Basically the foundation of dogma is experience.

Finally: "Since the aim of theology is purification and illumination of the nous, and dogma is the expression of this experience of glorification, dogma is infallible in the Orthodox Church, because it is the expression of the experience of glorification of the Prophets, Apostles and Fathers of the church." - Earlier you told me that dogmas are expressions of eternal and theological truths, but do not concern things like circumcision. The Church does not practice circumcision anymore because that is what the first council in Acts 15 decided. This is a theological truth. Based on this quote, basically it is experience that is infallible.

I know you have your stances against Rome and I respect your opinion, but unless I see a larger context of what the good Metropolitan is saying here, basically I find that he is arguing the foundation of dogma is experience and experience is infallible. Charismatic Catholics might love something like this, but I am going to have to give a respectful but emphatic "no thank you" to his Empirical Dogmatics.
I don't know what you want me to say Noah. It's clear you're becoming increasingly frustrated with me. Met. Hierotheos is one of the most highly regarded Orthodox theologians of our time. It's not up to me to prove to you that his methodology is perfectly acceptable within a Western theological paradigm. Obviously I acknowledge that the Church's teachings on circumcision are authoritative. If you want to call it "dogmatic", then that is fine. I'm just saying that decisions on circumcision or church governance do not rise to the same level as the dogmas contained in the Creed. If I am wrong, I am fully open to being corrected by my Orthodox brethren and will concede the point.
 

Samn!

OC.Net Guru
Joined
Sep 14, 2010
Messages
1,216
Reaction score
349
Points
83
Jurisdiction
Patriarchaat van Erps-Kwerps
Most of the second session of the Council of Chalcedon was devoted to a discussion of whether Leo's Tome was compatible with Cyril's established authority in Christology. From Price and Gaddis' translation of the Acts of the Council of Chalcedon, vol. 2, pp. 3-4:

There followed a reading of three more documents– Cyril of Alexandria’s Second Letter to Nestorius, his Letter to John of Antioch (both of which had been read out at the first session, as contained in the minutes of the Home Synod of 448), and a document already referred to but not yet read out, the Tome of Leo. The letters of Cyril were greeted, predictably, with acclamations of unanimous approval, but the Illyrian and Palestinian bishops who had supported Dioscorus in the first session (and deserted him only temporarily) interrupted the reading of the Tome with objections to several passages, a remarkable discourtesy towards a document that most of the bishops, in all probability, had already signed; this led, presumably, to detailed discussion that was reduced in the record to a series of citations from Cyril of Alexandria, intended to demonstrate agreement between Leo and Cyril. At the end of the reading the Tome was greeted with acclamations of approval that can scarcely have been unanimous. One bishop asked for Cyril’s Third Letter to Nestorius to be taken into account as well: this Third Letter contained the controversial Twelve Chapters and was regularly ignored by moderate followers of Cyril; there was no further mention of it in the public sessions of the council. The chairman now proposed a postponement of further discussion of the faith at a formal session of the council until Leo’s supporters had provided further reassurance for the critics of the Tome at a meeting to be held at the residence of the archbishop of Constantinople.






It actually does because it’s in line with the teachings of prior theologians and councils of the Church of the East like Mar Andisho in the 14th century and the 588 council and Ibn Al-Tayyib all giving testifying the same thing. There’s a , consistent witness of the same privilege, authority and prestige.
Prestige, definitely. Authority, demonstrably not.
 

Wandile

Archon
Joined
Nov 14, 2012
Messages
3,331
Reaction score
48
Points
48
Location
Johannesburg, South Africa
Faith
Catholic Church - Roman rite
Jurisdiction
Archdiocese of Pretoria
Wandile:"The Photian Council is not accepted by Rome". And? The point is that it once was accepted, while the Council of 869 was never accepted by the East
It was accepted under false pretenses and soon revoked it an anathematized Photius. Secondly the east accepted the 869 council as ecumenical for 10 years which is why Patraitch St Ignatius regained his see and reigned until his death and why after the death of Photius some easterners still never regarded him as legitimate patriarch or even a legitimate priest and why the were questions over the legitimacy of his ordinations.

St. Antony Cauleas, who became patriarch of Constantinople in 893, says that he reunited East and West, not Photius. It is not that any formal decree of reunion was issued, but rather now, for the first time since the death of St Ignatius, Constantinople had a patriarch whose legitimacy was unquestionable.

But according to +Kallistos Ware, even famous RC historian Francis Dvornik acknowledged that the Photian Council ended the schism for another couple of hundred years. How could it have done that if Rome hadn't accepted it?
Sincerely and with all due respect Porphy, did you read my post? I literally said, a regarding Pope John VIII and his successors subsequently anathematising Photius

“Note: This is not a second photian schism but a personal condemnation of photius alone. Constantinople and Rome were not in schism anymore”

Proof is that Photius’ successor, St. Antony Cauleas, who became patriarch of Constantinople in 893, says that he reunited East and West. That is, for the first time both east and west had a patriarch they both acknowledged.

From eminent Greek scholar Fr. George Dragas:

"Finally in Pope John VIII's Commonitorium or Mandatum ch. 10, which was read by the papal legates at the third Session of the same Council, we find the following: "We [Pope John VIII] wish that it is declared before the Synod, that the Synod which took place against the aforementioned Patriarch Photios at the time of Hadrian, the Most holy Pope in Rome, and [the Synod] in Constantinople [869/70] should be ostracized from this present moment and be regarded as annulled and groundless, and should not be co-enumerated with any other holy Synods." The minutes at this point add: "The Holy Synod responded: We have denounced this by our actions and we eject it from the archives and anathematize the so-called [Eighth] Synod, being united to Photios our Most Holy Patriarch. We also anathematize those who fail to eject what was written or said against him by the aforementioned by yourselves, the so-called [Eighth] Synod." (Latin text: Caput 10. Volumus coram praesente synodo pomulgari ut synodus quae facta est contra praedictum patriarcham Photium sub Hadriano sanctissimo Papa in urbe Roma et Constantinopoli ex nunc sit rejecta, irrita, et sine robore; neque connumeretur cum altera sancta synodo. Sancta Synodus respondit: Nos rebus ispsis condemnavimus et abjecimus et anathematizavimus dictam a vobis synodum, uniti Photio sanctissimo nostro Patriarchae: et eos qui non rejiciunt scripta dictave nostra cum in hac dicta a vobis synodo, anathematizamus. Mansi vol. xvii, cl. 472AB. See also cls. 489/490E which repeats these points as accepted by the Synod. See also Dositheos op. cit. p. 345 and p. 361). I have included these texts here because I repeatedly encounter comments in the works of Western scholars, especially Roman Catholics, who offer confusing and even disputed information about the unanimous Eastern and Western condemnation of the anti-Photian Council of 869/870.
This letter is a 14th century forgery that even Fr Francis Dvornik, with his excessive Photian bias, admitted.

19th Century French scholar/historian Abbe Guettee, who converted to Orthodoxy after having been given unlimited access to the Vatican library, wrote:

"The acts of the council of 879 have been found in the original in Rome itself, with all the authentic signatures, including those of the legates of Rome; and yet the ecclesiastical historians of the West insinuate that they may have been altered. On the other hand, the acts of the council of 869 were lost by the Roman legates, and are only known through Anastasius the librarian, who pretended to have a copy; and the Western historians will not allow of a doubt to their genuineness."
The acts being present at Rome mean nothing because the Latin translation was most likely attained in later decades or centuries.

We know for sure that they weren’t in Rome during the reign of Pope John VIII because :

- His letter to emperor Basil makes it clear that he believed his conditions for reunion with Photius were met when the acts of the council show that practically none of them were met especially Photius having to apologize for his prior crimes towards Saints Ignatius and Nicholas and repudiating any claims to Bulgaria. These were the two major conditions one of Pope John VIII for reunion and both were emphatically not met
- We also know because Marinus , who later became Pope, was sent by Pope John VIII to find out what actually happened and upon recovering Marinus back in Rome, amathematized Photius and Marinus renewed this anathema as soon as he became Pope.
- Pope Stephen V writes that he did even recognize Photius as a patriarch nor even as priest and called him a layman. He also says that the anathemas of his predecessors were too light a sentence on Photius
- Many in the east itself did not regard Photius as legitimate patriarch even after his death
- Photius was still trying to have the 869/870 council annulled 10 years after the 879/880 council was held. Something absolutely unexplainable if the 879/880 council was confirmed by the whole church (as the council attempted to annul and repudiate the 869/879 council).
- Lastly St. Antony Cauleas, who became patriarch of Constantinople in 893, says that he reunited East and West and only in his reign did Rome and Constantinople finally have full peace.
 

Wandile

Archon
Joined
Nov 14, 2012
Messages
3,331
Reaction score
48
Points
48
Location
Johannesburg, South Africa
Faith
Catholic Church - Roman rite
Jurisdiction
Archdiocese of Pretoria
Most of the second session of the Council of Chalcedon was devoted to a discussion of whether Leo's Tome was compatible with Cyril's established authority in Christology. From Price and Gaddis' translation of the Acts of the Council of Chalcedon, vol. 2, pp. 3-4:
Wow I already spoke about this earlier. Again, this relates to the fact, as I mentioned earlier, that some explanations were asked for by the group of Illyrian bishops and the answers were found satisfactory, but yet a delay of a few days was asked for. A committee was set up and The council showed them how from a point of common ground, as both parties accepted Cyril from the third council, how the two saints taught the same doctrine despite using different words.

Prestige, definitely. Authority, demonstrably not.
It’s pretty clear that when Mar Abdisho of Soba, the canonist and theologian, says:

“And as the patriarch has authority to do all he wishes in a fitting manner in such things as are beneath his authority, so the patriarch of Rome has authority over all patriarchs, like the blessed Peter over all the community, for he who is in Rome also keeps the office of Peter in all the Church. He who transgresses against these things the ecumenical synod places under anathema”
(Memra9; Risha 8).



Or when Ibn Al-Tayyib, the canonist, says:

“as there is reason for the authority of each patriarch over his metropolitans and other subjects, so there is the same reason for the authority of the Romanpatriarch over all other patriarchs”

That they don’t simply mean mere prestige, but authority.
 
Last edited:

Samn!

OC.Net Guru
Joined
Sep 14, 2010
Messages
1,216
Reaction score
349
Points
83
Jurisdiction
Patriarchaat van Erps-Kwerps
Look, there's no reason for us to go around in circles. I don't really understand why you think that a detailed review of the Tome to make sure it was in line with the orthodoxy of Cyril, followed by an acclamation that makes this clear isn't proof that papal statements were not authoritative on their own, but obviously I can't help you.

As for your quotes from figures in the Church of the East, I haven't had time to grab the Arabic edition of Ibn al-Tayyib, but there's no use in discussing dubious translations of translations without reference to the original. I have spent a lot of time with other 11th century sources (particularly Elias of Nisibis), and the idea that the Church of the East believed that Rome had any actual authority over them just doesn't fit with the facts.

Likewise for the first quote, whose context I'm less familiar with, but in that case the "like the blessed Peter over all the community" is probably pretty important for interpretation, given that Peter did not have absolute authority over the Apostles and was, quite famously, open to rebuke when he erred.
 

MalpanaGiwargis

High Elder
Joined
Aug 7, 2014
Messages
699
Reaction score
51
Points
28
Location
Atlanta, GA
Faith
Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction
ACROD
I really want to see the Syriac of that Abdisho quote and read it in context. First of all, the facts of his life and other writings make clear he cannot mean exactly what you want him to mean. He was never in communion with Rome, and he condemned the Filioque and the Christology of both Ephesus and Chalcedon in his Marganitha. So even if Rome is given a primacy, it is not clear from your excerpt that this is a God-given primacy (as opposed to ecclesiastical tradition), and it obviously is not the same thing Vatican I teaches. In the Marganitha, in discussing the different levels of authority in the Church, he says that the patriarchs, metropolitans, and archbishops hold the highest place, like the cherubim, seraphim, and thrones hold the highest place among the angels, but there is no mention or Rome or Peter.
 

Samn!

OC.Net Guru
Joined
Sep 14, 2010
Messages
1,216
Reaction score
349
Points
83
Jurisdiction
Patriarchaat van Erps-Kwerps
I really want to see the Syriac of that Abdisho quote and read it in context. First of all, the facts of his life and other writings make clear he cannot mean exactly what you want him to mean. He was never in communion with Rome, and he condemned the Filioque and the Christology of both Ephesus and Chalcedon in his Marganitha. So even if Rome is given a primacy, it is not clear from your excerpt that this is a God-given primacy (as opposed to ecclesiastical tradition), and it obviously is not the same thing Vatican I teaches. In the Marganitha, in discussing the different levels of authority in the Church, he says that the patriarchs, metropolitans, and archbishops hold the highest place, like the cherubim, seraphim, and thrones hold the highest place among the angels, but there is no mention or Rome or Peter.
It's also a very confusing reference, because "memra 9" doesn't state what work it's from and most of Abdisho's works aren't published or properly edited.
 

noahzarc1

High Elder
Site Supporter
Joined
Apr 22, 2018
Messages
763
Reaction score
74
Points
28
Faith
Orthodox
Jurisdiction
Antioch
I don't know what you want me to say Noah. It's clear you're becoming increasingly frustrated with me. Met. Hierotheos is one of the most highly regarded Orthodox theologians of our time. It's not up to me to prove to you that his methodology is perfectly acceptable within a Western theological paradigm. Obviously I acknowledge that the Church's teachings on circumcision are authoritative. If you want to call it "dogmatic", then that is fine. I'm just saying that decisions on circumcision or church governance do not rise to the same level as the dogmas contained in the Creed. If I am wrong, I am fully open to being corrected by my Orthodox brethren and will concede the point.
I can assure you I am not at all becoming frustrated with you! I actually quite enjoy the conversations. I just have never looked at dogma as having levels quite like you're advocating (or perhaps advocating on behalf of Met. Hierotheos.) Yes, I understand normally east and west have differing views about how to explain such matters such as the west would be more apt to say there are different types of dogma such as explicit, implicit or formally revealed truths vs. what the Metropolitan is saying. He said, "The demarcation of the revelation is called dogma." In Acts 15:7-11, Peter basically mentioned the entire Trinity as part of the revelation God made to the Gentiles through the Word. So this revelation which was preached to the Gentiles is used as the basis of the decision about circumcision. If that means the there are levels and because the Trinity (the dogma as expressed in the creed) was the basis of a dogmatic decision on circumcision and thus one dogma has supremacy over the other then that is fine to me if that is how the Orthodox look at it. No one denies the dogmas contained in the creed are not revealed dogmas, but wouldn't the Orthodox have to admit it is a "strict dogma" (as you're proposing) because the Church was the authority tasked with the job of defining the creed and thus it has the authority of the Church behind it?

Met Hierotheos also stated, "Dogma is not a simple external confession of faith, but a formulation of revelatory truth." Isn't the creed an expression of faith as formulated by the church? That is why it is so authoritative to you. Not that the scripture is not authoritative, but that God called the Church the pillar and ground of the truth (1 Timothy 3:15.) We don't just blindly mumble the creed, but agree with and internalize the truth it contains as declared from our authority. I would see the creed more of a witness to unbelievers (or new converts) to what the church believed and defined as much as a continual reaffirmation of what we hold to be true. I can assure you there are numerous Protestants who believe in God, believe in Jesus Christ, and believe in the Holy Spirit, but tragically it can become a muddled mess when you ask them to express their beliefs about these three persons of the Trinity. I think the Creed is a fabulous foundation that helps believers in the Church know exactly what the dogmatic truth is.
 

MalpanaGiwargis

High Elder
Joined
Aug 7, 2014
Messages
699
Reaction score
51
Points
28
Location
Atlanta, GA
Faith
Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction
ACROD
It's also a very confusing reference, because "memra 9" doesn't state what work it's from and most of Abdisho's works aren't published or properly edited.
Yes, I wondered that, too. I think it's supposed to be referring his Nomocanon, but I don't have access to that now.
 

Samn!

OC.Net Guru
Joined
Sep 14, 2010
Messages
1,216
Reaction score
349
Points
83
Jurisdiction
Patriarchaat van Erps-Kwerps

PorphyriosK

OC.Net Guru
Joined
Aug 26, 2012
Messages
1,976
Reaction score
398
Points
83
Faith
Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction
ROCOR
It was accepted under false pretenses and soon revoked it an anathematized Photius. Secondly the east accepted the 869 council as ecumenical for 10 years which is why Patraitch St Ignatius regained his see and reigned until his death and why after the death of Photius some easterners still never regarded him as legitimate patriarch or even a legitimate priest and why the were questions over the legitimacy of his ordinations.

St. Antony Cauleas, who became patriarch of Constantinople in 893, says that he reunited East and West, not Photius. It is not that any formal decree of reunion was issued, but rather now, for the first time since the death of St Ignatius, Constantinople had a patriarch whose legitimacy was unquestionable.



Sincerely and with all due respect Porphy, did you read my post? I literally said, a regarding Pope John VIII and his successors subsequently anathematising Photius

“Note: This is not a second photian schism but a personal condemnation of photius alone. Constantinople and Rome were not in schism anymore”

Proof is that Photius’ successor, St. Antony Cauleas, who became patriarch of Constantinople in 893, says that he reunited East and West. That is, for the first time both east and west had a patriarch they both acknowledged.



This letter is a 14th century forgery that even Fr Francis Dvornik, with his excessive Photian bias, admitted.



The acts being present at Rome mean nothing because the Latin translation was most likely attained in later decades or centuries.

We know for sure that they weren’t in Rome during the reign of Pope John VIII because :

- His letter to emperor Basil makes it clear that he believed his conditions for reunion with Photius were met when the acts of the council show that practically none of them were met especially Photius having to apologize for his prior crimes towards Saints Ignatius and Nicholas and repudiating any claims to Bulgaria. These were the two major conditions one of Pope John VIII for reunion and both were emphatically not met
- We also know because Marinus , who later became Pope, was sent by Pope John VIII to find out what actually happened and upon recovering Marinus back in Rome, amathematized Photius and Marinus renewed this anathema as soon as he became Pope.
- Pope Stephen V writes that he did even recognize Photius as a patriarch nor even as priest and called him a layman. He also says that the anathemas of his predecessors were too light a sentence on Photius
- Many in the east itself did not regard Photius as legitimate patriarch even after his death
- Photius was still trying to have the 869/870 council annulled 10 years after the 879/880 council was held. Something absolutely unexplainable if the 879/880 council was confirmed by the whole church (as the council attempted to annul and repudiate the 869/879 council).
- Lastly St. Antony Cauleas, who became patriarch of Constantinople in 893, says that he reunited East and West and only in his reign did Rome and Constantinople finally have full peace.
"With all due respect, etc." Dude, just dispense with the niceties and spare me. You are insufferable. You have zero respect for the Holy Orthodox Faith, nor for any of us here, so you can also dispense with the recurring feigned apologies for "tone" etc. You can hardly contain your contempt. No need to keep faking it. You don't even have respect for your own Byzantine Catholic churches. You're a "Latin-only-ist" with a superiority complex.

"We know for sure, etc." This whole "Wandile has spoken, it is thus" routine has become beyond tiresome. Obviously you think our scholars, historians, and theologians are bunk: what a shocker. Sorry, but I'll take the words of our own four holy Patriarchs who spoke authoritatively on the matter over your self-appointed lawyering:

"But in process of time, by envy of the devil, the novelties respecting the sound and orthodox doctrine of the Holy Ghost, the blasphemy of whom shall not be forgiven unto men either in this world or the next, according to the saying of our Lord (Matt. xii. 32), and others that succeeded respecting the divine Mysteries, particularly that of the world-saving Baptism, and the Holy Communion, and the Priesthood, like prodigious births, overspread even Old Rome; and thus sprung, by assumption of special distinctions in the Church as a badge and title, the Papacy. Some of the Bishops of that City, styled Popes, for example Leo III and John VIII, did indeed, as has been said, denounce the innovation, and published the denunciation to the world, the former by those silver plates, the latter by his letter to the holy Photius at the eighth Ecumenical Council, and another to Sphendopulcrus, by the hands of Methodius, Bishop of Moravia. The greater part, however, of their successors, the Popes of Rome, enticed by the antisynodical privileges offered them for the oppression of the Churches of God, and finding in them much worldly advantage, and "much gain," and conceiving a Monarchy in the Catholic Church and a monopoly of the gifts of the Holy Ghost, changed the ancient worship at will, separating themselves by novelties from the old received Christian Polity. Nor did they cease their endeavors, by lawless projects (as veritable history assures us), to entice the other four Patriarchates into their apostasy from Orthodoxy, and so subject the Catholic Church to the whims and ordinances of men."
-Encyclical of the Eastern Patriarchs, 1848


The same Encyclical even has some choice words concerning your activities here:

"Yet the Papacy has not on this account ceased to annoy the peaceful Church of God, but sending out everywhere so-called missionaries, men of reprobate minds, it compasses land and sea to make one proselyte, to deceive one of the Orthodox, to corrupt the doctrine of our LORD...

But notwithstanding this, the Papists do not cease to this day, nor will cease, according to wont, to attack Orthodoxy,—a daily living reproach which they have before their eyes, being deserters from the faith of their fathers. Would that they made these aggressions against the heresy which has overspread and mastered the West. For who doubts that had their zeal for the overthrow of Orthodoxy been employed for the overthrow of heresy and novelties, agreeable to the God-loving counsels of Leo III and John VIII, those glorious and last Orthodox Popes, not a trace of it, long ago, would have been remembered under the sun, and we should now be saying the same things, according to the Apostolic promise. But the zeal of those who succeeded them was not for the protection of the Orthodox Faith, in conformity with the zeal worthy of all remembrance which was in Leo III., now among the blessed."
 

Michael Seraphim

Sr. Member
BANNED
Joined
Feb 27, 2018
Messages
167
Reaction score
17
Points
18
Location
Indonesia
Faith
Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction
Ecumenical Patriarchate
As of recently, I've kind of had a little bit of a relapse in terms of my Faith in Orthodoxy - for some reason, maybe its my nostalgia for Western rite Liturgical Tradition which I miss deeply and am longing for. Not to mention that there are still some Roman Catholic saints in terms of their lives which are close to my heart, including Thomas Aquinas, Clare of Assisi, John Bosco, Philip Neri (who actually advocated for the Jesus Prayer during periods of great temptation), Alphonsus Ligori, etc.

Although I'm not to a point where I am like 50% 50% confident, it has gone from 90% to 10% confident in Orthodoxy vs. Catholicism to that of like 66 2/3% to 33 1/3%.

In terms of my continued research into the Papacy, one Catholic apologist brought up the "Arabic" Canons of Nicaea, forgeries which supposedly originate from the East but are very explicit in terms of the universal jurisdiction of the Pope.

The argument is, that even though it is in fact a forgery, the fact that it originates in the East is a testament that even the Easterners believed and subscribed to Papal Universal Jurisdiction from the beginning, and would've used Papal Jurisdiction to legitimize such a forgery.

It includes language and vocabulary that seems very explicit and pro-Roman Catholic, including such terms as "Vicar of Christ" and the necessity of obeying the Pope.

CANON XXXIX.
"Of the care and power which a Patriarch has over the bishops and archbishops of his patriarchate; and of the primacy of the Bishop of Rome over all.
Let the patriarch consider what things are done by the archbishops and bishops in their provinces; and if he shall find anything done by them otherwise than it should be, let him change it, and order it, as seemeth him fit: for he is the father of all, and they are his sons. And although the archbishop be among the bishops as an elder brother, who hath the care of his brethren, and to whom they owe obedience because he is over them; yet the patriarch is to all those who are under his power, just as he who holds the seat of Rome, is the head and prince of all patriarchs; in-asmuch as he is first, as was Peter, to whom power is given over all Christian princes, and over all their peoples, as he who is the Vicar of Christ our Lord over all peoples and over the whole Christian Church, and whoever shall contradict this, is excommunicated by the Synod."

However, I cannot find ANY information about these "Arabic Canons" and when they originate in terms of time period, and where they originate geographically. It would make sense if such canons originated post-schism in Lebanon (as I don't recall the term "Vicar of Christ" being used up until the Fourth Lateran Council), but if they originated in Antioch pre-schism around the time of Nicaea, it really harms the Orthodox claim of there not being a Papal Supreme Jurisdiction from the beginning.

Is there any information available about these canons?
In what universe is forgery an evidence of fact? How can falsehood be evidence of the very truth it supposedly proposes? This reasoning is marvellous like the chimera

Is Donatio Constantinii evidence that Constantine indeed bequathed the provinces of the West to Sylvester and made him supreme ruler over all Churches? With this line of thinking, little wonder that Aquinas quoted the False Decretals no less than 136 times in Summa Theologica to establish dogmatic Papal supremacy
 

Samn!

OC.Net Guru
Joined
Sep 14, 2010
Messages
1,216
Reaction score
349
Points
83
Jurisdiction
Patriarchaat van Erps-Kwerps
Since more and more of CSCO is coming up on Archive.org, here's Arthur Vööbus's edition of the apocryphal Syriac Canons of Nicaea attributed to Mar Marutha, which form the basis of the Arabic Canons of Nicaea. There's not anything in them about Rome apart from its place at the head of the diptychs. On the other hand, Canon 5 states that the Church of the East can't hold a synod without permission of the Patriarch of Antioch.

Here, in Syriac and English translation: https://archive.org/details/csco-440-syr-192-voobus-1982-canons-maruta-v
 

Samn!

OC.Net Guru
Joined
Sep 14, 2010
Messages
1,216
Reaction score
349
Points
83
Jurisdiction
Patriarchaat van Erps-Kwerps
So, I think I found the source of the Ibn al-Tayyib quote above: It's in Arabic in vol. 1 p. 119 and in German in vol. 2, p. 121, here. The text being quoted isn't a canon, but rather an apocryphal "Letter from Timothy to Arkn, Leader of the Christians in India", which might not be known from any other sources. The context is about who has the right to ordain who, arguing that metropolitans can't be ordained by bishops and the catholicos can't be ordained by his metropolitans, putting forward forward an obviously imaginary schema where the Catholicos of Seleucia-Ctesphon is instead supposed to be ordained by the 4 western patriarchs "by means of his metropolitans and bishops". Here Rome is being presented as the top of this imaginary pyramid of ordination, but it has nothing to do with authority or with anything that ever actually happened in the Church of the East.
 

jobin219

Sr. Member
Joined
Dec 17, 2010
Messages
153
Reaction score
1
Points
18
Faith
Syriac Orthodox
Jurisdiction
Patriarch of Antioch and all the East
Since more and more of CSCO is coming up on Archive.org, here's Arthur Vööbus's edition of the apocryphal Syriac Canons of Nicaea attributed to Mar Marutha, which form the basis of the Arabic Canons of Nicaea. There's not anything in them about Rome apart from its place at the head of the diptychs. On the other hand, Canon 5 states that the Church of the East can't hold a synod without permission of the Patriarch of Antioch.

Here, in Syriac and English translation: https://archive.org/details/csco-440-syr-192-voobus-1982-canons-maruta-v
What are your thoughts on Canon 9 of the 73?
 

Samn!

OC.Net Guru
Joined
Sep 14, 2010
Messages
1,216
Reaction score
349
Points
83
Jurisdiction
Patriarchaat van Erps-Kwerps
So, my mistake earlier- I resurrected this thread because I was working with Arabic pseudo-Nicaea for another purpose so I happened to glance at Vööbus' edition, clearly too quickly.

Canon 9 (p. 58) in this edition says:
It is the will of the general synod that regarding all matters which do not take place aright, whether under the hand of another bishop, that the patriarch shall have the authority to command in term (and that), authoritatively. For the patriarch is (the father) of the community (of prelates) and all the bishops are sons of his heritage. The honor of a metropolitan is as that of an older brother who orders (matters) among his brothers but the honor of the patriarch is like that of the father who has authority over his sons.

And just as it is lawful for the patriarch to do everything that he wills rightly in all (matters) of these (provinces) subjected to his authority, just so shall be the authority of that (prelate) of Rome over the patriarchs, as the blessed Peter (is) above the whole community (of prelates). For he also holds the place of Peter in the entire church, that (which is) in Rome.

The general synod puts him who transgresses these (canons) under an anathema.
Now, Vööbus was working entirely from Chaldean manuscripts from the 17th-20th centuries, so there's the possibility that this is an interpolation.
Against this, Mai's 19th century edition of Abdisho has an identical text. But it almost certainly also relies also on a late, Chaldean manuscript basis, though this is less clear. Which is to say, the source for the text of this canon may simply go back, in Catholic manuscripts, to Abraham of Ecchellensis' somewhat dubious activities-- that is, it's identical to the "Canon 39 of the Arabic Council of Nicaea" cited in the original post. Unfortunately, the parallel Vööbus cites in Ibn al-Tayyib is either to the wrong page number or there's another problem and reading through the section on patriarchs, metropolitans and bishops, I can't find a close parallel. In any case, the index to that edition makes it clear that there's no mention of "Rome" in such a context.
 

Samn!

OC.Net Guru
Joined
Sep 14, 2010
Messages
1,216
Reaction score
349
Points
83
Jurisdiction
Patriarchaat van Erps-Kwerps
If we look at a 13th century Arabic manuscript of the pseudo-Nicene canons, Vat. Arabic 154, starting on f. 127v., there's no sign of this (doubly spurious?) "Canon 39". Instead, they go through the canons of Marutha and some of the sorts of things cited by Ibn al-Tayyib, but when it gets to the material that should match Canon 9 in Vööbus' edition, the discussion has no trace of this emphasis on the patriarch's absolute authority, but rather goes into a more complicated discussion of appeals....
 

Samn!

OC.Net Guru
Joined
Sep 14, 2010
Messages
1,216
Reaction score
349
Points
83
Jurisdiction
Patriarchaat van Erps-Kwerps
Okay, so I finally found it- Canon 44 in the numbering in the Melkite pseudo-Nicene canons. So, the pseudo-canon did indeed exist in the 13th century. It's on f. 179v.-180r. here:

القانون الرابع والاربعون: وان ينظر البطريرك في كل عمل وامر يعمل به مطارنته واساقفته في بلدانهم الذي يلوها فان وجد فيها شي على غير ما ينبغي فليغيره ويامر فيه بما يراه لانه هو ابو جميعهم وهم بنوه وانما المطران عليهم في رياسته وتوقيرهم اياه بمنزلة الاخ الكبير الذي تقدم اخوته ويوجبون طاعته بحسن سياسته وتدبيره

فاما البطريك فانه بمنزلة الاب في سلطانه على بنيه وكما ان البطريرك امره وسلطانه على ما تحت يده كذلك لصاحب رومية ايضا سلطان على ساير البطاركة في انه هو الاول مثل بطرس فيما كان له من السلطان في جميع ريسا النصرانية وكافة اهلها لانه خليفة المسيح ربنا على شعبه وكنايسه كلها فمن يخالف هذه السنة فجماعة السينودس تحرمه

Translation:
Canon 44: And that the patriarch should examine every activity and affair that his metropolitans and bishops do in their territory dependent on them and if he finds something not as it should be, let him change it and command about it as he sees fit, because he is the father of them all and they are his sons. The metropolitan is over them in his leadership and they honor him like an older brother who goes before his brothers. They are obliged to obey him in his good governance and administration.

As for the patriarch, he is like the father in his authority over his sons. Just as the patriarch has command and authority over what is in his control [lit. "under his hand"], so too does the primate [lit. "possessor"] of Rome also have authority over all the patriarchs, in that he is the first, like Peter in the authority he had among all the leaders of Christianity and all its people, because he is the successor [khalifa] of Christ our Lord over His people and all His churches. He who disobeys this law [sunna] is anathematized by the council.
 
Top