Jump to content

Придружите се нашој ВИБЕР ГРУПИ на ЛИНКУ

Sign in to follow this  
Bernard

Answering Eastern Orthodox Objections (Part 1) – Schism, Greek episcopate on Divine Roman Primacy, Vigilius/Honorius, & Council vs Pope

Оцени ову тему

Recommended Posts

                                                                      francisco_de_goya_-_saint_gregory_the_great_pope_-_google_art_project

 

The Following is a response to an Orthodox interlocutor. He had read my blogpost entitled “Papal Office is internal to the Episcopate , Some Notes On The Mutual Dependency of Bishops to the Pope, Citations from the Church Fathers“, and offered some objections. His real name will go unmentioned. He will be referred to as Max. His comments are in the large bold  lettering, my answers are in the small text.

WHERE IS EVIDENCE OF THIS AT THE FALSE REUNIFICATION COUNCILS OF LYONS (1274) AND FLORENCE (1439) WHICH WERE REJECTED BY THE EASTERN CHURCHES ONLY HAD THE SUPPORT OF THE BISHOP OF ROME WITHIN HIS OWN (WESTERN) PATRIARCHATE?

The author of this statement has overridden the natural constitution of the Church’s government in preference of Patriarchal governance. It is fact that Patriarchal governance was not instituted by Jesus Christ, nor the Apostles, nor the early bishops for several centuries. What did Christ establish? He established the 12 Apostles who formed both an administrative college and missionary society. What did Christ establish through the Apostles? He established the successors to the Apostles, bishops, which is formed, like the Apostles, in a governing college and commissioned society. Within this College, there is a distinction between Head and members, Pope and bishops. Later metropolia and patriarchal organization were Church-created organizations for the better managing of the churches. The latter cannot be used to size up any into one grouping. There are churches with their bishops. The church of Rome has the successor of Peter. Thus, the church of Rome as the central head of the worldwide episcopate and the bishops/churches surrounding him in one compact visible administrative unity. Thus, when Max here makes a measurement of the universal church in Patriarchal divisions, leaving the bishops and Pope who agreed with the decrees of Lyons and Florence, he is disregarding fundamental and divine institutions and even mistakes them for the Patriarchal boundaries.

One more thing – I wonder where Max gets the idea that the Patriarchate of Rome was automatically everything Western. At the council of Nicaea, canon 6 alluded to the comparable quasi-Patriarchal rights over Italia suburbicaria, which didn’t quite encompass Gaul, Spain, England, what would become Frankish lands, Africa, etc,etc. So what is it between the Council of Nicaea and the big Councils such as Ephesus 431 and Chalcedon 451 that automatically makes all these Western sees part of the Roman Patriarchate? Sure Rome was a missionary mother to these churches, but that doesn’t entail what has been assumed. The original mother was the city church of Jerusalem, and yet the world is not one big Jerusalem Patriarchate.

Many more questions could be brought up

 

 ERICK YBARRA WRITES: “BUT, WE CAN ASK, CAN THE POPE GO AGAINST THE ENTIRE EPISCOPATE?”

—> THIS IS EXACTLY WHAT HAPPENED WHEN ROME WENT INTO SCHISM AND BROKE AWAY FROM THE ANCIENT PATRIARCHATES OF JERUSALEM, ANTIOCH, ALEXANDRIA, CONSTANTINOPLE AND PRETTY MUCH EVERY ECCLESIASTICAL COMMUNITY MENTIONED IN THE NEW TESTAMENT!

Again, another Patriarchal sizing of the divine ekklesia, and coming to the wrong conclusion thereby.  Also, this added part “pretty much every ecclesiastical community mentioned in the New Testament!”, only has enough power to turn around and hit as a target the original shooter. During the 4th century, many Eastern churches went into an Arian disarray and corrupted the pure doctrine of Jesus Christ. Many of these churches were part of the grouping that Max provides. Does this have any significance? Enough to turn his argument into a poor inconsistency?  I think so. But it only gets worse. The condemnation of St. John Chrysostom, eventually shared by the “Patriarchates” of Cple, Alex, and Antioch. Were these churches of the Ecclesiastical new testament community ? If so, what entailments follow? And, if Max’s purported import were proven true, wouldn’t it backfire? But then, it was, in fact, only the Roman See, which had alone taken initiative with Emperor Honorius/Arcadius to hold a synod to examine the case of Chrysostom, and the western sees which had retained Chrysostom’s name in the diptych of the mysteries. I wonder, just what significance Max would glean from a situation where the Eastern patriarchs broke away from one of the foremost heroes of Eastern Orthodoxy, the golden tongue himself? But then, when, once again, the three major “Patriarchal Sees” went into heretical monophysiticism, and the Roman See (together with the Western sees & some Eastern believers underground, including monks) was alone continually standing firm on Chalcedon, does he see any effectual significance of Rome standing alone again, atop of the heretical world as the “pure home of orthodox dogma” (As St. Sophronius of Jerusalem would call her) ? But God forbid the Roman See would ever break “from the ancient Patriarchates of Jerusalem, Antioch, Alexandria, Constantinople and pretty much every Ecclesiastical community mentioned in the New Testament”.

ERICK YBARRA WRITES: “CHRIST ALWAYS SUSTAINS A REMNANT, IF NOT ALL, IN THE DIVINE VOCATION OF THE EPISCOPATE THAT WILL ALWAYS BE ON THE RIGHT-BELIEVING SIDE OF THINGS. THUS, BY WAY OF ACCIDENT [FROM OUR PERSPECTIVE], AND NOT BY ABSOLUTE NECESSITY, THE POPE WILL NEVER BE ALONE IN HIS OWN PAPAL MAGISTERIUM FOR THIS REASON.”

—-> ERICK SEEMS TO FORGET THAT BOTH POPE HONORIUS AND POPE VIGILIUS WERE CONDEMNED BY ECUMENICAL COUNCILS FOR HERESY!

It seems that when Max can find a reason to undermine Papal claims, he is willing to even do so when it means doing so in the most abnormal and extra-contextual manner possible. But then, when it suits Orthodoxy, he can expect his interlocutors to understand extenuating circumstances (see his comments above on Lyons/Florence) Pope Honorius I likely didn’t even teach monotheletism. But even if he did, where was he to confirm himself in the error? He was in the grave, and his soul hopefully in heaven or purgatory if not. Be that as it may,  the Council felt free to condemn Honorius as well as many other deceased persons. Doesn’t this mean that the Council has a higher authority than the Pope? I’m sure many thought this. After all, didn’t many think Councils weren’t even more authoritative than the pontifications of their favorite theologians (see the Nestorians/Coptic churches) ?? Anyhow, Catholics have always had a response to this situation. Firstly, the promise of infallibility, which Pope St. Agatho readily asserts for the Roman See in his letter to the Eastern Council, only pertains to a specific mode of teaching. And it isn’t as mechanical as some would like to envision it. It is a mode from where the Pope speaks as the supreme pastor of the church, making a solemn judgement concerning faith &/or morals with the fullness of his God-given authority.  In fact, Pope Agatho explains that Pope Honorius did not appeal to Papal authority and the tradition of Rome when he wrote his letter to Sergius of Cple. One might have thought that it would be entirely anarchronistic to think of someone noting the distinction in modes of Papal teaching. But there it is in the 7th century, by no less than a Greek Pope. Pope Leo, who ratified the decrees , agrees to the condemnation of Honorius, even if it were only that he was negligent. A good case can be made, however, that the words of the condemnation are still much stronger than that. What does this prove? That a Council, working together with a valid Pope, examines and condemns a former Pope for heresy. There is room for that on my bus. In fact, many of us are praying this occurs under the present Pontificate, if in the case of formal heresy. Of course, prayers first go to the wellbeing of all, including the Pope himself.

For Vigilius – How often do you read anti-Papalists go through the whole story of Vigilius? It is rare that I hear it mentioned that the whole Three chapters controversy was an attempt on the part of the Emperor to resolve the church’s theological disputes. This, right off the bat, should signal an abnormality which the Popes themselves had previously warned against (See Gelasius’ letters to the Emperor). This tendency began with the Emperor Constantine, and could obviously serve the Church very well. But it obviously does not serve the Church very well when the secular rulers circumvent the government of the Church and imposes upon the Church its own rules and mandates. Under the power of Justinian, we see this immediately with his 3 chapters plan. He sends an edict to the eastern patriarchs, requiring them to sign. These Eastern patriarchs, knowing that such matters are to be handled only by collaboration with the prelate of the Roman See, signed conditionally. That condition was whether Pope Vigilius, the head of the universal church, would sign. Justinian knew what he was doing, and he knew he would take any measure necessary to acquire the assent of Rome. We know this because when delegates from Justinian arrived in Rome and met with an unwilling Vigilius, they already knew what plan B was. Take Vigilius into custody. *Right there*, the Byzantine Ceasar was imposing himself upon the freedom of the Church to settle her own affairs. He had already done so with the Eastern patriarchs. From here on forward, all Papal actions are rendered suspicious , since the Pope is under duress. I’d only hope that Max would afford the same understanding he expects us to have when he explains the Greeks embraced Florence. But I only hope.

When in Constantinople, Vigilius gives way to Justinian and assents. Then, when he realizes his actions afford him great controversy to many churches in the West, he retracts. But Justinian holds on to that. Then the 2nd edict of the three chapters is made by the Emperor, and the eastern patriarchs are made to sign. Vigilius excommunicates all the eastern patriarchs. The very same thing that Max would say was in the power of the Council against himself [Vigilius]. And yet, no one complains. Rather, they visit the Pope and make it clear that they submit to Chalcedon “for it was ratified by the Apostolic See”, insinuating the essential role of the Pope in the determination of doctrine for the universal church. Push comes to shove w/ the Emperor, a slight reconciliation is made, and plans for a council are agreed upon. However, Justinian didn’t comply with Vigilius, the head of the Church, in allowing the West to play a major role in the dispute. Its obvious, Justinian knew it was a waste of time since the West was not going to budge on Chalcedon, even if stupidly not realizing the Nestorianism in Theodore/Theodoret/Ibas. *Right there again* – The Emperor taking the driver position in the church bus. A big no no. But Vigilius has little to choose from, right? I mean, he is being held prisoner, let’s not forget. The Council convenes and Vigilius isn’t very cooperative, but then says he’ll give a statement on his view within a certain time. The Council doesn’t like the result, and they strike his name from the diptychs, and move on with the condemnation of the three chapters. Council is closed. Vigilius is left an outsider. Now, from here, Max believes his Eastern Orthodox position has gained him another leg in the debate with Catholicism. The problem here is that he has sacrificed the Church’s stance on what an Ecumenical Council *is* in order to obtain this idea that Constantinople 553 held jurisdiction over the Pope and the universal church. First of all, the West was absent. So, at the point in time that the Council closed, we aren’t talking about a Universal Council, though Max would attribute it as such. Now, this is even more curious given that Max, unless I’m mistaken, holds to a similar view of Khamiokov on the gradual acceptance of a council as ecumenical, where the full achievement of ecumenical, supreme, and infallible authority is contingent upon the *whole church receiving it*. If that is the case, then I can’t imagine how Max would say that Justinian and the Eastern bishops comprised an ecumenical action against Vigilius which had the authority to do so. Just a few years after this event, Pope St. Gregory I would say ‘without the authority and the consent of the Apstolic See, none of the matters transacted have any binding force’. Now unfortunately, the removal of the Pope’s name from the diptych of the Eastern liturgies had already become a common thing in the East by then, so I’m sure it wasn’t too strange an idea, but what I’m having a difficult time getting is its validity. When Acacius of Cple removed Pope Felix from the diptychs, it is not as if committed Catholics have to then overturn their belief in the supremacy of the Pope. So this is my response. I will add that Cple 553 began abnormally and would thus end abnormally. Vigilius wrote in with repentance to the patriarch of cple saying he was wrong and that the council was right. I don’t know if he ratified the council then or not. His successor Pelagius I would take the task for sure, and he had quite a battle on his hands since the Western churches were not invited to the convocation, and plus, they saw it as a threat to conscience, i.e. their revoking of Chalcedon. A mess created a bigger mess. But what I hope to communicate here, in concluding, is that it is extremely revealing that Orthodox such as Max  would depend so heavily on the actions of Justinian and the eastern bishops against Vigilius, given the rare and abnormal circumstances.

THE FOLLOWING CITATIONS ARE FROM A WORK BY THE FRENCH HISTORIAN CLAIRE SOTINEL. IN IT, THE AUTHOR DISCUSSES THE PERIMETERS OF CHURCH AUTHORITY DURING THE TIME OF JUSTINIAN AND SEEKS TO DEFINE THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN CHURCH AND IMPERIAL AUTHORITY IN THE PERIOD LEADING UP TO AND FOLLOWING THE FIFTH ECUMENICAL COUNCIL. WHEN DISCUSSING THE RELEVANCE OF VIGILIUS’ EXCOMMUNICATION TO HER TOPIC, SHE QUOTES JUSTINIAN’S LETTER IN WHICH VIGILIUS IS CLEARLY SINGLED OUT. REMEMBER THAT AT THIS STAGE, VIGILIUS HAD RETRACTED HIS CONDEMNATION OF THE THREE CHAPTERS:

“THE MOST RELIGIOUS POPE OF OLD ROME [HAS MADE HIMSELF] A STRANGER TO THE CATHOLIC CHURCH IN DEFENDING THE IMPIETY OF THE CHAPTERS AND, MOREOVER, IN SEPARATING HIMSELF FROM YOUR COMMUNION BY HIS OWN INITIATIVE […]. THUS, SINCE HE HAS MADE HIMSELF A STRANGER TO CHRISTIANS, WE HAVE JUDGED THAT HIS NAME WILL NOT BE RECITED IN THE HOLY DIPTYCHS LEST, BY THIS MEANS, WE FIND OURSELVES IN COMMUNION WITH THE IMPIETIES OF NESTORIUS AND THEODORE […]. ONE THING IS CERTAIN: WE SERVE UNITY WITH THE APOSTOLIC SEE, AND YOU MAINTAIN IT. VIGILIUS’ TRANSFORMATION, OR ANYONE ELSE’S, CANNOT, IN FACT, HARM THE PEACE OF THE CHURCHES”.

TO WHICH THE COUNCIL RESPONDS:

“THE PLANS OF THE MOST PIOUS EMPEROR ARE IN CONFORMITY WITH HIS ACTIONS UNDERTAKEN FOR THE UNITY OF THE HOLY CHURCHES. LET US THEREFORE SERVE UNITY WITH THE APOSTOLIC SEE OF THE ALL-HOLY CHURCH OF OLD ROME BY FULFILLING EVERYTHING ACCORDING TO THE TERMS OF THE IMPERIAL DECREE WHICH HAS JUST BEEN READ”

The relation of ecclesial authority to Imperial authority, I believe, had been answered correctly by Pope Gelasius. Also see above comments.

 

ERICK YBARRA WRITES:”DURING THE PONTIFICATE OF POPE SYMMACHUS, GREEKS APPEALED TO HIM ON BEHALF OF THE EASTERN CHRISTIANS WHO WERE SUFFERING FROM THE MONO-PHYSITE FALL OUT: “YOU WHO ARE TAUGHT DAILY BY YOUR SACRED TEACHER, PETER, TO FEED THE SHEEP OF CHRIST ENTRUSTED TO YOU THROUGHOUT THE WHOLE HABITABLE WORLD” (MANSI, 8.221)”

—-> ERICK FORGETS TO MENTION THE SYMMACHEAN FORGERIES. SEE BELOW:

THE SYMMACHEAN FORGERIES ARE A SHEAF OF FORGED DOCUMENTS PRODUCED IN THE PAPAL CURIA OF POPE SYMMACHUS (498—514) IN THE BEGINNING OF THE SIXTH CENTURY, IN THE SAME CYCLE THAT PRODUCED THE LIBER PONTIFICALIS.

IN THE CONTEXT OF THE CONFLICT BETWEEN PARTISANS OF SYMMACHUS AND ANTIPOPE LAURENTIUS THE PURPOSE OF THESE LIBELLI WAS TO FURTHER PAPAL PRETENSIONS OF THE INDEPENDENCE OF THE BISHOPS OF ROME FROM CRITICISMS AND JUDGMENT OF ANY ECCLESIASTICAL TRIBUNAL, PUTTING THEM ABOVE LAW CLERICAL AND SECULAR BY SUPPLYING SPURIOUS DOCUMENTS SUPPOSEDLY OF AN EARLIER AGE.

“DURING THE DISPUTE BETWEEN POPE ST. SYMMACHUS AND THE ANTI-POPE LAURENTIUS,” THE CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA REPORTS, “THE ADHERENTS OF SYMMACHUS DREW UP FOUR APOCRYPHAL WRITINGS CALLED THE ‘SYMMACHIAN FORGERIES’. …

THE OBJECT OF THESE FORGERIES WAS TO PRODUCE ALLEGED INSTANCES FROM EARLIER TIMES TO SUPPORT THE WHOLE PROCEDURE OF THE ADHERENTS OF SYMMACHUS, AND, IN PARTICULAR, THE POSITION THAT THE ROMAN BISHOP COULD NOT BE JUDGED BY ANY COURT COMPOSED OF OTHER BISHOPS.” – CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA XIV, 378.

 

This is an extremely uninformed response. First, what does the letter from the Greeks appealing to the Pope have to do with the Symmachean forgeries? Absolutely nothing. I am shocked that this was his response. Allow me to give you the context here. Macedonius (495) was elected in the place of Euphemius of Constantinople, and he was confronted with a demand from the Emperor Anastasius I to issue an official repudiation of the Council of Chalcedon. He responded that without the consent of the Roman see, no repudiation was possible from him. (Caspar, op. cit., vol ii, p. 121). He was immediately deposed. One year later (512) Constantinople, Alexandria, and Antioch were in the hands of Monophysitism. From these states of affairs, we have a letter from some Greeks in the East who were victims of Caesaropapistic tyranny during this Acacian schism. Dr. Trevor Jalland describes this letter: “Reminding the Pope that he enjoys the power to loose as well as to bind his [Greek] petitioners please: ‘Of a truth you are possessed of the Spirit of Christ, who are daily instructed by your holy teacher Peter how to tend the flock of Christ, which has been entrusted to you over all the earth and obys you not by constraint but willingly…All of us, both those in communion with them (sc. Monophysites) and those who decline it, await next to God the light of your visitation and admission to favour. Wherefore hasten to help the East, whence the redeemer Himself sent forth two great luminaries Peter and Paul to give light to the whole world’. What answer, if any, Symmachus returned to this pathetic appeal is unknown. All that remains of his eastern correspondence is a letter to the Illyrian episcopate urging them to take warning from the fate of the eastern churches: ‘For those, who believed they could disregard the admonition of the Apostolic See, have deservedly suffered what is bound to befall those who forsake their duty’” (Church and Papacy, page 335-6).

Max cannot find you a scholar who is contesting these records. Thus, his response to this in terms of the Symmachean forgeries should inform anyone of his readers that he is not closely looking after the things that he writes. That can change, and hopefully it will.

But this may be an opportunity to bring up something of interest here since the topic of forgeries came up. The following sources *are not from the forgery collection*. Symmachus had a rival to the episcopate of Rome, a man named Laurence. When Symmachus won the election, the party of Laurence sought at first change to accuse Symmachus of wrongdoing. Sure enough, when Symmachus had established the date of Easter to March 25th, the pre-Victorian Paschal cycle, in defiance of the Alexandrine date of April 22, the part of Laurence sought to procure his summons to a court in Ravenna to be indicted. They added other charges as well. During this plan, a synod was held in Italy at the church of St. Maria in Trastevere, at which Symmachus appeared in person, though Laurnence was presiding. After two sessions accomplishing nothing, the synod sought Theodoric the Arian King in order to condemn Symmachus by civil power. But this plan didn’t fall through since Symmachus didn’t show up for trial, and neither did Theodoric seek to intervene. The Italian synod ended with an acquittal on Symmachus. Seems like an unimportant event, but it comes with some interesting details. It just so happens that two Western bishops, Ennodius of Milan & Avitus of Vienne, both venerated Saints in the Orthodox churches, both of whom were strong supporters of the authority of the Roman see. These both wrote in response to Symmachus’ enemies during the above context. In the first place, we have a statement coming from some bishops of Italy who wrote to King Theodoric concerning the attempt of the supporters of Laurence to condemn Symmachus : “…the person [Symmachus] who was attacked ought himself to have called the Council, knowing that to his See in the first place the rank or chiefship of the Apostle Peter, and then the authority of venerable councils following out the Lord’s command, had committed a power without its like in the churches; nor would a precedent be easily found to show, that in a similar matter the prelate of the aforementioned See had been subject to the judgment of his inferiors” (Mansi, viii, 248). St. Avitus of Vienne wrote a letter to the Roman senators, which reads: “We were in a state of anxiety and alarm about the cause of the Roman church, inasmuch as we felt that our order [the episcopate of Gaul] was endangered by an attack upon its head…What license for accusation against the headship of the universal church ought to be allowed?…As a Roman senator and a Christian bishop, I conjure you that the state of the Church be not less precious to you than that of the commonwealth. If you judge the matter with your profound consideration, not merely is that cause which was examined at Rome to be contemplated, but as, if in the case of other Bishops any danger be incurred, it can be repaired, so if the Pope of the city be put into question, not a single bishop, but the episcopate itself, will appear to be in danger. He who rules the Lord’s fold will render an account how he administers the care of the lambs he entrusted to him; but it belongs not to the flock to alarm its own shepherd , but to the judge [God]. Wherefore restore to us, if it be not yet restored, concord in our chief” (Mansi, viii. 293). St. Ennodius wrote , “God perchance has willed to terminate the causes of other men by means of men; but the prelate of that See He has reserved, without question, to His own judgment. It is His will that the successors of the blessed Apostle Peter should owe their innocence to Heaven alone, and should manifest a pure conscience to the inquisition of the most severe Judge [God]. Do you answer; such will be the condition of all souls in that scrutiny? I retort, that to one was said, ‘Thou art Peter, and upon this Rock I will build my Church’, and again, that by the voice of holy pontiffs, the dignity of his See has been made venerable in the whole world, since all the faithful everywhere are submitted to it, and it is marked out as the head of the whole body” (Mansi, viii. 284). Some pretty interesting words from these two saints venerated to this day in the Orient.

Dr. Trevor Jalland corroborates on this in addition to the Symmachean forgeries :

“Yet in spite of the Pope’s pathetic situation, enthusiastic champions of the Roman see made a timely appearance in the persons of Ennodius of Milan and Avitus of Vienne. The latter may well have expressed the view of the Italian episcopate as well as that of Gaul when he wrote: ‘If the position of the chief (princeps) is shaken by accusation, we feel the position of everyone of us to be weakened’. The work of Ennodius on the other hand, as a reply to the Pope’s enemies, though characterized by clever evasions, violent abuse and a marked dependence on irrelevant quotations of Holy Scripture, bas a special interest as the product of a church which at one time seemed to overshadow even Rome itself as the primatial see of Italy. In him we find the earliest explicit assertion that a distinction is to be drawn between the Pope as an individual and the Pope as the holder of the Papacy. As an individual he will receive just judgment on the Last Day; as Pope he cannot be guilty of anything demanding judicial punishment. It is not difficult to imagine that such a view would have been highly acceptable to one such as Gregory VII, under whose inspiration the Ennodian principle was embodied in the Dictatus Papae.
Not less remarkable was the abundance of pseudonymous and apochryphal literature which may rightly be regarded as a by-product of this anomalous situation. The chief object of these writings was to make good some of the very obvious defects in the papal structure which recent events had laid bare. They included, besides other suppositious conciliar Acts such as the Gesta Liberii, the Gesta Xysti and Gesta Polychronii, the proceedings of an apocryphal ‘synod of Sineuessa’ at which the unhappy Marcellinus was supposed to have been arraigned. Encouraged to judge himself, the Pope was represented as having declared himself guilty, whereupon Militades, apparently elected and consecrated on the spot, is said to have remarked, ‘Rightly has he been condemned out of his own mouth, for no one has ever judged the Pope, since the first see can be judged by no man’. A similar principle emerges in the contemporary supplement to the Silvestrian saga depicting another imaginary Roman synod, which besides condemning the author of the Paschal cycle, rejected by Symmachus, some hundred years or so before his birth, passed a series of canons of which the last significantly read: ‘No man shall judge the first see’. It is evident from these strange essays in imaginative history that the ideas of Gelasius were already showing themselves prolific, but it would be unjust to Symmachus to attribute to him direct responsibility for the offspring” (Church and Papacy, page 333-4).

According to Dr. Klaus Schatz, the forgeries were only to get the principle “the First see is judged by none” into canon law. The drafters of the forgery already knew the valid existence of the principle under the pontificate of Pope Gelasius. Schatz writes:

“The principle that prima sedes a nemine iudicatur, ‘the principal see is judged by no one’ (which effectively means ‘can be judged by no one’) became in the course of the centuries a succinct way of saying that there can be no court above the pope that can condemn him, depose him, or set aside his decisions. In this sense the principle has developed an enormous influence, especially since the eleventh century. But it was known and effective long before that…..In this succinct phrasing [first see is judge by none] the principle can be traced back to the Symmachian forgeries, written in about 500. Their setting was the period of Ostrogoth domination. Pope Symmachus, politically a supporter of the Arian Ostrogoth king Theodoric, faced strong ecclesiastical opposition within the Roman clergy, whose orientation was to Byzantium, and he was about to be deposed by a synod. The forgers hoped that this principle could be used to prevent his deposition; they referred to supposed cases around the year 300 when the deposition of a pope was averted because of this principle. Of course it was only this bold formulation that was new, not the content. It appears very clearly in two letters of Pope Gelasius I from 493 and 495 in the context of the Acacian schism. According to the canons, every can appeal to the pope, but there is no appeal beyond him, ‘and thus he judges the whole church and himself stands before no tribunal, and no judgment can be passed on his judgment, nor can his decision be abrogated’. But it was through the Symmachian forgeries that the principle entered the legal canon; it was this formulation, and not that of Gleasius, that made history, but only slowly and by roundabout ways. It was apparently not until the ninth century that the principle became a fixed element in the legal traditions of Rome, possibly under Frankish influence.” (Papal Primacy: From its Origins to Present, page 73)

 

ERICK YBARRA WRITES: “SO WE HAVE, THEN, A RECOGNITION BY THE CHURCH FATHERS THIS IDEA THAT THE PETRINE PRIMACY OF THE ROMAN SEE IS NOT AN EXTERNAL REALITY, AS THOUGH IT WAS ADDED UNTO THE EPISCOPAL CONSTITUTION. RATHER, IT IS ONE WITH THE EPISCOPAL CONSTITUTION. SECONDLY, THAT THIS ESSENTIAL ELEMENT OF THE EPISCOPAL CONSTITUTION IS NOT SOMETHING WHICH CAN PERTAIN TO ANY AND ALL SEES, BUT ONLY THAT OF THE ROMAN SEE (WE CAN EXPLAIN CONCERNING MORE ABOUT GREGORY’S LETTER WHEREIN HE SPEAKS OF 3 LOCATIONS OF PETER’S SEE IF IT IS BROUGHT UP IN REBUTTAL) SINCE IT ALONE RECEIVES THE SUCCESSION TO PETER’S PRIMACY.”

—> ERICK DOES NOT BOTHER OFFERING A REBUTTAL OF POPE GREGORY’S VIEW ON 3 LOCATIONS OF PETER’S SEE. BUT LET US SEE WHAT ST JOHN CHRYSOSTOM AND ST. THEODORET HAVE TO SAY:

ST. JOHN CHRYSOSTOM:

“IN SPEAKING OF ST. PETER, THE RECOLLECTION OF ANOTHER PETER [FLAVIAN, BISHOP OF ANTIOCH, AT THE TIME THE DISCOURSE WAS WRITTEN,] HAS COME TO ME, THE COMMON FATHER AND TEACHER, WHO HAS INHERITED HIS PROWESS, AND ALSO OBTAINED HIS CHAIR. FOR THIS IS THE ONE GREAT PRIVILEGE OF OUR CITY, ANTIOCH, THAT IT RECEIVED THE LEADER OF THE APOSTLES AS ITS TEACHER IN THE BEGINNING. FOR IT WAS RIGHT THAT SHE WHO WAS FIRST ADORNED WITH THE NAME OF CHRISTIANS, BEFORE THE WHOLE WORLD, SHOULD RECEIVE THE FIRST OF THE APOSTLES AS HER PASTOR. BUT THOUGH WE RECEIVED HIM AS TEACHER, WE DID NOT RETAIN HIM TO THE END, BUT GAVE HIM UP TO ROYAL ROME. OR RATHER WE DID RETAIN HIM TO THE END, FOR THOUGH WE DO NOT RETAIN THE BODY OF PETER, WE DO RETAIN THE FAITH OF PETER, AND RETAINING THE FAITH OF PETER WE HAVE PETER” (ST. JOHN CHRYSOSTOM, “ON THE INSCRIPTION OF THE ACTS”, II; CITED BY E. GILES, DOCUMENTS ILLUSTRATING PAPAL AUTHORITY (LONDON: SPCK, 1952), P. 168. CF. CHAPMAN, STUDIES ON THE EARLY PAPACY, P. 96).

[NOTE: NOTE THAT ST. FLAVIAN, ARCHBISHOP OF ANTIOCH IS A PETER AND HAS OBTAINED THE CHAIR OF PETER, AND THAT AS LONG AS HE KEEPS THE FAITH OF PETER’S CONFESSION, ANTIOCH HAS A ST. PETER.]

ST. THEODORET MAKES A SIMILAR STATEMENT ABOUT THE SEE OF ANTIOCH WHEN HE STATES THAT ANTIOCH POSSESSES THE THRONE OF PETER:

“DIOSCURUS, HOWEVER, REFUSES TO ABIDE BY THESE DECISIONS; HE IS TURNING THE SEE OF THE BLESSED MARK UPSIDE DOWN; AND THESE THINGS HE DOES THOUGH HE PERFECTLY WELL KNOWS THAT THE ANTIOCHEAN METROPOLIS POSSESSES THE THRONE OF THE GREAT PETER, WHO WAS THE TEACHER OF THE BLESSED MARK, AND FIRST AND CORYPHAEUS OF THE APOSTLES.” (PHILIP SCHAFF, NICENE AND POST-NICENE FATHERS (GRAND RAPIDS: EERDMANS, 1956), VOLUME III, THEODORET, EPISTLE 86, TO FLAVIANUS, BISHOP OF CONSTANTINOPLE, P. 281).

That the Orthodox continue to bring out Gregory’s letter to the Patriarch of Alexandria is quite shocking. This attempt to equate the Roman see with that of the Alexandrian or Antiochene See is clearly refuted by the following statements of Pope Gregory:

“As regards the Church of Constantinople, who can doubt that it is subject to the Apostolic See? Why, both our most religious Lord the Emperor and our brother the Bishop of Constantinople continually acknowledge it” (Epistles 9:26).

“the Apostolic See, which is the head of all other churches” (13:1)

In a letter to Bishop John of Syracuse, Gregory says : “as to his saying that he is subject to the Apostolic See, if any fault is found in bishops, I know not what bishop is not subject to it. But when no fault requires it to be otherwise, all according to the principle of humility are equal”.

Anglican Patristic scholar, J.N.D. Kelly wrote that Gregory I

“was indefatigable…in upholding the Roman primacy, and successfully maintained Rome’s appellate jurisdiction in the east….Gregory argued that St. Peter’s commission [e.g. in Matthew 16:18f] made all churches, Constantinople included, subject to Rome” (The Oxford Dictionary of Popes, page 67).

Jaroslav Pelikan writes concerning the tri-partite See of Peter Max mentioned:

“To be sure, Peter had also been in Alexandria and in Antioch, and Gregory sometimes put forth the idea that these two patriarchs shared with him the primacy given to Peter: Rome was the see where Peter had died, Alexandria the see to which he had sent Mark, and Antioch the see which he himself had occupied for seven years. There was one see of Peter in three places. But this touch of whimsy about the apostle did not have any far-reaching implications for Gregory’s concrete doctrine of primacy in the church. Everybody knew that the see of Peter was Rome. When the legates at Chalcedon in 451 responded to the reading of Leo’s Tome with the exclamation, ‘Peter has spoken through the mouth of Leo!’ they were simply giving voice to this general assumption. For the early church, primacy had belonged in a special way to Jerusalem, the mother city of all believers. But it had moved from the capital city of the old Israel to the capital city of the world, which became the capital city of the new Israel….The churches of the Greek East, too, owed a special allegiance to Rome. As far as the Church of Constantinople was concerned, ‘who would doubt that it has been made subject to the apostolic see’, that is, of course, to Rome? By hailing the authority of Leo, the fathers at Chalcedon gave witness to the orthodoxy of Rome. One see after another had capitulated in this or that controversy with heresy. Constantinople had given rise to several heretics during the fourth and fifth centuries, notably Nestorius and Macedonius, and the other sees had also been known to stray from the true faith occasionally. But Rome had a special position. The bishop of Rome had the right by his own authority to annul the acts of a synod. In fact, when there was talk of a council to settle controversies, Gregory asserted the principle that ‘without the authority and the consent of the Apstolic See, none of the matters transacted have any binding force’.   (The Christian Tradition, Vol 1, pages 353-4)

ERICK YBARRA WRITES: “PAPAL FAILURES DO NOT DIMINISH THE ONTOLOGICAL ROLE OF THE PAPACY, NOR DOES IT PROVE IT IS OF MAN-MADE ORIGIN OR THAT IT IS AN EXTERNAL MACHINERY CREATED FOR THE SAKE OF GOOD ORDER, BUT IT CONTINUES TO BE OF THE ESSENTIAL CONSTITUTION.”

—> AGAIN, ERICK SEEMS TO FORGET THAT BOTH POPE HONORIUS AND POPE VIGILIUS WERE CONDEMNED BY ECUMENICAL COUNCILS FOR HERESY!

IF AN ECUMENICAL COUNCIL CAN JUDGE A POPE AS HERETICAL (AS THE SIXTH ECUMENICAL COUNCIL DID WITH REGARDS TO POPE HONORIUS), IT SEEMS CLEAR TO ME THAT THE ECUMENICAL COUNCIL IS THE HIGHEST AUTHORITY IN THE CHURCH.

ANCIENT POPES WERE REQUIRED TO YIELD TO THE HIGHER AUTHORITY OF AN ECUMENICAL COUNCIL AND ALL DECISIONS EFFECTING THE ENTIRE CHURCH IN MATTERS OF DOCTRINE AND ADMINISTRATION WERE MADE THROUGH CONSENSUS AT ECUMENICAL COUNCILS, THEY WERE NEVER MADE BY PAPAL DECREE ALONE.

See comments I made about Vigilius and Honorius. As for Max’s insistence that an Ecumenical Council has more binding authority than the Pope. For starters, an authentic Ecumenical Council requires the Pope’s participation, and thus for Catholics, one cannot divorce Pope and Council in the way Max does. It is as St. Gregeory the Great said, without the authority of the Holy See, no Council can have this sort of authority. Secondly, there are plenty of historical evidences which demonstrate that the court of the Roman See exceeded the authority of a Council supposedly claiming to hold jurisdiction over the universal church. I can give you the following examples. When they were condemned by the Council of Ephesus 449, Eusebius of Dorylaeum, St. Flavianos of Constantionple, and Theodoret of Cyrus all appealed to Pope Leo for the overturning of the decrees at Ephesus, which was finalized under the “authority” of Pope of Alexandria, Dioscorus, and Emperor Theodosius II. From all appearances, this was a Council. And for students such as Max, who love to shout the universal power of Justinian at the 5th Council, there isn’t any reason why he should think Ephesus 449 is not ecumenical, at least in preparation and matter. Moreover, Pope Leo unilaterally annulled the 28th canon of the Council of Chalcedon. Even after the bishops at the Council ratified it together with the Patriarch of Constantinople and Emperor Marcian, the Patriarch of Constantinople finally, after two years, admitted to Pope Leo that all the canons were suspended for his approval or disapproval, and he dropped the whole case – at least, he said he would. Following this, you have the fall out in the East to monophysiticism. It was the Roman See which had continued to herald the decrees of Chalcedon. And the only way the East was brought back into the unity of the Church was through a formula drawn up by Pope Hormisdas and officially signed by a great many in the East under the prodding of Justinian I. There is a rumor going around, made popular by a 19thcentury Anglican anti-Catholic writer, Fr. Puller, that the East had made all sorts of modifications and demands of their own before coming into union with the Holy See. Such is nonsense. If space allowed, we could go on to the historical context of the Pelagian controversy in North Africa, the Iconoclastic controversy, and the dispute caused by Photius.

https://erickybarra.org/2017/01/28/catholic-primacy-answering-some-objections-from-an-eastern-orthodox-researcher/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bernarde, kako se osećaš kad  misionarske tekstove koje postavljaš ovde (sa ciljem da "zabludelim" pravoslavcima objasniš da treba da se potčine papi) za petnaest sati pročita deset ljudi?

Ako ovo radiš iz entuzijazma (pretrpostavljam da je tako), onda ti nije lako. Ako, ne daj Bože, radiš po učinku, onda  se od ovog posla nećeš hleba najesti. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
пре 8 минута, Родољуб Лазић рече

Ako ovo radiš iz entuzijazma (pretrpostavljam da je tako), onda ti nije lako. Ako, ne daj Bože, radiš po učinku, onda  se od ovog posla nećeš hleba najesti.

Битна је координација ;-)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Answers to Eastern Orthodox Objections (Part 2) – Ecumenicity of Lyons/Florence, Patriarchs, Canon 28, Formula of Hormisdas

Our interlocutor Max has responded to the previous posting. His comments in bold, my answers in normal type :

Eric Ybarra seems to forget that reunification councils of Lyons (1274) and Florence (1439) were convened with the EXPLICIT aim of re-uniting separated Eastern Churches with the Church of Rome. How can Lyons (1274) and Florence (1439) be described as “Ecumenical Councils” when the Eastern Churches REJECTED them? Are Lyons (1274) and Florence (1439) “Ecumenical Councils” because the Bishop of Rome arbitrarily and unilaterally decided that they were to be “Ecumenical Councils”?

Lyons 1274 is Ecumenical, for starters, because it had universal representation. Around 500 bishops, 60 Abbots , 1000 prelates, alongside kings or their representatives…including the ambassadors of Emperor Michael Palaeologus who brought a letter from the East signed by 50 archbishops and around 500 bishops. The president of this Council, Gregory X (Canon of Lyons), when celebrating mass sung the Creed , and it was done in both Latin & Greek, and which included “qui a patre filioque procedit”, which the Greek clergy sang three times. Secondly, because it was ratified by the bishops in attendence, as well as by the Pope of Rome. Also, not that it means anything in particular for Catholics, but since the Orthodox love the authority of the great Emperor Justinian I, I will mention that Palaeologus and his son, Andronikus, wrote a letter to the Pope recognizing his ecclesial supremacy. Upon the finishing of the Council, the plan of re-union seemed achieved by Palaeologus, but ultimately the Byzantine clergy would not tolerate it. Although, John XI Bekkos, who occupied the See of Constantinople after the council had already completed, was an ardent defender of the union with the Latins. However, in 1282, just 8 years after the completion of the Council of Lyons, Palaeologus had died and the re-union with the Latins was repudiated officially at the Council of Blachernae 1285 under Palaeologus’ son Anronikus. Bekkos, who had campaigned in support of the re-union, was eventually exiled and imprisoned until his death near 1300. For Catholics, an Ecumenical Council is held valid upon its completion, with an a priori binding nature. It is not held in the suspense of reaction (cf A.S. Khamiokov). If this were the case, Chalcedon would have to be erased from the list of Councils, unless the Orthodox want to suggest that it became Ecumenical only under Justinian I with the Formula of Hormisdas or Constantinople III. But even then, it poses a problem. It is a similar situation for the council of Florence, continuation of Basle. The re-union of Latin West and the Oriental churches looked to be secured, but because ultimately the Byzantine clergy, for mixed reasons, of which duress is one, rejected the re-union as the Greek delegates returned to Constantinople. The Council was officially repudiated in Constantinople especially as the sack of the city came in 1453 .Now , whether the Greeks were held entirely under the duress, is a subject still being discussed to this very day; and surely we must be careful how much effect we give to duress, since many could have had this in those councils which are undisputed. What is known objectively is that Eastern representation was achieved in both cases, and under the Emperor of the Byzantines, and that consensus was reached in agreement. Catholics continue to number these in the official lists of Councils, if not for any other reason, than by the fact that the doctrines therein taught were given Papal approval, which at the very least obliges the submission of mind and will. But if an Orthodox Christian who holds to Khamiokov’s theory of “ecumenicity”, one wonders why any Orthodox Christian would have quams with the Catholic Church numbering Lyons 2 and Florence as Ecumenical, since the West has received it, and the Eastern episcopate, as of now, does not possess a jurisdictional right to deliberate on doctrine since they are severed from the communion of the Roman See. In other words, just as the Orthodox Chalcedonians have no problem regarding Chalcedon as ecumenical, despite the rejection by Egypt/Syria/Etc,Etc, since it was eventually accepted by the *true* episcopate, they should have no problem with Catholics numbering Lyons 2 and Florence as universally embraced over time.

Also, not that it means anything in particular for Catholics, but since the Orthodox love the authority of the great Emperor Justinian I, I will mention that Palaeologus and his son, Andronikus, wrote a letter to the Pope recognizing his ecclesial supremacy. Upon the finishing of the Council, the plan of re-union seemed achieved by Palaeologus, but ultimately the Byzantine clergy would not tolerate it. Although, John XI Bekkos, who occupied the See of Constantinople after the council had already completed, was an ardent defender of the union with the Latins. However, in 1282, just 8 years after the completion of the Council of Lyons, Palaeologus had died and the re-union with the Latins was repudiated officially at the Council of Blachernae 1285 under Palaeologus’ son Anronikus. Bekkos, who had campaigned in support of the re-union, was eventually exiled and imprisoned until his death near 1300. For Catholics, an Ecumenical Council is held valid upon its completion, with an a priori binding nature. It is not held in the suspense of reaction (cf A.S. Khamiokov). If this were the case, Chalcedon would have to be erased from the list of Councils, unless the Orthodox want to suggest that it became Ecumenical only under Justinian I with the Formula of Hormisdas or Constantinople III. But even then, it poses a problem. It is a similar situation for the council of Florence, continuation of Basle. The re-union of Latin West and the Oriental churches looked to be secured, but because ultimately the Byzantine clergy, for mixed reasons, of which duress is one, rejected the re-union as the Greek delegates returned to Constantinople. The Council was officially repudiated in Constantinople especially as the sack of the city came in 1453 .Now , whether the Greeks were held entirely under the duress, is a subject still being discussed to this very day; and surely we must be careful how much effect we give to duress, since many could have had this in those councils which are undisputed. What is known objectively is that Eastern representation was achieved in both cases, and under the Emperor of the Byzantines, and that consensus was reached in agreement. Catholics continue to number these in the official lists of Councils, if not for any other reason, than by the fact that the doctrines therein taught were given Papal approval, which at the very least obliges the submission of mind and will. But if an Orthodox Christian who holds to Khamiokov’s theory of “ecumenicity”, one wonders why any Orthodox Christian would have quams with the Catholic Church numbering Lyons 2 and Florence as Ecumenical, since the West has received it, and the Eastern episcopate, as of now, does not possess a jurisdictional right to deliberate on doctrine since they are severed from the communion of the Roman See. In other words, just as the Orthodox Chalcedonians have no problem regarding Chalcedon as ecumenical, despite the rejection by Egypt/Syria/Etc,Etc, since it was eventually accepted by the *true* episcopate, they should have no problem with Catholics numbering Lyons 2 and Florence as universally embraced over time.

Eric Ybarra seems to forget that the modern Catholic Church consists of the (Latin Rite) Roman Catholic Church and 23 sui iuris Eastern Catholic churches in Communion with Rome

No, I have not forgotten 🙂 The point I was making about the artificial structure of Patriarchates, Metropolitanates, etc,etc was that they were not direct institutions from Christ or His Apostles, and thus they are free to be used by the divine ekklesia for the best management of universal communion and administration. That said, we cannot size the Church essentially according to these standards of measurement, such that, as Max unfortunately attempted to do, we say that when Rome “severed from the Church” in the 11th (xx?) century, she broke away as a single Patriarchate versus the total of four other Patriarchates, implying that Rome was like 1/4th of the universal church. Doesn’t work that way. Christ instituted the Apostolate, and the Apostolate continues in the Episcopate which is divided into individual churches led by a single bishop, all cohesively glued together by the ecclesiastical bonds of unity. So if someone wished to give a true description of what broke away from what, they would need to categorize churches/bishops in their least common denominator. That changes the whole perspective.

Also seems odd that Pope St Leo the Great’s legates at the Council of Chalcedon also recognized Patriarchal order and divisions and asked asked why Patriarch St. Flavian had not been given second place in the council at Ephesus (II), the chief legate Paschalis saying “We will, please God, recognize the present bishop Anatolius of Constantinople as the first [i.e. after us], but Dioscorus made Flavian the fifth.

Before I respond to this, I want to note that, as a Catholic, I’m not responsible to answer for the views of Papal legates, particularly when their position is directly contrary to the position of the Pope himself, their ordinary and superior. Secondly, however much these legates arranged the seating at the Council, the very same legates proved themselves to be opposed to the 3rd canon of Constantinople 381 which assigned the Church of Constantinople 2nd place after Elder Rome, thus being ahead of the Churches of Alexandria and Antioch; during which they showed unhesitating certainty that Pope Leo, their superior, would not approve of the 28th canon seeking to renew the 3rd canon from the 381 Council. Anyone can read this for themselves in the 16th session of the Council. So for this point, I say for the neutral reader, he can take his pick. But for Catholics, the Pope set the standard for the legates, and they explicitly admit this fact. The better question on this subject is why did Patriarch Anatolius, the supposed leader of the Council after Rome, and who had the support of the Emperor Marcian, submit to Leo’s annulment of not just the 28th canon, but the 3rd canon of Council 381? Why was Pope Leo allowed to disregard the Council-sanctioned canons on this point?

Seems odd that the Popes of Rome themselves used the title “Patriarch of the West” until Pope Benedict XVI deleted the title “Patriarch of the West” from the Annuario Pontificio — the annual directory of the Holy See relatively recently in 2006.

Again, I admire the title “Patriarch of the West”, but the explanation of my purpose in bringing this up has nothing to do with whether it is a useful title or not. See above.

YES! The East was ravaged by one heresy after the other in the first millennium of Christianity BUT were the Seven Ecumenical Councils of the undivided Church of the first millennium of Christianity held merely to ratify/rubber stamp what Rome had decreed along the lines of “Rome has spoken, the case is closed”?

Sometimes, yes. Sometimes, no. But that is entirely irrelevant since the Pope’s themselves always handled issues in Councils within the Apostolic See. So I sense a straw man here .

Seems odd that the Sixth Ecumenical Council condemned Pope Honorius for heresy, when all he did was express his personal opinion (theologumen) in an unofficial capacity. Roman Catholic apologists also generally attempt to salvage the dogma of papal infallibility from the case with Honorius by saying that he was not giving an ex cathedra statement but merely his opinion as a private theologian. Therefore he was not condemned in his official capacity as the pope. According to the Roman Catholic Church there are certain conditions which must be met for the teaching of the pope to fall within the overall guidelines of that which is considered to be. He must be teaching in his official capacity as the pope and he must be defining doctrine for the entire Church. The claim is made that Honorius did not meet these conditions.

I don’t agree that Honorius expressed his personal opinion. He gave a direct order, and it was certainly in official capacity. It seems to me that Max has misunderstood the distinction between the ordinary magisterium, even Papal ordinary, with extraordinary Papal magisterium. All forms of magisterial teaching are “official”. But as I said in the previous post, this is a very rare situation, and it is arguable whether Honorius was a monothelite anyhow. And there is no sense in appealing to the intelligence of the Council on the matter of Honorius’ personal status. Max should know this more than anyone, since either the Council of Chalcedon or the Council of Constantinople II got it wrong concerning the authors of the Three Chapters. What’s to say that Constantinople III is absolutely infallible in its determination of Honorius as a Monothelite heretic. In any case, the Council, together with and under the presidency of the Popes, felt it their right to condemn the writings of Honorius as heretical, and the West persisted in this belief even afterwards. In fact, to this day, it is still admitted that a Pope, even using his official magistserium, can err and have himself condemned – especially post-mortam.

We NOW know what the Symmachean forgeries are in RETROSPECT, people back then did not have this luxury and obviously did not have a fair chance of distinguishing truth mixed with lies

I have to say I’m disappointed that Max has responded in this way. Here is a perfect opportunity to admit that he was flat wrong . I had originally made the point that Greeks who were victims of the Monophysite control in the East at during the inception of the 6th century had believed that the Roman bishop was successor of Peter by a unique and divine law given by Christ to Peter himself, and which continues today with the prerogative of a universal pastorate over the Church. Max initially hand-waved this as untrue (?) on the basis of the well-known Symmachean forgeries. This letter from the Greeks has nothing to do with the forgery-collection. Neither do the letters of St. Avitus and St. Ennodius, and neither the description of the Italian synod. The best thing to do here is to admit that the forgery objection was entirely irrelevant, leaving my original claim  still standing.

“According t Dr. Klaus Schatz, the Symmachean forgeries were only to get the principle “the First see is judged by none” into canon law. The drafters of the forgery already knew the valid existence of the principle under the pontificate of Pope Gelasius.” What “valid existence”? Is Erick referring to a specific Church Canon from the undivided Church or an Ecumenical Council? Do self-aggrandizing claims constitute “valid existence”?

This response shoves the Max’s erroneous objection with the Symmachean forgeries under the carpet, and he then seeks to undermine the validity of the principle of “the First See is judged by none”. Clearly, the Italian synod, Avitus, Ennodius, and Gelasius beforehand had held to its validity. Gelasius was no doubt referring to the canons of Sardica, which were ratified via Trullo 692 for the Byzantines. But even so, Sardica had the representation of Rome, Alexandria, Spain, Gaul, Illyricum, Palestine, and other places even in the East. There is more to Sardica than normally accrued. Lastly, your spiritual heroes of the East such as St. Theodore the Studite venerated Popes such as St. Leo & St. Innocent, and particularly for their involvement with ecumenical issues, and Max would have it that they were hungry for prestige, making self-aggrandizing claims. I wonder if Max could even be well received by the Eastern saints of the 8th/9th century given the statements he makes about the Pope’s claim for their divinely authorized position.

Eric Ybarra cannot seem to distinguish between Petrine Faith (which all orthodox Bishops are expected to confess), Petrine succession (at the Petrine See’s of Rome, Alexandria and Antioch) and Petrine Primacy (formerly held by Rome on account of the city’s status as the former imperial capital).

I see no point to discuss here, as I don’t disagree with it. What really happened here, however, is that Max initially wanted his readers to know that St. Gregory allegedly held that the See of Peter was really a single See in a tri-partite location, namely, Rome/Alexandria/Antioch. This would, I presume, undermine the singularity claimed by Catholics regarding the Roman see of Peter. That Max was intending to this was clear from his appeal to St. John Chrysostom and St. Theodoret of Cyrus regarding the see of Antioch. However, as I’ve shown in my previous post, St. Gregory was very clear on the subordination of all churches under Rome, and this is admitted by both an Anglican & Lutheran scholar (Kelly & Pelikan), both of whom are widely quoted in the field of scholarship.

What happens when the orthodoxy of the universal primate is questioned by the rest of the Church and when the universal primate only enjoys support within his own Patriarchate?

Before we get to responding to this question, Max needs to show that the Eastern churches were even aware of a divinely created Petrine institution in the Christian episcopate. When they can come to admit this in the Patristic data, then I can proceed to speak on the subject and scenario of Papal failure. Until they acknowledge its existence, what point is there in discussing? Besides, there is enough data material in the debate to determine the question of the last sentence, more so than the original question.

Was the Robber Council at Ephesus (449) repudiated just because Pope Leo overturned the decrees at Ephesus or because the rest of the Church (with the exception of Dioscorus and his thugs from Alexandria) opposed this Council on grounds that it was a “robber” Council?

The Robber synod was repudiated because it taught heresy, and committed a grave offense by concluding a council for the Church in opposition to the Apostolic See. See the letter of St. Fulgentius of Ruspe’s letter to Pelagius, the Roman deacon who accompanied Pope Vigilius (and who would be his successor). Also see the record of admission by the Eastern patriarchs to Pope Vigilius @ the Church of St. Euphemia while the Pope held sanctuary there. Then, read the opening of session 1 of Chalcedon where the Papal legates said that it is impossible to conclude a universal synod without the Apostolic See’s agreement. You can also read Gregory’s letter wherein he said synod acts have no ecumenical authority until ratified by the Apostolic See. Then also see the statements made by the Studite monks of the 8th century, as well as St. Ignatius of Constantinople together with St. Nicephorus, Patriarch of the same church. None of these persons attributed this right to the Roman See on the basis of canonical legislation, but on the divine institution of the Lord Jesus and his investment of universal ecclesial governance in the person & successor of St. Peter.

As for canon 28, Rome accepted Constantinople’s place in writing in 869 and had no issue with Constantinople sitting in second place in 451 (in fact, the papal legates dinged Dioscorus for not putting Flavian in second place at Ephesus so this is really an issue of Rome reneging on a canon)

Sure. In fact, I think Pope Leo should have allowed Constantinople to have 2nd place back @ Chalcedon. Obviously, with some clarifications to the extent of the canonical text.

Dorotheus, bishop of Thessalonica, tore the Formula of Hormisdas in two in front of the people. He was brought to Constantinople for trial, exiled to Heraclea while his case was being considered, but then restored to his see in Thessalonica without ever signing the Formula. The emperor Justin wrote to Hormisdas that many found it difficult to sign the libellus: they “esteem life harder than death, if they should condemn those, when dead, whose life, when they were alive, was the glory of their people.” In reply, Pope Hormisdas urged the emperor to use force to compel them to sign. According to Denny’s Papalism (referenced in Moss’s The Old Catholic Movement) the other patriarchates of the East refused to sign this statement, and were reconciled through a different agreement. Patriarch John was succeeded by Epiphanius in 520. Patriarch Epiphanius (520-35) wrote to the pope to explain that “very many of the holy bishops of Pontus and Asia and, above all, those referred to as of the Orient, found it to be difficult and even impossible to expunge the names of their former bishops … they were prepared to brave any danger rather than commit such a deed.” Pope Hormisdas wrote to Patriarch Epiphanius and gave him authority to act on his behalf in the East. In this letter, Hormisdas made restoration of communion dependent on agreeing to a declaration of faith that left unmentioned the claimed prerogatives of the bishop of Rome.”

This historical revisionism is absolutely embarrassing. It has been over 100 years that anti-Papalists have written in this manner with regard to the transaction between Pope Hormisdas and Justinian/John/Epiphanius. In the first place, the real reason the Bishop of Thessalonica had torn the FoH in two in front of the people was because he was opposed to the Council of Chalcedon, the Tome of Leo, and to Pope Hormisdas since the latter held to the former. Dorotheus had joined the party of Timothy I of Constantinople, an ardent monophysite, who was ordained by Emperor Anastasius. The Emperor had just deposed the former Patriarch Macedonius II for refusing to condemn the Council of Chalcedon. By joining himself to the anti-Chalcedon party, Dorotheus ran into some conflict with both the Greek & Illyricim episcopate. The great Byzantine scholar, Fr. Adrian Fortescue, describes the situation: “Dorotheus of Thessalonica had passed over to the party of Timothy I of Constantinople, now more and more openly Monophysite. So in 515, forty bishops of Illyricum and Greece separated themselves from him and held a synod, which sent legates to Rome to announce that they desired communion with the Holy [Roman] See. The next year, 516, a synod in the south of Illyricum, in the old province of Epirus, chose a certain John to be Metropolitan of Nicopolis. John sent a deacon, Rufinus, to announce his election to Pope Hormisdas; he protests his adherence to Chalcedon and detestation of the Monophysite chiefs; he declares that he adheres without reserve to the dogmatic letter of Leo the Great [Tome], and asks the Pope what he is to do. All the members of the synod at the same time send a letter to the Pope, asking him to recognize their new Metropolitan. The Pope then tells John to be faithful to the Catholic faith; he sends by a subdeacon, Pullio, an Indiculus, that is, an instruction as to how schismatics are to be reconciled to the Church. In a second letter he sends a form to be signed by all who desire communion with the Holy See. This form is the Formula of Hormisdas. It was signed by all, as we shall see; so Illyricum returned to unity with Rome.” (The Reunion Formula of Hormisdas, page 10-11). It gets worse. We read above that John, Metropolitan of Nicopolis, became a defender of Chalcedon. Dorotheus was actually a persecutor of the orthodox in Illyricum, even using the secular government to impose resistance to those who believed the Tome of Leo. Eventually, with enough appeals, Hormisdas was able to see to it that Dorotheus was to be judged at Constantinople for his crimes (see A dictionary of Christian biography and literature to the end of the sixth century A.D., with an account of the principal sects and heresies, page 280). So there you have it. Without knowing it, I’m sure, Max would have his readers find support against the Papal-theory explicated in the Formula of Hormisdas by the resistance of a Monophysite heretic who persecuted the orthodox, and was held to account for such criminal behavior even by the court of Constantinople. Much to the contrary of Max’s import, we find that the metropolitan Bishop of Nicoplis as well as many in the Greek & Illyricum episcopate thought highly of the Formula. What import is left for Max but a withdrawal of his claims against this pro-Papal event? If Max desired to achieve a witness against Papal claims by the reaction of Dorotheus to the Formula of Hormisdas (tearing it in two), it only proves that what was written in the Formula by Hormisdas were actually authentic Papal claims, which means that 6th century Rome was Papalist. And if that was truly the case, than it makes matters even worse since the Eastern Patriachates entered into communion with Papalist Rome in order to escape schism, when, given Max’s coordination of the facts, this only put them in a state of heresy & schism again. But I digress. Especially since the facts show that Dorotheus’ real reason for tearing the Formula was his protest of Chalcedon and the Tome of Pope Leo.
Now, with regard to the sending of the Formula of Hormisdas to the Eastern Sees through Emperor Justinian I. The claim made by Max is that the Eastern bishops were able to be critical of the contents, and in particular, the descriptions of the authority of the Papacy. Pope Hormisdas had written that the Lord Christ had promised to build His Church on the rock of Peter, and that this was proven since “in sede apostolica inviolabilis semper Catholica custoditur religio” (in the Apostolic See the Christian religion has always been kept inviolate). Then, there are condemnations of specific persons. The list contains Nestorius, Eutyches, Dioscorus, Timothy the Cat, Peter of Alexandria, Acacius, and Peter of Antioch. These names, as well as all who do not hold communion with the Apostolic See, are to be banished from the sacred diptychs.  And then the Formula states that those who sign should follow Rome in all things, since it is “in the Apostolic See that the Church’s perfect solidity [perfecta soliditas, the Rock] resides“.  In March, 519, the Patriarch of Constantinople, John, signed the Formula without any subtraction of the Papal claims therein. After this Justinian gave orders the following month that all the bishops of all the provinces should sign as well. Come to find out certain bishops were extremely difficult to persuade to remove from their diptychs the names which were held precious by their flocks, but which were not Chalcedonian. Justinian then sent a subsequent letter to Hormisdas, describing the difficulties. Now, it is important to understand these bishops did not find difficulty expunging the names of Acacius, Dioscorus, Timothy the Cat, the two Peters, but rather they refused to remove the names of those bishops who had been involved in the Acacian schism that they thought were holy men of God. Now, let’s take a halt for a moment. The Eastern bishops were so meticulously seeking to be honest in their signing of the Formula, that they spent the extra time writing to Justinian, and waiting for Justinian to write to the Pope, by expressing their difficulty in removing the names of certain men of the Acacian schism that they believed are worthily included into the diptychs. If they were that honest, why don’t we hear anything of their protest against the Papal claims? Not a single protest on record. Interesting, indeed. And so, Justinian begged Hormisdas to show some leniency, and to allow a dispensation for these specific churches. And note, this was a problem for all the Eastern churches. The Pope wrote back to Justinian leaving the determination of that to Epiphanius, Patriarch of Constantinople, and asserted that he would hold communion with whoever Ephiphanius considered worthy, but yet they had to subscribe to the rest of the Formula in the whole sense in which it was originally written.  Now, pause. If Hormisdas thought that there was a threat of rejecting the Papal claims made in the Formula, why would he transfer the court of this issue to the Patriarch of Constantinople? That would be absurd, indeed. But reality was that there wasn’t a hint of rejection of Papal claims. Only this issue of the expunging of names from the diptychs. What Max has done, from support of hasty scholarship, is to assert that when Hormisdas allowed Epiphanius to take in libelli from the Eastern churches without expunging all the names of certain clergy from the Acaian schism, the Eastern churches intentionally wrote up a new Formula of faith deleting the Papal claims, so as to avoid agreeing with them, yet still fulfilling the need to commune with Rome. Yet, as I’ve mentioned above, there is no objection to the Papalist statements of the Formula by these bishops. If they were honest enough to withhold their agreement and signature because they couldn’t fulfill all the demands of the original request of the Formula, why would they fail to mention their honest objection to the statements made about Peter and the infallibility of the Apostolic See? It is as if Max understands that these Eastern bishops secretly settled for re-union on their own terms without explicitly complaining about their Papalist objections.  And if we read the new Libelli that was written to Justinian from these Eastern churches, they prefaced it with a paraphrase of the original Papal claim, “..the Church of God, which resting upon the rock of the chief of the Apostles, retaining a right and inflexible confession, confidently with him always exclaims, ‘Thou are the Christ, the Son of the Living God'” (Mansi viii. 511). Now, Hormisdas’ indulgence came with a clear requirement. Dom John Chapman writes on this: “Epiphanius is to use his judgment. He must transmit to the Apostolic See a list of all whom he reconciles, enclosing the contents of the Libelli they send in (Mansi viii. 1032). This profession must be faithful to the original formula, ‘eodem tamen, ut dixi, tenore conscriptam’ (ibid. 1036). Similarly in his letter to the Emperor the Pope says that Epiphanius may admit to communion those who are worthy, libelli tamen, qui a nobis interpositus est, tenore servato (ibid. 520)….Nothing can be more certain than that not a bishop of the East was admitted to full catholic communion except on the terms of Rome….there is no evidence of any objection whatever having been made to it, except in so far as it implied the omission from the diptychs of former bishops who had been really orthodox, and had been merely in unavoidable schism through the fault of the Emperor.” (The First Eight General Councils and Papal Infallibility, page 45 footnote 4).

I’d hope that both Max and his informants, if still around, would make a public withdrawal from this claim of the Eastern churches modifying the Formula in order to fit their own theology, which happens to be anti-Roman. It would be very disingenuous of these churches to find restoration to the fullness of ecclesial unity while retaining their own anti-Roman convictions. These former schismatics were in no position to begin representing the right-view of the Episcopate, and yet this is likely what Max would have his readers think otherwise. And I think the weakest part of Max’s argument is that even if it were the case that these Eastern churches did delete those Papal parts of the Formula, that would mean it was clear to them what Rome was claiming at the time, and since Rome was the Church holding fast to orthodoxy throughout this whole process, she makes for a preferable choice of reliable witness. If not for the reason stated, than for the reason that they were claim to hold agreement with the Holy See, but then to implicitly reject certain of her teachings. Lastly, if they were being disingenuous, why use them as reliable witnesses anyhow?

When Patriarch John II of Constantinople accepted the Formula of Hormisdas, he did so with the qualification:”I declare that the See of the apostle Peter and the see of this imperial city are one.”That is, whatever Constantinople recognized of the See of Rome, she also recognized of her own. The basis of Constantinople’s rise to 2nd (at the time) in rank was because of the move of the capital to Constantinople which was New Rome.

Another historical revisionism, but more an issue of interpretation. Max here is claiming that whatever prerogatives that are stated in the Formula of Hormisdas regarding Rome are to be equally attributed to the see of Constantinople, the “Imperial city”. It is the old argument of Anglican F.W. Puller who said, “It will be noticed that by means of this preamble the Patriarch [John] managed to blunt very considerably the edge of his formulary; for by identifying in some curious fashion his own see of new Rome with the Papal see of old Rome, he managed to claim for the Constantinopolitan See a share in all the special privileges which in the formulary were assigned to the Western apostolic chair” (The Primitive Saints and the See of Rome, page 400). But this isn’t supported by the facts. Let’s briefly read the Formula of Hormisdas, and my answer to this objection will be just following:

“The first condition of salvation is to keep the norm of the true faith and in no way to deviate from the established doctrine of the Fathers. For it is impossible that the words of our Lord Jesus Christ, who said, “Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church,”  should not be verified. And their truth has been proved by the course of history, for in the Apostolic See the Catholic religion has always been kept unsullied.From this hope and faith we by no means desire to be separated and, following the doctrine of the Fathers, we declare anathema all heresies, and, especially, the heretic Nestorius, former bishop of Constantinople, who was condemned by the Council of Ephesus, by Blessed Celestine, bishop of Rome, and by the venerable Cyril, bishop of Alexandria. We likewise condemn and declare to be anathema Eutyches and Dioscoros of Alexandria, who were condemned in the holy Council of Chalcedon, which we follow and endorse. This Council followed the holy Council of Nicaea and preached the apostolic faith. And we condemn the assassin Timothy, surnamed Aelurus and also Peter of Alexandria, his disciple and follower in everything. We also declare anathema their helper and follower, Acacius of Constantinople, a bishop once condemned by the Apostolic See, and all those who remain in contact and company with them. Because this Acacius joined himself to their communion, he deserved to receive a judgment of condemnation similar to theirs. Furthermore, we condemn Peter  of Antioch with all his followers together together with the followers of all those mentioned above.Following, as we have said before, the Apostolic See in all things and proclaiming all its decisions, we endorse and approve all the letters which Pope St Leo wrote concerning the Christian religion. And so I hope I may deserve to be associated with you in the one communion which the Apostolic See proclaims, in which the whole, true, and perfect security of the Christian religion resides. I promise that from now on those who are separated from the communion of the Catholic Church, that is, who are not in agreement with the Apostolic See, will not have their names read during the sacred mysteries. But if I attempt even the least deviation from my profession, I admit that, according to my own declaration, I am an accomplice to those whom I have condemned. I have signed this, my profession, with my own hand, and I have directed it to you, Hormisdas, the holy and venerable pope of Rome.” (Formula of Hormisdas)

Now, Max and Puller say that the Patriarch John was intending on telling Hormisdas that whatever the descriptions of the Formula say of Rome, it says of Constantinople, right? Really? The first thing that is said of Rome is that the Christian religion had always been perfectly taught there. How could Constantinople be claiming equation with this when it is the very see that was presently working its way out of the much of the Acacian schism and the Monophysite heresy? Secondly, the Formula involves a petition to retain the communion of the Apostolic See, “in which the whole, true, and perfect security of the Christian religion resides”. If John was saying that Constantinople *is that very communion*, why even sign the Formula? In other words, John is supposed to be signing this formula in order to enter that communion, not to prove that she had always been that communion.

But what do we make of the statement “one See”?  It is more than likely that this “unam esse” (one See) means a closeness of unity. It is similar to the statement made by Pope Gregory the Great when he says that the Sees of Rome, Alexandria, and Antioch were “one See of Peter” (Epistle 7:40). Monsignor Pierre Battifol comments, “This means to say that the bishop of Rome and the Bishop of Constantinople are in agreement, not that he ‘identified his own see with the Roman see’ – a phrase that has no meaning. Compare the letter Quando Deus of the same John to the same Hormisdas which once more uses the same terms – and the reply of Hormisdas to John, consideranti mihi. Coll. Avellan. 161 and 169 (pp. 612, 624)” (Catholicism and Papacy, page 123) .

Was the Emperor Justinian allowed a vote at the Fifth Ecumenical Council? Yes/No?
Was Pope Vigilius in Constantinople and invited to participate at the Fifth Ecumenical Council held in Constantinople? Yes/No?
Were the “Three Chapters” clearly heretical? Yes/No

To #1 – Officially no, practically Yes
To #2 – Yes, but no invitation to the wider West. Nor was Vigilius granted his request to have his Roman synod prior to, which was customary. So you can call it an invitation, but it was more of a summons on secular conditions.
To #3 – Yes

But here is what you aren’t getting. You can be theologically correct and be in the wrong. For example, can a perfectly Orthodox bishop of OCA enter into the internal affairs of ROCOR and begin issuing commands & binding discipline? No. What if he says he subscribes to all the right doctrine? That wouldn’t matter still.

https://erickybarra.org/2017/01/29/answer-to-orthodox-objections-part-2/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Придружите се разговору

Можете одговорити сада, а касније да се региструјете на Поуке.орг Ако имате налог, пријавите се сада да бисте објавили на свом налогу.

Guest
Имаш нешто да додаш? Одговори на ову тему

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

  • Сличан садржај

    • Од Bernard,
      No student of Church history underestimates the important place of the Council of Chalcedon 451, held in modern day Kadıköy (district of Istanbul). This Council established the 2-in-1 [2 natures in 1 Person] doctrine of Christ as opposed to the followers of Eutyches and Dioscorus who wanted to say Christ had 1 single nature [Mono-physite].
      Following the Council, there was relative peace between Rome and Constantinople due to Patriarch Anatolius’ obedience to Pope St. Leo I’s annulment of the 28th canon, but soon enough things were destined to change because the Monophysites had been, with relatively strong arguments, pressing for a new Council to overturn Chalcedon. In an attempt to conciliate the Monophysites and the Chalcedonians, Emperor Zeno issued his “henoticon”, a document of Christology sought to pave the way for union. The henoticon would be accepted by Acacius, Patriarch of Constantinople, Peter Mongus, Patriarch of Alexandria, and Peter the Fuller, Patriarch of Alexandria. This brought about what is known as the Acacian Schism, and lasted from 484 to 519, a total of 35 years.
       
      When Pope St. Gelasius entered Papal office in 492, this schism had been operating for already 8 years. Not only was the “reform” on Chalcedon in Zeno’s henoticon an issue of dispute between Rome and the East, but also the assumption that Constantinople should occupy 2nd place in Christendom, which is what Canons 3/28 of Constantinople 381 and Chalcedon had attempted to pass as an ecumenical canon. Acacius must have not taken seriously the words of his predecessor Anatolius who wrote the following to Pope Leo I on this – “the whole force of confirmation of the acts was reserved for the authority of Your Blessedness.” (Patrologia Latina 54.1082B). Concerning the same canons, Pope St. Leo claimed that “by the blessed Apostle Peter’s authority we absolutely dis-annul in comprehensive terms” (Ep. 105).
       
      No doubt, therefore, Chalcedon is completed by the recognition of Petrine supremacy over the field of an Ecumenical Council. Acacius, however, was of a different mind on this. Though St. Gelasius, as well as his successors  Anastasius II and St. Symmachus, attempted to bring the East back into the fold of Christ, it was not until Pope St. Hormisdas that re-union was established through his Formula of Reunion which required a recognition of much of what St. Gelasius had already been writing on.  Below, I will be posting material found in the letters of Pope St. Gelasius,  drawing from three sources: (1) his letter to the Bishops of Dardania (495), (2) his instructions to a Papal legate Magister Faustus, and (3) his letter to the Emperor Anastasius.
       
      In his epistle to the Bishops of Dardania, St. Gelasius responds to Acacius’ grab at the 28th canon of Chalcedon. Notice how he reviews the history of the exchange between Anatolius and Leo which took place in 453, about 40 years earlier.
      This confirms the existence of this letter from Anatolius wherein he conceded to Leo’s discriminate authority over all the canons, which Leo had understood to be derived from St. Peter (see the 2 reference above):
      “If the bishops of Constantinople flatter themselves because their city is the residence of the Emperor, and think therefore that their persons are more important, let them listen to Marcian, the Princeps [Emperor] of that city.
                                                                                                                         
      When, having interceded for the promotion of the priest of that city, he was not able to obtain anything that was contrary to the canons, he extended to Pope Leo of holy memory the highest praise, because he [the Pope] had not allowed the rules of the canons to be violated in any manner. Let them listen to Anatolius, the Pontiff of that same city, or better, to the clergy of Constantinople, confessing that they were trying to obtain the same thing, and affirming that all was within the power of the Apostolic bishop [Leo].
       
      And let them listen to the same blessed Pope Leo, head of the Apostolic See, through whose authority the Synod of Chalcedon was confirmed…to rescind by a competent refutation that which had again been attempted in a new way at the assembly, and which would be well outside the canons of Nicaea. Noentheless, they can hear Probus, bishop of the city of Canusa of holy memory, legate of the Apostolic See under Simplicius of blessed memory, teaching the same thing in the presence of the Emperor Leo [Marcian’s successor], who asked then that it should not be attempted in any way, and refused resolutely to give his consent to it in any way, and therefore, let them not look at the status of any city, but let them rather properly observe the way of ecclesiastical order confirmed by the tradition of the Father” (Patrologia Latina 59.66D)
      Just prior to this in the same letter, he speaks of the Apostolic See as the executor and ratifier of Councils, not by some ecclesiastical privilege that was conferred upon the Roman see, but by divine right in blessed Peter.
      “Let no true Christian ignore the fact that the constitution of any synod which has been approved by the consent of the whole church can be executed by no other See than the First, which confirms any synod by its authority and watched over it through continuous supervision, especially because of its principate, which Blessed Peter the Apostle obtained through the word of the Lord and which it has always retained and continues to retain…” (Patrologia Latina 59.66B,C)
      And on the freedom of the absolving power of loosing [i.e. the Keys], St. Gelasius writes in the same letter:
      “The entire Church over the entire world knows that the Chair of Blessed Peter has the right to loose what has been bound by the sentences of any bishop whatsoever, as the See of Peter is entitled to jurisdiction over any Church, while no one is entitled to pass judgement on its decision, for the canons have permitted that appeals should be directed to it from all the world, but no one is permitted to appeal its decision….
       
      The Apostolic See has often had the freedom (facultas), without a Synod preceding it, to loose those whom a Synod had unjustly condemned, and also, if necessary, to condemn others without the convocation of a Synod….an Eastern synod [Tyre] had rejected Athanasius of blessed memory: but the Apostolic See took him up, denying confirmation of the condemnation by the Greeks, and acquitted him: in the same way a synod of Catholic bishops had condemned too John Chrysostom of Constantinople; him also the Apostolic See released merely by refusing to confirm the sentence.
                                                                                                                       
      In the same way the Apostolic See released Flavian of blessed memory, who was similarly condemned by an assembly of bishops, merely through not agreeing to its condemnation. Furthermore the Apostolic See condemned by its authority Dioscorus, the Bishop of the 2nd See, who had been admitted there; it dissolved the godless synod by refuting its concurrence, and for the sake of truth ordered, on its own authority, that the Synod of Chalcedon should be held” (Patrologia Latina 59.66C, 67 B,C)
      In his epistle of instructions to Magister Faustus, St. Gelasius gives his commentary on the Canons of Sardica (343), and how he would have applied it to the plan of the henoticon in the East:
      “These are the canons which decreed that appeals from the whole Church should be directed to this See. They have, however, by no means sanctioned an appeal elsewhere from its judgement; in this way they have ordained that it should sit in judgement over the whole Church, but that it should itself be judged by no one, and never that its judgement should be nulled, but rather ordered that its decrees should be followed” (Patrologia Latina 59.28B)
      In his epistle to the Emperor Anastasius, St. Gelasius covers the concept of the “Two Powers”, and in it he reveals his thoughts on the origin of the primacy of Rome:
      “If it is fitting that, in general, the faithful should subordinate their hearts to all priests who are correctly administering things divine, how much more should one endeavor to be in accord with the holder of the See, whom not only the divine will wished to be superior to all priests, but whom also the common piety of the Church following the divine will has continually celebrated as such. As your piety can clearly realize, never can anyone elevate himself through any human counsel whatever to that privilege or confession of Peter whom the voice of Christ had placed above all, and whom the venerable Church has always confessed and reverently regarded as its primate. What has been established by divine decree can be attacked by human presumption; it cannot however, be defeated by any power” (Patrologia 59.42 C & D, and 43A )
                                                                                                                       
      Catholic Patristic scholar, Robert Eno, interprets St. Gelasius as holding to the concept of Papal supremacy. He has the following to summarize the writings of St. Gelasius:
      “Of all the ancient Popes, Gelasius comes closest to making explicit what later theology might term Papal indefecetibility. If Rome were to be allowed by God to fall into error, then who would be left to keep the rest of the Church from falling into the abyss, asked Gelasius ? Finally, he expressed the Roman point of view that it is alone was an in practice had to be, the sole final arbiter of the Church’s doctrinal decisions. Such definitions must be in accord with Scripture, tradition, with canon law, etc. but who is to decide whether this is the case or not? A council ? Gelasius maintained that Rome could accept or reject councils as it saw fit. He recalled the papal rejection of canon 28 of Chalcedon against the wishes of both council and emperor.
      Thus we leave antiquity with the final Roman assertion that she is the ultimate decision maker, in doctrine as well as in discipline.” (Teaching Authority in the Early Church, Vol. 14, p. 163)
      Eastern Orthodox scholar A. Edward Siecienski has the following to say of St. Gelasius:
      “Feliex’s successor in Rome, Gelasius (492-96), had no such doubts about his authority in the matter. Like his predecessors, Gelasius linked his ministry to that of Peter, who was tasked with being ‘primacy caretaker’ (gubernatio principis) of Christ’s flock. When a Roman synod met in 495 to judge the excommunicate Misenus of Cuma, Gelasius received him back using the power of the keys ‘which our Savior delegated to blessed Peter the apostle before the rest’. …..For Gelasius, the chief task of the Roman See , ‘whom the voice of Christ set before all, whom the venerable Church has always acknowledged and in her devotedness holds as primate’ was safeguarding ‘the upright root [that] is the glorious confession of the Apostle’, protecting it ‘from any gash of crookedness, by any infection at all’……By entering into communion with those who denied the truth of Pope Leo’s Tome, the ‘double-dealing’ Acacius had ‘prostituted the catholic faith’ and deserved the sentence of excommunication pronounced against him’……Gelasius’ attack against Acacius and his allies proceeded along two fronts. First, supported by ‘Christ’s utterances and the tradition of the elders and authority of the canons’, Gelasius asserted Rome’s right/duty to intervene in the matter, a fact that had been recognized at Sardica by ‘the very canons that intended the referral of appeals from the entire Church to this see for examination…And by this means the canons have instructed that this See is to sit in judgement on the entire Church, to pass to nobody’s judgment, nor ever to be judged by its judgment, and they have determined that its verdict should never be undone, and ordered instead that its decisions are to be followed‘.” 
       
      (The Papacy and the Orthodox: Sources and History of a Debate, Chapter “The Church of Rome in the Patristic Era”, Pp. 181-183)
      And if we were to ask Siecienski how the Eastern bishops who maintained loyalty to Chalcedon thought ofSt.  Gelasius, he writes:
      “Gelasius’s stand against Monophysitism earned him the respect of the Chalcedonian bishops in the East, who praised the Pope and his heirs in glowing terms. Seeking the help of Pope Symmachus (498-5140), [Gelasius’ second successor], they wrote to him how ‘Christ, the best Shepherd, had entrusted the chair of the blessed Prince of the Apostles to you… to tend the sheep of Christ entrusted to you over the whole inhabitable world’….
      While his enemies criticized Gelasius as ‘haughty’ and ‘arrogant’, surprisingly we know of few attacks on the papacy itself, or the claims that Gelasius was putting forth on its behalf.” (ibid. , p. 183)
      Anglican Patristic historian J.N.D. Kelly writes concerning this Pope:
      “Gelasius siezed every opputunity of inculcating his conviction of the supremacy of the Roman see, and was the first pope known to have been saluted as ‘Vicar of Christ’ (at the Roman synod of 13 May 495, which restored Misenus). It was the pope’s prerogative, he claimed, to ratify councils and protect their decisions…Next to Leo I, Gelasius was the outstanding pope of the 5th cent., and he surpassed Leo in theological grasp. His writings leave the impression of an arrogant, narrow-minded, and harsh pontiff; but the extraordinary reverence in which he was held by contemporaries is reflected in a description left by the monk Dionysios Exiguus, who lived in Rome 500-550 and consorted with his disciples.” (Oxford Dictionary of Popes, pp. 48-49)
      As to his being in error, one could bring up what Kelly said about the positive statements made by the Scythian monk St. Dionysius Exiguus, who is also canonized for the Eastern Orthodox.  Dionysios wrote to his presbyter friend Julian concerning the holiness of St. Gelasius’s life. Rev Alban Butler’s “The Lives of the Saints” (1866, Vol. XI) says that St. Gelasius is:
      “extolled for the purity of his manners, his extraordinary humility, temperance, austerity of life, and liberality to the poor, for whose sake he kept himself always poor, as Dionysius Exiguus, who died before the year 556, tells us” (November 21, St. Gelasius, Pope and Confessor – Latin source of Dionysios’s letter , Patrologia Latina 67.203).
      French Byzantinist, Francis Dvornik, also writes of St. Dionysios’s description of St. Gelasius:
      “Dionysios Exiguus, the author of the famous Collection of Papal Decrees, transmitted to posterity the sentiments of admiration and gratitude felt for their master by Gelasius’ disciples. In the introduction of his collection, dedicated to Cardinal Julian, his benedactor and Gelasius’ disciple, Dionysios inserted a long euglogy on Gelasius, exalting his humility, his labors for the Church, his charity and chastity, and calling him ‘a shepherd and an imitator of the supreme good Shepherd — a chosen head of the Apostolic See who obeyed an taught the precepts of God‘” (The Idea of Apostolicity in Byzantium and the Legend of Apostle Andrew, p. 121)
                                                                                                                 
      In recent scholarship, however, a Dr. George Demacopoulos, Professor of Theology at Fordham University, has taken a fresh look at the Gelasian corpus, and has contributed a different perspective. Being Eastern Orthodox himself, it will be a great deal to make clear there is no bias in his historical and theological inferences and arguments. This, no doubt, he seeks to show in his referencing the original sources in context, Roman Catholic historians, and the rather undisputed facts accepted by the breadth of scholarship. However, holes there are, and though here is not an extensive critical review, this article will allow some space to pick out what proves to be the major weaknesses of Demacopoulos’s (whom I will refer as Dr. D) arguments.
       For starters, given the aim of this present article, Dr. D only shows that I have hit near the bulls-eye when it comes to the question of what St. Gelasius himself believed. Dr. D admits that St. Gelasius claimed to hold a Christ-ordained universal authority over the whole Church, and that the See of Rome cannot be judged by anyone, and whose judgement are irreformable by anyone else in the Church (The Invention of Peter , p. 98). However, he understands the origin of these claims to be coming from St. Gelasius’s frustration with the dissidence of the Eastern patriarchs, particularly of the See of Constantinople, and so are more fabricated imagination than reliable truth.
      Right off the bat, one is puzzled at how Dr. D could so theorize. The claim to Apostolic & Petrine prerogative in the Roman See by divine right had been claimed by Pope St. Stephen I (254), which was before the Constantinian elevation of the Christian society; and Pope St. Julius I (340-343), Pope St. Damasus (366-384), Pope St. Siricius (384), and Pope St. Innocent I (401-417), all of whom reigned in the See of Peter when there was no particular reason for the West to fabricate reasons to bolster its superior authority over the East by way of the loss of secular prestige. What difference is there in the claims of Pope St. Leo the Great (450) and Pope St. Gelasius? And what difference was there from the claims of St. Leo with those of his predecessors?
       In fact, the Petrine prerogatives were explained by Damasus and Leo, and both of these Popes receive special attention from Emperors in the favor of the authority of the Holy See (Gratian & Valentinian III, respectively). So it would take much to argue that the Petrine claims originate with the absence of Imperial support.  This indicates that the fishing project wherein Dr. D speculates as to the “why” of St. Gelasius’s “grandiose” Papal claims as rooted in an imagination by which to disingenuously subjugate the Monophysite-East is immediately held suspect. Rather, since the Papal claims were consistent in a variety of contexts, and even those not including Pope’s of Rome, such as St. Optatus vs. the Donatist Parmenian, it is more preferable to find the root of it in something else. Now, that does not mean that when the Pope’s were seeing schisms and dissension from its doctrinal influence we will not see a ratcheting up of those claims. That it seems to me is only natural even to an authentic appeal to a widely held and accepted Papal authority.
      Secondly, Dr. D attempts to show that the veracity of the Papal claims are to be doubted because of Pope St. Gelasius’ trouble to enforce obedience in his own Roman diocese. He describes how certain catholic citizens of the Roman city, being led by a un-named Christian magistrate (which Collectio Avellana designates as Andromachus), had promoted the pagan custom of the Luperaclia celebration against the directive of the Pope against it. The Lupercalia was a Roman celebration, pre-Christian, held each year on February 15th, and it involved sacrificing a goat and celebrants acting like priests to “bless” Rome by warding of evils such as pestilences and catastrophes. The Pope in Tractate 6 had threatened excommunication to Andromachus and all who participated in this pagan festival.
       For St. Gelasius, this was an act of spiritual adultery, and it shows that many of the pre-Constantinian celebrations of Pagan Rome had still continued on , most likely by the more nominal church members. In any case, Dr. D interprets this non-compliance as a proof that the Papal claims were not a reality even in Rome itself, much less anywhere else, and even says that the threat of excommunication by the Pope may have amounted to “little more than a bluster” (ibid. p. 77). The first observation to be given here is that Dr. D is examining an event which exists between what even 5th century Christians all knew to be the ordinary authority of a local diocese, the Bishop, and the members under him. Even modern Eastern Orthodox would accept that a Bishop has the right to impose disciplinary restrictions upon the people of his diocese when he foresees something of spiritual danger to his flock [i.e. in our case the Lupercalia].
       So it makes one wonder why Dr. D does not only see this as a threat against Episcopal authority even more so than Papal since that is the most immediate relationship. But since Dr. D presumably accepts the veracity of Episcopal authority (unless I am mistaken), then this sort of non-compliance does not amount to proving the non-existence of that authority.  Or does he see that non-compliance with a particular Bishop as evidence that the institution of Bishop was not universally embraced? Second, what evidence do we have of a total non-compliance on the part of the Roman Christians who were following this member of the aristocracy? If the local Bishop orders excommunication, that would carry weight to most God-fearing members of the Church, and Dr. D does not provide any evidence of how this all ended in this particular dimension. And last, it should be duly noted that the persons involved in this act of quasi-rebellion are not the sort [i.e. partaking in a questionable pagan festival] that we would expect to be on deck to obey religious authority, much less representative of persons to be chosen as considerable witnesses against the Papacy.
       
      Next, Dr. D mentions another instance of the Bishop of Rome in possible division with his clergy in Letter 30 of the Gelasian corpus. This Letter includes a description of the proceedings which took place at a Synod in Rome which had re-examined a certain Bishop of Cumae named Misenus, who, as Papal ambassador to Constantinople under Pope Felix III in 484, received holy communion from the Constantinople’s Patriarch Acacius, who was out of union with the Holy See. Felix had swiftly excommunicated Misenus. However, at this new Synod in Rome (495), presided over by St. Gelasius, Misenus openly confessed his wrong-doing and was granted absolution by the Pope himself.
      Now, on pages 80-93, Dr. D speculates from this that since a Synod was held for his restoration, there must have been Roman clergy who were unsympathetic with the Rome’s excommunication of the anti-Chalcedonian East, and, on the flip side,  since, of the original 76 invited to partake of the proceedings, 18 priests had boycotted the exoneration of Misenus, the Pope did not persuade everyone of his absolution of Misenus. From this, Dr. D implies that Papal power was not even taken for granted even in the Roman diocese, much less in answer to the question of where else.
      Though, being truthful to the description of the proceedings in Letter 30, Dr. D recognizes that the Roman Synod had made several statements which made explicit their belief in the supreme power of Peter resident in the person of Gelasius, even referring to him as “Vicar of Christ” and “Vicar of Peter”. But, he infers from this that this was all a cooked up meal in order to cover up for the embarrassment that Gelasius had to endure from the non-compliance of the 18 priests who protested the exoneration (ibid., p. 83). But, once again, this is the local ordinary Bishop of the Roman diocese, holding a Synod in the presence of many, wherein Micenus openly conforms to orthodoxy contra Acacius, and is absolved. What is taking place here that would not call for the obedience of the clergy just on the principle of Episcopal rights?
                                                 
      If Dr. D thinks this is a legitimate witness of the weakness of the Papal institution, would he say the same about St. Thomas à Becket, who was not only resisted by a protesting party, but eventually was assasinated!  And why not take the statements made about the authority of the Bishop of Rome clearly laid out in Letter 30 as a genuine perspective of the priests present? 18 out of 76 priests still leave a 58 majority.  The sense on gets from this is that Dr. D sees the illegitimacy of authority when it is contested, and especially when we do not have existing documentary evidence of any repentance from the dissidents.
      Well, imagine if we carried that into the logic of 4th-century Arian fragmentation. Would that mean that Nicaea 325 did not have divine authority? Certainly, there were many who did belief that, and this is the view which prevailed into the catholic and universal church for centuries going forward. But who would be the ones that held this Nicaean faith in the midst of such division? It was the faithful. Instead of finding witness testimony in some nominal aristocratic magistrate who persists in celebrating a pagan festival and a small minority of priests who did not want to see a repentant Micenus restored to the good graces of Christ’s church, why not look to those who we know were faithful at the time, whose view endures the test of more time?
      On pages 84-87, Dr. D discusses how many of the Papal decretals that were sent to various places in the West, such as “suburbican Italy, Sicily, and the southwestern coast of the Balkans” (ibid., p. 84) and how these decretals continually on the Petrine privilege of Rome. In what appears as a desperate search for ways to demonstrate the lack of veracity to the Papal claims, Dr. D speculates that this method of harping on Peter and the divine primacy of Rome thereby shows that it was not accepted in certain places in the East. He refers to this as “rhetorical strategies” (ibid., p. 85). But where is the direct evidence of this? I cannot seem to find any of it in his treatment of these Papal letters.
       
      In fact, we have precedent in Pope St. Leo I for a continual insistence on the Petrine prerogative of Rome in letters to places where it is more than welcomed. I think, for example, his Tome which was written to St. Flavian of Constantinople as well as the letters to the East back and forth. Even going back further to the first Papal decretal which has survived, Pope Siricius’ epistle to the Bishops of Tarragona, which was actually a response to appeals. This decretal has a few references to the Petrine privilege of Rome, and no evidence of trying to make up for outward rebellions is evident by the fact.
       
      Some of the orders that St. Gelasius gives to churches of the regions mentioned includes the requirement of notifying Rome of the planting of new churches, such as Letter 25 (to a Bishop Zeja). But this is akin to the metropolitical rights envisions already in canon 6 of Nicaea for the quasi-Patriarchs of Alexandria and Antioch. So what is Dr. D really seeing here? A challenge to Papal power, or Rome’s metropolitical power? It would seem that the objective scenario’s involve the latter more than the former.
       
      But if that is truly the case, then one wonders how an Eastern Orthodox would deem as authentic witnesses against illegitimate authority cases where Metroplitical rights are trashed. But again, this is all conjecture. No evidence is provided which proves these Papal decretals are being written to otherwise rebellious and disobedient clergy.
      And lastly, Dr. D tries to summarize the Pope St. Gelasius’s interaction with the East as a humiliating inability to capture the obedience of all. He writes: “What is clear is that Eastern bishops will not yield to the papal condemnation of Acacius. While the fact is both obvious and well-known, it must be acknowledged that the Roman See simply did not possess the international respect in doctrinal matters that Gelasius so forcefully claims throughout the letter” (ibid., p. 93).  
       
      Again, this merits the same interesting puzzelment already state above. Why is the Monophysite East being considered as a reason why the Papal claims are close to untrue, or made up on the spot by St. Gelasius as a disengenuous technique or strategy? Dr. D even admits that St. Gelasius does not defend the existence of the Papal prerogative (ibid., p. 96) , but merely asserts it. Well, that sounds a lot like someone who is  demanding obedience, and not trying to persuade the East, necessarily, of its existence by apologetics. If you are trying to persuade others who are expected otherwise not to believe in what you are seeking to persuade them of, assertion after assertion is a poor tactic. And so it is very unlikely that Dr. D’s gloss here reflects Gelasius true motive. And if one were to really follow the faithful minority, who were faithful to Chalcedon in the East, you would find the likes of those monks above who Siecienski quoted as well embracing the Papal claim in Rome, regardless of what their Monophysite counterparts said of the powerlessness of Rome.
      Conclusion
      What implications does this have for Anglican & Orthodox relations with Catholics on primacy? I think it bears great significance, especially since this is an Eastern Orthodox Pope who is to this day venerated in the East, and the commentary of his holiness of life by St. Dionysios. As for the Anglicans, they have already admitted the very same Papal claims as being taught by another Orthodox Pope of Elder Rome, St. Leo I, but that this was not accepted in the Christian East, much less accepted by the polity of Reformed England. I am sure one could argue in this direction. Though, as we saw, Gelasius’s tussle with the Eastern patriarchs is contrasted with the willing submission to the Papal claims by the Greek monks.
      So who are we choosing to be Representative of the voice of authentic Eastern Christianity, the anti-Chalcedonian Patriarchs or the Chalcedonian clergy underneath? However, it should be noted that in this thread it was mentioned how the Patriarchs of Constantinople Anatolius and John II, had to admit the authority of the Holy See over the canons of Ecumenical Councils as well as the authority to admit to communion the three main Eastern Sees which returned from the Schism of Acacius. But then, what of Pope Honorius, who was condemned by Constantinople 681 as a Monothelite heretic? I would say that for all that lies behind the difficult history of Honorius, his statements which are “Monothelite”-esque are far more innocent than the persistent claim to Papal supremacy in St. Gelasius.
       
      In other words, if Honorius is worthy of the name heretic for his letters to Sergius, then St. Gelasius would be no less deserving of the same for his Papalism. So I would then ask, are the Orthodox willing to hold a new Council where, like Constantinople 681, they condemn all the former proponents, such as Gelasius, for espousing the very belief in Papal supremacy which Orthodox converts from Catholicism are required to renounce?  At the same time, Catholics owe an explanation on Honorius, which we have often given despite its relative weaknesses or strengths under harsh scrutiny. The question that consistently comes up is whether St. Gelasius’s gloss on Papal authority, even if an echo of his predecessors, was held by the ecumenical church. This question immediately leaves the Catholic taken back, since anyone who is familiar with the history of first millennium Christianity is well aware that there were more than a few occasions that the Pope’s were resisted and even condemned by some.
       
      Though, we have to step aside and calculate how much value this would have in light of a consideration of the historical context. Hardly any action of the catholic and universal church was always accepted by everyone. In pre-Nicean Christianity, there were the Judaizers who did not bend the knee to the Apostolic council of Jerusalem (49), the outbreak of the Gnostic communities, the many divergent positions on the person of Christ, Nicaea (325), as already briefed, was rejected by many Eastern communities, and this continued onward up unto the Iconoclastic period (8/9th century). On this scale, we need not be boggled down with the question of whether the Papal theory was an ecumenical one because we have the paralyzing question of whether *anything* was accepted as ecumenical. That is, if we are taking poll from the consensus of every person and community who claimed to the title of Christian or church.
      This author concludes that these facts altar the investigation, and requires one to observe for what stands as a moral consensus, endures the test of time, and accomplishes victory over the opposition of heretical onslaught. Without having the space here to go into each and every point, there exists, in the opinion of many, ample evidence that the teaching ministry of the Roman see as it pertained to the occurrence of arbitration, doctrine, discipline, Councils, and/or episcopal trials, there lies a telling tale which might serve as the best clue. I pray that this all is seriously meditated on as we continue studying history and the various points of interest in the East/West dialogue.
       
       
       
       
      https://erickybarra.org/2017/08/24/eastern-orthodox-pope-of-elder-rome-st-gelasius-i-492-papal-supremacy/
       
    • Од Bernard,
      As many readers know, the Monothelite controversy occupied the Church’s attention in the 7th century, and it was concluded by a firm condemnation of the belief that in Christ there is only one single will or that his acts were from one theanadric operation. This evil which inflicted the Church was partly attributable to Pope Honorius I, who’s letters to Sergius, the Patriarch of Constantinople, seemed to have supported the idea that Christ had two natures but one will.  Shortly after the reception of these letters, the Eastern Emperor, Heraclius, upon the composition of the Patriarch, released an edict called the Ecthesis ( εκθεσις , literally “statement of faith”), wherein Christ is taught to have one will. This was also accepted by the Patriarchs of Alexandria, Antioch , and Jerusalem. It is reported that the successor of Honorius, Severinus, had time before his death to reject it. The successor of Severinus, John IV, clearly condemned it flat out.
      Now, on the Roman side, no one read Honorius as an advocate for this one-will doctrine. His successors, up until at least St. Leo II, denied that such was the meaning of his letter. However, the Council of Constantinople III held in 681 was to unashamedly convict  Honorius of heresy (though he was already long dead), and put the conciliar anathema upon him and his memory. To our surprise, at least one Eastern saint of repute, St. Maximus the Confessor, agreed with the immediate successors of Honorius and claimed Honorius’s intention was orthodox. Anyhow, the purpose here isn’t to investigate whether Honorius was a heretic or not, but rather whether Maximus believed in the divine origin of Papal supremacy or infallibility.
      In the scholarship of Maximus, some have called into question the authenticity of the more Papalist writings of Maximus, many of which exist today only in the Latin. However, the most recent Orthodox scholarship has not ventured to maintain such skepticism. For example, Orthodox scholars such as Dr. Jean-Claude Larchet, Dr. A. Edward Sciecienski, Fr. Andrew Louth ,  and Andrew J. Ekonomou have all attempted to interpret the texts in Maximus which favor of Roman primacy in their “proper” context. Not surprisingly, they all arrive at conclusions which do not include Maximus as a witness to the dogma of the contemporary Vatican on supremacy, nor infallibility. In the course of this article, I will be interacting with Larchet and Sciecienski, since it is their assessments which deserve the most attention.  Nevertheless how interesting it is to see that, in contrast to former times, Orthodox scholars are recognizing that, for Maximus, Rome is certainly the universal primate who even, by their own admission, had even a certain kind of universal jurisdiction when properly qualified and conditioned. That, in and of itself, is a far step away from the equal-pentarchism or equal-episcopalism with which the East may have given off. That is not to say that there is a consensus on the meaning of primacy in the Orthodox Church, since we know that the greatest minds on the subject have to this very day strongly asserted otherwise. But it is to say that there has been more serious attention given to the historical sources which may have been passed over as spurious by earlier Orthodox historians.
      On the view of Roman primacy, Siecienski gravitates to the fact that when Maximus was put under trial in Constantinople and told that the Roman see had plans to unite with the Monophysite Patriarchs, the Saint replied by saying: “The Holy Ghost anathematizes even angels, should they command us to give up the faith“, clearly insinuating that if Rome were to engage in those plans, the Pope would be excommunicated from the body of Christ. This, we are told, is clear evidence that whatever strong Papal theory that Maximus held to, it was one that was confined by the very same conditions put upon all churches for their communion with the true Church, and thus he doesn’t serve to be a witness to the Catholic dogma in the slightest. In fact, when seen in this light, the Roman See can’t be said to possess anything intrinsically different, when it comes to preserving the Apostolic deposit of faith, than any other church, since Rome’s membership in the Church is just as contingent upon holding to the orthodox faith as any other church’s membership depends on it. If this is true, it would remove the force of Maximus from the list of historical witnesses to the divine Papal supremacy and infallibility. Perhaps a strong administrative primacy conditioned upon a true and orthodox faith, but, for the Orthodox, no special protection against error is therein claimed by Maximus.
      Before I get into the relevant commentary of what St. Maximus has to say about Rome, I will provide a quick refresher on the sequence of events: (1) After Sergius of Constantinople receives the letters of Pope Honorius, he composes the Ecthesis, teaching Christ had one will, and Emperor Heraclius has it published it throughout Byzantium ; (2) Upon Honorius’s death, envoys from Rome travel to Constantinople to obtain the Emperor’s confirmation of Severinus to Papal office, but the clergy of Constantinople would provide no assistance in confirming Severinus unless he accepted the Ecthesis; (3) Severinus held office for about 2 months, and was succeeded by John IV, who convened a Synod condemning the Ecthesis; (4) Pope John IV wrote a letter to Emperor Heraclius and the Church of Constantinople, now presided over by Pyrrhus, that the Ecthesis, and therefore monotheletism, has been condemned; (5) Pyrrhus, who maintained support of the Ecthesis, was exiled to Africa where he eventually debated the issue of one vs twowills in Christ with St. Maximus the Confessor, and publicly recanted of holding to the one will position (only, as we shall see, to later revert to his heretical position once again); (6) The man installed as Patriarch of Constantinople, without a lawful deposition of Pyrrhus, was named Paul, who was excommunicated by Pope Theodore for holding to the Ecthesis; (7) In response to this, Paul and Constans, the successor to Heraclius, trashed the Ecthesis, but installed the Typus in its place, which forbade any discussion on whether Christ had one or two wills, or one or two operations; (8) Pope Theodore convened a Council in the Lateran Basilica in 649 condemning the Ecthesis and the Typus together; (9) Theodore dies, and Pope St. Martin takes his place, and he and St. Maximus hold up Dyotheletism (two wills and operations in Christ) against the East; (10) Both Sts Martin and Maximus are forced into Imperial captivity, and suffer martyrdom for their belief that, in Christ Jesus, there is two wills and operations, both which appertain to the respective natures of God and humanity. This article will mainly cover the events surrounding the captivity of Maximus and his trial.
                                                           
      When the envoys from Rome traveled to Constantinople in order to receive confirmation of the election of Severinus to Papal office, but were told that no such thing would happen unless the newly elected Pope signed off on the Ecthesis, St. Maximus records the following description of this event as it was reported to him:
      “Having discovered the tenor of the document [Ecthesis], since by refusing [to sign] they [the legates] would have caused the first and mother of Churches and the city [ecclesiarum principem et matrem et urbem] to remain so long a time in widowhood [i.e. without a confirmed Bishop], they replied quietly: ‘We cannot act with authority in this matter, for we have received a commission to execute, not an order to make a profession of faith. But we assure you that we will relate all that you have put forward, and we will show the document itself to him who is to be consecrated, and if he should judge it to be correct, we will ask him to append his signature to it. But do not therefore place any obstacle in our way now and do violence to us by delaying us and keeping us here. For none has a right to use violence, especially when faith is in question. For herein even the weakest waxes mighty, and the meek becomes a warrior, and by comforting his soul with the divine word, is hardened against the greatest attacks. How much more in the case of the clergy and Church of the Romans, which from old until now, as the elder of all the Churches which are under the sun, presides over all? Having surely received this canonically, as well from councils and apostles, as from the princes of the latter [Peter & Paul], and being numbered in their company, she is subject to no writings or issues of synodical documents, on account of the eminence of her pontificate, even as in all these things all are equally subject to her according to sacerdotal law‘. And so when, without fear, but with all holy and becoming confidence, those ministers of the truly firm and immovable rock that is of the most great and Apostolic church at Rome, had so applied to the clergy of the royal city [Constantinople] it was seen that they had conciliated them and had acted prudently, that the others might be humble and modest, while they themselves made known the orthodoxy and purity of their own faith from the beginning. But those of Constantinople, admiring their piety, thought that such a deed ought rightly to be recompensed; and ceasing from offering them the document, they promised to produce by their own care the issue of the Emperor’s order with regard to the episcopal election. When this was accomplished, the apocrisiarii [representative of Rome in Constantinople] dear to God thankfully returned home’.” (Ex Epistola Sancti Maximi Scripta ad Abbatem Thalassium, PL 129.585-6, taken from Chapman 5)
      Here, Maximus quotes what he was told was the statement made by the Papal legates in his letter to Thalassium. Notice that the legates say that the Church of the Romans:
      (1) Presides over all churches under the sun (global church)
      (2) Received (1) from canons, councils, and the princes of the Apostles (Peter & Paul)
      (3) On account of her authority, is subject to no synodal documents
      (4) and holds all in subjection to her according to sacerdotal law
      Maximus does not diminish any of this, and appears to go along with it by referencing Rome as the “firm and immovable rock“. The basic message of his is that the clergy of Constantinople should have never given the posture that it did towards the Church of Rome, since that Church is the head of all churches, is not subject to any authoritative measures from any other church or council in the world, and holds all in subjection to her own authority. Now, this text is only preserved in Latin, and so would be one of those texts whose authenticity has been doubted.
                                                                             
      When Pyrrhus had returned to his former error, after having publicly recanted the Monotheletism after debating Maximus in Africa, the latter wrote to a certain Eastern official named Peter on the terms of which the twice heretical Pyrrhus could return to the Church and find pardon:
      “If the Roman See recognizes Pyrrhus to be not only a reprobate but a heretic, it is certainly plain that everyone who anathematizes those who have rejected Pyrrhus, anathematizes the See of Rome, that is, he anathematizes the Catholic Church. I need hardly add that he excommunicates himself also, if indeed he is in communion with the Roman See and the Catholic Church of God…It is not right that one who has been condemned and cast out by the Apostolic See of the city of Rome for his wrong opinions should be named with any kind of honour, until he be received by her, having returned to her, and to our Lord, by a pious confession and orthodox faith, by which he can receive holiness and the title of holy…Let him [sc. Pyrrhus] hasten before all things to satisfy the Roman See, for if it is satisfied, all will agree in calling him pious and orthodox. [For] he is only wasting words who thinks he must convince or lure such people as myself, instead of satisfying or entreating the blessed Pope of the most holy Catholic Church of Rome, that is, the Apostolic trone, which is from the incanrate Son Himself and which, in accordance with the holy canons and the definitions of faith, received from all the holy councils universal and suprem dominion, authority, and power of binding and loosing over all the holy churches of God which are in the whole world. For with it the Word who is above the celestial powers binds and looses in heaven also. For if he thinks he must satisfy others, and fails to implore the most blessed Roman Pope, he is acting like a man who, when accused of murder or some other crime, does not hasten to prove his innocence to the judge appointed by law, but only uselessly and without profit does his best to demonstrate his innocence to private individuals, who have no power to acquit him from the accusation. Wherefore, my blessed Lord, extend yet further the precept which it is known that you have made well and according to God’s will, by which Pyrrhus is not allowed to speak or misspeak with regard to dogma. But discover clearly his intention by further inquiry , whether he will altogether agree to the truth. And if he is careful to do this, exhort him to make a becoming statement to the Roman Pope, so that by his command the matter concerning Pyrrhus may be canonically and suitably ordered for the glory of God and the praise of your sublimity…”  (Opuscula 12, Patrologia Graeca 91.141-146, taken from Chapman 8 and The Oxford Handbook of Maximus the Confessor, page 553)
      It is without any doubt that Maximus understood the Roman See to have been possessed of universal supremacy by divine right. In particular, the comparison of making satisfaction and proving innocence before a Judge appointed by divine law and who has power to acquit with Pyrrhus’s obligation to satisfy the Roman See would put to rest any further objection to this. But notice the grounds upon which Maximus saw the Roman primacy to have rested on. The “Incarnate God Himself” ordained the supremacy of the Roman  Church. Even if, as Siecienski interpreted, Maximus did not believe in the permanent and invincible infallibility of the Roman See forever, he certainly believed that the Roman See held supreme jurisdiction over the whole universal Church *if she was orthodox*, that, not by man’s design, but by God’s.

      And if there was any further doubt, one could also read Maximus’s letter from Rome to the East which says:
      “For the very ends of the earth and those in every part of the world who purely and rightly confess the Lord, look directly to the most holy Church of the Romans and its confession and faith as though it were a sun of unfailing light, expecting from it the illuminating splendour of the Fathers and sacred dogmas…For ever since the Incarnate Word of God came down to us, all the churches of Christians everywhere have held that greatest Church there to be their sole base and foundation, since on the one hand, it is in no way overcome by the gates of Hades, according to the very promise of the Saviour , but holds the keys of the orthodox confession and faith in him and opens the only true and real religion to those who approach with godliness, and on the other hand, it shuts up and locks every heretical mouth that speaks unrighteousness against the most High“. (Opuscula 11, PG 91.137-140; trans. Cooper 2005:181; taken from Oxford Handbook, 552)
       
      St. Sophronius of Jerusalem
       
       
      Patriarch St. Sophronius of Jerusalem had commissioned St. Stephen of Dor, bishop in the Jerusalem Patriarch, to appeal to the Roman See in order to procure the condemnation of the Monothelites. Stephen, who traveled to Rome, describes this aloud at the Council of Lateran 649, of which Maximus took part. This Council was held as Ecumenical by Maximus, and so this open statement at the Council carries some significance:   “And for this cause, sometimes we asked for water to our head and to our eyes a fountain of tears, sometimes the wings of a dove, according to holy David, that we might fly away and announce these things to the Chair which rules and presides over all, I mean to yours, the Head and Highest, for the healing of the whole wound. For this it has been accustomed to do from of old and from the beginning with power by its canonical and apostolical authority, because the truly great Peter , head of the Apostles, was clearly thought worthy not only to be entrusted with the keys of heaven, alone apart from the rest, to open it worthily to believers, or to close it justly to those who disbelieve the gospel of grace, but because he was also first commissioned to feed the sheep of the whole Catholic Church; for ‘Peter’, said He, ‘Do you love me? Feed my sheep’, and again , because he had in a manner peculiar and special, a faith in the Lord stronger than all and unchangeable, to be converted and to confirm his fellows and spiritual brethren when tossed about, as having been adorned by God himself, incarnate for us, with power and sacerdotal authority…I was urged by the requests of almost all the pious bishops of the East in agreement with the departed Sophronius…Without delay I made this journey for this purpose alone; and since then thrice have I run to you Apostolic Feet, urging and beseeching the prayer of Sophronius and of all, that is, that you will assist the imperiled faith of Christians”
      (Acts of Lateran Synod 649, pg. 143-44)
       
      Fr. Andrew Louth, in his The Ecclesiology of Saint Maximus the Confessor , attempts to undermine the witness of Maximus to contemporary Catholic teaching by saying that Maximus is referring to the “church” of Rome, and not the Papal office. I thought this rather odd since even the Council of Vatican 1870 speaks of the prerogatives of the Roman “See” (it comes up no less than 8 times). There is an internal relationship between the bishopric and the church of which it is committed, and thus the authoritative prerogatives of the church would be subsumed by the bishopric. Louth goes on to say that Maximus was saying this all out of gratitude, thus implying that there was fanciful though unrealistic hyperbole being utilized. However, I could not help but recall that when Maximus could have spared his life in the face of Theodosius and the Imperial consuls by simply being willing to communicate with the Eastern Patriarchs on the condition that they had revoked the Typus (which had been the source of doctrinal contention), he refused to comply unless both they and the Eastern Patriarchs had formally submitted to Rome and the decrees of the Lateran synod of 649. If all he had was a flowery commitment to the Papal institution, then why further risk his life ? I think the answer is put forth very clearly in Maximus’ own words which, in sum, is that communion (not just agreement) with the Roman See *is* communion with the holy Catholic Church. Under that premise, one could understand him risking his life at this very crucial point of his trial. This reminds me of what Dom John Chapman writes in his The Condemnation of Pope Honorius : “When St. Jerome spoke tremendous words about the Pope [Damasus], we are asked to believe that he was exaggerating, or even that he was sarcastic. When the Council of Chalcedon wrote in like strain to St. Leo, we are [asked] to put down its words as empty Oriental flattery. Whatever may be thought of such comments, they cannot be applied to the words in which we have heard St. Maximus again and again set forth the privileges of Rome. Men do not shed their blood to blunt a sarcasm or to justify a [flowerly] compliment” (page 70-71). And finally, Louth mentions how Maximus denied an obedient following with a heretical Pope, which I will address more below.
                                                                         
      I wish to conclude this article by devoting the last section to responding to Siecienski’s scholarship on the Maximian view of Roman Primacy. In his section in the Oxford Handbook on Maximus the Confessor, Siecienski takes clear note of the above statements of Maximus on the authority of the Pope. However, he has some reservations before interpreting this as a support for the contemporary doctrine of Papal supremacy. He writes:
      “Following the promulgation of Pastor Aeternus (Vatican Council I, 1870), Catholic authors increasingly used Maximus’ writings to support the claim that the pope’s universal jurisdiction and doctrinal infallibility were recognized in the East during the first millennium….Perhaps the most detailed study of Maximus’ views on the papacy come from Jean-Claude Larchet, who examined all the texts in question (Larchet 1998). Larchet tried to contextualize Maximus’ ‘enthusiasim for the papacy in light of the monothelite debates, when Rome was his sole ally against the heretical hierarchs of the East. For Larchet and others, Maximus’ exalted language about the See of Rome manifest ‘the glow of gratitude he must have felt following the Lateran Synod, for the support he had found in Rome’ and besides, it was ‘written about the Church of Rome, not the papacy as such’ (Louth 2004:117). This does not mean that Maximus was being disingenuous, but instead simply recognizes that these texts were written at a time when Rome alone held the line against heresy, and thus had earned the kind of praise Maximus heaped upon her“. (Oxford Handbook, 553-54).
      When considering the question of whether Maximus understood communion with the Roman See to be absolutely necessary in order to be in the Church, Siecienski takes note from the trial of Maximus where he was told that the Roman See would be entering communion with the 4 Monothelite Patriarchs of the East:
      “Maximus replied: ‘The God of all pronounced that the catholic church was the correct and saving confession of the faith in him when he called Peter blessed because of the terms in which he had made proper confession of him’ (Ep. Max., Allen-Neil 2002:121)”
      and Siecienski deduces:
      “….if communion with the See of Rome was normative, this state of affairs was entirely contingent on Rome’s continued orthodoxy, which remained a necessary precondition for all the praise and powers he had received….In fact, during his trial Maximus accepted at least the theoretical possibility that he might be forced to break communion with Rome should it too fall victim to the monothelite madness” (Oxford, pg. 554-54)
      However, in the record of the trial, Maximus also says the following when he was told Rome was to enter into communion with the Monothelite patriarchs:
      “Those [Papal legates] who have come won’t prejudice the See of Rome in any way, even if they do communicate because they haven’t brought a letter to the Patriarch. And I’ll never be convinced that the Romans will be united with the Byzantines, unless they [the Byzantines] confess that our Lord and God by nature wills and works our salvation according to each [of the natures] from which He is, and in which He is, as well as which He is” (ibid, pg. 63)
      So we see here, even during the midst of this trial, that Maximus was not going to be convinced that Rome would commit heresy.  When pressed even further that Rome has certain plans to enter communion with the Monothelites, Maximus concedes:
      “‘The Holy Spirit, through the apostle, condemns even angels who innovate in some way contrary to what is preached” (ibid pg. 555)
      Siecienski concludes: “..Maximus, it seems, had not made the logical leap from ‘Rome has not erred’ to ‘Rome could not err’, although the Popes themselves had already begun to think along these lines.” (ibid)
      I think Siecienski is wrong that Maximus did not confess the supremacy and infallibility of Rome. Here’s why. If you read the citations from above, Maximus refers to Rome as the sun of unfailing light and the sole base and foundation which cannot be overcome by the gates of Hades, according to the promise of the Savior. Quite literally, Rome teaches the Apostolic faith and cannot fail to do so by virtue of the promise of God. So my argument would be this: Maximus understood the teaching ministry of the Church of Rome to be protected from heresy by the power and promise of God. Therefore, he believed in Papal infallibility.  I understand there is a way to interpret him as if he were just merely being hyperbolic or overly enthusiastic, seeing as how Rome was the only orthodox church in the oikumene at the time. That is possible, and I will address this, and it will be clear why I don’t prefer that explanation.
      Moreover, Siecienski thinks this interpretation does not run the risk of making Maximus disingenuous, but I disagree. How can you run claims of supremacy and doctrinal infallibility on the basis of Christ’s own divine intention (in letters not even to Rome) as an enthusiastic artwork just to bolster one’s argument? If Maximus’s argument depends on the cogency of his arguments from the church fathers, then it would be redundant to appeal to the divine status of Rome. If anything, by falsely insinuating Rome is infallible, Maximus runs the risk of undermining himself. Were the Popes themselves hyperbolic when they claimed the infallibility of the Roman See (Formula of Hormisdas, Letter of Agatho to Constantinople III)? It is far more likely that Maximus’ claims about Rome are just as genuine as those made by others, regardless if he was wrong or right on the matter. I see no compelling reason to read him any other way.
      But what about his statements during his trial? Did not Maximus just come out and say that Rome could fall into heresy? Well, I would argue there is more in between the lines here.  Just like some interpreters would take the clear attributions of supremacy and infallibility in Maximus and then fudge them (i.e. make them mere enthusiastic hype) in light of the latter’s willingness to possibly endure separation from Rome if it meant being faithful to the truth, a Catholic is doing nothing different when he interprets the clear admissions of Maximus when under trial and fudges them based on the clear statements of supremacy and infallibility in his other writings. In other words, Maximus could have answered his accusers under trial in such a way that he is willing to concede, as a matter of possibility for the sake of argument, that Rome could fall by the wayside, for which case he would remain faithful to the truth even if it meant he alone was the only orthodox Christian left on the planet, but not actually believe this would ever materialize. On that level, both interpretations are fair and square. But there is more.
      As we saw, the record of his trial includes a push-back from Maximus that he would not be convinced of Rome’s concession to heresy. When he was pressed on what he would do if Rome really did commune with the Monothelites, it is quite possible Maximus thought, in his head, “alright, let me concede to what would happen if the impossible actually did happen, hypothetically”. That might sound like a far-fetched interpretation which only reveals my own bias. However, we have objective reasons to interpret it this way. After his trial, where he gave the answers he did, Maximus wrote to Anastasius, his disciple, informing him that he had been told that Rome would be entering into communion with the Monothelite patriarchs, and requested that he and others are to pray for holy mother Church, and to send his letter of concern out for others to read. At the end of this letter is an additional text which was added by a compiler as a set of instructions given to him by either Maximus or Anastasius (some scholars say it was Anastasius himself who added it):
      “…in order that, when you have found out about the trial from these, you might all bring a common prayer to the Lord on behalf of our common mother, that is the Catholic Church, and on behalf of us your unworthy servants , for strengthening everyone and us also, persevering with you in it, according to the orthodox faith rightly preached in it by the holy fathers. For there is great fear in the whole world because this [church] endures persecution by everyone at the same time, unless He [God] offers aid by his customary grace, He who always come to aid, leaving the seed of piety at least in older Rome, confirming the promise He made to the prince of Apostles, which does not deceive us” (Maximus the Confessor and His Companions, Page 123)
      Even if this additional Latin schola (for it does not exist in the Greek) was added by Anastasius or a contemporary compiler, the person is doubtless connected to the same spirit of Maximus, and the compilers’ statement on the divine promise to Peter and Rome would surely serve as corroborative evidence that Maximus’s contemporaries held to precisely the same view about the Roman See. The compiler who added this states the whole catholic church is threatened by this monstrous evil of monotheletism, and it will take no less than God Himself to come and fulfill His own promise to Saint Peter which includes, at least, the preservation of “seed of piety” in the Roman See. And then to put it on par with the preservation of the Catholic Church herself? Even if the compiler is Theodore Spoudaeus, and not Anastasius the disciple of Maximus himself, it would still be a contemporary witness. I am convinced it is Anastasius who added this to the end of Maximus’s letter, since a similar message exist in the latter’s letter to the monks of Cagliari (see below).
                                                                     
      In a letter of the same Anastasius to the Monks of Cagliari, we read of the following:
      “Therefore, because the affairs of almost the whole church of God, which has been established as catholic and apostolic, are in great danger on account of these things, we pray on behalf of her and we beseech you, most holy people, that you do not despise her being in danger, but that you help her while she is labouring in the tempests, knowing that love which is in the Holy Spirit grows in the time of tribulation. And if it is possible, [we ask] that you go across more swiftly, as if for some other reason, to the pious men of older Rome, who are solid as a rock, who clearly always protect us as you do, and are most fervent fighters for the truth , to beseech them with supplicatory words and tears n behalf of all Christians , in order that they may gain reward from the Lord, preserving for all, as for themselves, the orthodox faith without newly-invented innovation, and taking up nothing more or less beyond those things, nor approving anything beyond that which has been defined by the holy fathers and synods“.  (ibid, 124)
      Finally, even if Maximus had come to a point of doubt where he thought about giving up his belief in the supremacy and infallibility of the See of Peter, that does not necessarily mean he did not believe that the whole entire time. He could have very well believed it when he wrote it, but then changed his mind later on. There are Catholics today who go from being ardent Papalists to becoming Orthodox or Protestant, and then give up on their belief in Papal infallibility. Nevertheless, for the reasons I’ve given, I think the best interpretation is that Maximus conceded the fallibility of Rome for the sake of argument, together with some fear that this might actually be true, in which case he wrote his sincere letter to Anastasius.

      Now, lest I prove to be the only one who sees this in Maximus, I give you a quote from a Lutheran Scholar on Maximus, Dr. Lars Thuberg,  and he explains our Saints view of Roman primacy:
      “In a somewhat fragmentary letter to Peter the Illustrious (from 643 or 644), which is preserved only in a Latin version, we find some explicit expressions of a very advanced theology about the position of the bishop of Rome. Maximus simply identified the see of Rome with the Catholic Church and he spoke of ‘the very holy Church of Rome, the apostolic see, which God the Word [Jesus] Himself and likewise all the holy Synods, according to the holy canons and the sacred definitions, have received, and which owns the power in all things and for all, over all the saints who are there for the whole inhabited earth, and likewise the power to unite and to dissolve….’ (Patr. Gr. 91, 144 C). Finally, in a letter written later in Rome, he made himself even more clear in the following maner: ‘...she [the Church of Rome] has the keys of the faith and of the orthodox confession; whoever approaches her humbly, to him is opened the real and unique piety, but she closes her moouth to any heretic who speaks against [divine] justice’ (Patr Gr 91, 140). This invites us to evaluate what Maximus had to say about the primacy of the pope. As Fr Garrigues has clearly shown (in an article in Istina, 1976), Maximus was convinced that Rome would never give way to the pressures of Constantinople. Once more forced to consider the possibility that in the case of Monotheletism the Romans might accept a union with the Byzantines, he answered through the paradoxical words of St. Paul, and said: ‘The Holy Spirit condemns… even the angels that would proclaim anything which is contrary to the Gospel’. (Patr Gr 90, 121). This implies that he did not want to discuss an improbable hypothesis, but would rather declare that he was prepared to die for the truth. This statement is a good starting point for a clarification of his own attitude. His personal experience of the doctrinal position of Rome confirmed his conviction that the promises of our Lord to Peter were applicable to the Church that preserved his relics. Thus, for him the communion of the Churches expressed itself as ‘a Roman communion’, a communion with the bishop of Rome. One must remember that for Maximus there existed only one alternative, represented by Imperial policy with its linke between Church and State, and that alternative could not enjoy the same promises. Even sacramental signs were missing in the latter case.”(The Vision of St Maximus the Confessor: Man and the Cosmos- Lars Thunberg, Page 25-26)
      Sources:
      “The Eastern Churches and the Papacy” by S. Herbert Scott
      “The Condemnation of Pope Honorius” by Dom John Chapman
      “The Building of Christendom” by Dr. Warren Carrol
      “Catholicism and Papacy : Some Anglican and Russian Difficulties” by Mgr. Peter Batiffol
      “The Ecclesiology of Saint Maximus the Confessor” Fr Andrew Louth (International Journal for the Study of the Christian Church Vol. 4, no 2, July 2004, 109-120)
      “Church and Papacy” Trevor Jalland
      “The Oxford Handbook o Maximus the Confessor, Edited by Pauline Allen & Bronwen Neil
      “The Papacy and the Orthodox” A. Edward Siecienski
      “The Acts of the Lateran Synod 649” Richard Price
      “Maximus the Confessor and His Companions: Documents from Exile” – Pauline allen & Bronwen Neil
      https://erickybarra.org/2017/02/28/st-maximos-the-confessor-580-662-divine-primacy-universal-jurisdiction-of-rome-from-jesus-christ/?fbclid=IwAR1UtX8oC_rLw2UYWh1jJMORXeVU1QwvQHoXEdZXtS6rs3VUMGXNzgEuOtg
    • Од Милан Ракић,
      "IMAM PROBLEM SA LITERARIZACIJOM VUČIĆA ZATO ŠTO MI ON PO SVEMU DJELUJE PRETJERANO. U TAKVOM PRETJERIVANJU NEMA LIKA, NEMA MOGUĆNOSTI ZA PRIČU. TAJ NJEGOV PLAČLJIVI GEST, HIROVITA LJUTLJIVOST, I TA – NE BIH HTIO DA ME SE KRIVO SHVATI – GOTOVO PA ŽENSKA UVRIJEĐENOST NEŠTO JE SA ČIM SE NE UMIJEM NOSITI NI KAO GRAĐANIN – MAKAR STRANI – NI KAO PISAC"
      Kada bismo nabrajali sve knjige hrvatskog književnika Miljenka Jergovića, i to samo prva izdanja, trebalo bi nam odista mnogo prostora (više od 40 naslova). Autor "Sarajevskog marlbora" i "Dvora od oraha" redovno piše novinske kolumne u kojima secira aktuelne društvene teme, a kao strastven čitalac piše i prikaze novih knjiga, neretko podržavajući nove, mlade autore. Nije mu strano da piše i o muzici i slikarstvu. Za sebe će reći da je "inokosna pojava".
      Sa Jergovićem razgovaramo u čuvenom beogradskom kafiću Azra, njegovom omiljenom mestu kada boravi – a to nije retko – u prestonici Srbije. I nekako se poređenje samo nametnulo: ono što je Džoni Štulić značio za jugoslovenski rokenrol, to Jergović i njegovo delo znači za "srpskohrvatsku" književnost.
      "VREME": U jednom davnašnjem intervjuu govorili ste o dolascima u Beograd, o graničnim službenicima i hotelskim recepcionerima koji vas doživljavaju kao"ponositog stranca" koji perfektno govori "njihov jezik". U međuvremenu, vaše delo u Srbiji skoro da je postalo domaće. Da li se može reći da je nekakav jedinstven (eks)jugoslovenski kulturni prostor, uprkos svemu, obnovljen? MILJENKO JERGOVIĆ: Za početak, u Beogradu sam prestao da odsjedam u hotelu i počeo da koristim blagodeti onoga što se zove "stan na dan", i to uvijek istog stana. To je još jedan korak ka "odomaćenju". Koristim i srpski mobitel, zato što je roming između Srbije i Hrvatske skuplji – to znam jer sam lično, svojim mobitelom provjeravao – nego roming između Hrvatske i Bjelorusije ili Hrvatske i Ukrajine. U tom smislu, jedino skuplja od Srbije je Crna Gora.
      Što se tiče "fantomskog" zajedničkog kulturnog prostora, stvar je veoma jednostavna. Taj zajednički kulturni prostor, htjeli mi to ili ne, postoji zato što postoji zajednički jezik i zato što postoje zajedničko kulturno iskustvo i zajedničko istorijsko iskustvo, šta god ono bilo.
      Svi ljudi koji žive na prostoru između, recimo, Sutle i Timoka, najmanje između Sutle i Timoka – da malo Sloveniju i Makedoniju ostavimo po strani – čine taj zajednički kulturni prostor, i svi oni participiraju u njemu. Ne poznajem nikoga, ali zaista nikoga, ko uopšte čita hrvatsku književnost a da, recimo, ne čita srpske knjige i srpske pisce. Postoje samo oni koji ne čitaju ništa, pa jednako tako ne čitaju ni Srbe kao što ne čitaju ni Hrvate. Ako uzmeš te tzv. niže slojeve, one nepismene i polupismene, ili – što je možda najbolje – ako uzmeš nacionaliste, i to one najgore vrste koji bi sutra vrlo rado učestvovali u nekom sljedećem ratu – oni takođe imaju zajednički kulturni prostor i iste zajedničke kulturne sadržaje. Hrvatski nacionalisti koji su redovni na Tompsonovim koncertima, pored Tompsona ne slušaju, recimo, Terezu Kesoviju ili Kiću Slabinca, nego je njihova muzika – Ceca, Dragana Mirković, Stoja, Aca Lukas i već sve niže spomenutih. Dakle, i oni sa Srbima dijele zajednički kulturni prostor.
      A šta je to što spaja ove potonje? I da li su ovi koji čitaju i srpsku, i hrvatsku, i bosanskohercegovačku književnost – na margini, a ovi što slušaju Cecu i Tompsona – mejnstrim? Čitajući su svakako margina, a ovi koji slušaju Cecu i Tompsona su patriotska margina, ona margina koju vlasti u Srbiji i u Hrvatskoj, istina na različite načine, vole predstavljati kao patriotsku i društvenu elitu. Iz perspektive hrvatske predsjednice – to je vjerojatno i jedina elita. Ona je naprosto zaljubljena u taj društveni sloj. Čak mi se čini da ta zaljubljenost iz njene perspektive ima i smisla jer zahvaljujući toj svojoj ljubavi, ona dobija izbore. I to ne zato što je taj društveni sloj većinski, već zato što on predstavlja elitu društva kojeg personificiraju Katolička crkva i konzervativni ideali onoga šutljivog, seljačkog i prigradskog sveta.
      Taj "šutljivi, konzervativni, seljački i prigradski svet" je ono što je većina i u Srbiji i u Hrvatskoj? Da, s tim što oblici njihove konzervativnosti nisu fiksirani. Pre desetak godina u Hrvatskoj oni su većinski glasali za SDP. Ali nisu oni glasali za SDP zato što su bili ljevičari, a u međuvremenu postali desničari – njihov konzervativni ideal nije politički. Oni glasaju za političare kao što bi glasali za televizijske i estradne zvijezde. I u Srbiji i u Hrvatskoj je tako. Ovi koji glasaju za SNS i za Vučića, pre 16-17 godina glasali su za nekakav DS ili DSS. Nema taj većinski sloj ni u jednoj ni u drugoj zemlji fiksirana ideološka i svjetonazorska uvjerenja. Oni čak nisu nužno ni nacionalisti. Mnogi bivaju nacionalisti na isti način na koji bivaju heteroseksualci. Naprosto je sramota biti "peder" i onda se predstavljaš kao heteroseksualac. Takva je, čini mi se, politička svijest u ljudi na današnjem Balkanu.
      Jedan ovdašnji filozof je rekao da je u Srbiji nepodnošljivo lako postati nacionalista... Slažem se, ali to nije karakteristično samo za Srbiju nego za cijelu bivšu Jugoslaviju, minus Slovenija. Jedino se Slovenija – i kada ode ulijevo, i kada ode udesno – ne uklapa u tu sliku.
      Kada smo kod mejnstrima, da li se, s obzirom na vaše impozantno delo, može reći da ste vi u Hrvatskoj mejnstrim pisac? To je "tricky" pitanje, a reći ću vam i zašto. U posljednjih 25 godina nikada ni u jednom kulturnom programu Hrvatske televizije nije se govorilo ni o jednoj mojoj knjizi. U tih 25 godina nikada nisam gostovao u emisiji u kojoj se govorilo o mojoj književnosti. A u poslednjih petnaest godina, sa izuzetkom gostovanja u emisijama Aleksandra Stankovića, moje lice se na HTV-u pojavljivalo samo u vidu potjernica. Recimo, jednom je upriličena i emitovana specijalna emisija posvećena mojoj navodnoj simpatiji za Dražu Mihailovića. Takođe, od postojećih književnih nagrada u Hrvatskoj, dobio sam samo jednu jedinu – "Ksaver Šandor Đalski", i to prije 25 godina kad vjerovatno još nisu bili načisto ko sam i šta sam. Sa te strane gledano, ja ne samo da nisam mejnstrim već ne postojim, ili pak postoji ozbiljan trud mejnstrima da me se učini nepostojećim.
      Sa druge strane, vrlo često ćete od ozbiljnih ljudi, pa i nekih profesora na Filozofskom fakultetu u Zagrebu ili tzv. ljudi iz kulture i književnosti čuti za mene da sam važan, veliki pisac. Pa će se onda moje knjige navoditi kao vrhunci savremene hrvatske književnosti. Stvar je u osnovi paradoksalna i na vaše pitanje nema odgovora. Može se odgovoriti i da sam mejnstrim i da me nema. Ali svi o meni imaju neko mišljenje. U ovom slučaju imati mišljenje zaista znači isto što i imati guzicu.
      A šta je to što smeta mejnstrimu da vam ne odaju više nego zasluženo, po mom mišljenju, priznanje? Riječ je o različitim stvarima, ali im generalno smeta moja drukčijost. Naprosto sam različit. Ta drukčijost se može ticati raznih stvari. Najviše i najprije se tiče toga da nisam deo nikakve grupacije. Ne pripadam grupi desnih hrvatskih pisaca i nacionalista. Oni me preziru. Ne pripadam ni grupi lijevih hrvatskih pisaca i antinacionalista. Oni me takođe preziru. Ja sam, eto, ja. Inokosna pojava. Igrom slučaja, dijelim isti prostor sa njima i nemam pritom nikakav problem sa vlastitom isključenošću, niti imam naročitu želju da stvar bude drukčija. Svaka kultura i svaka književnost zaokružuje i definiše vlastiti prostor, zaokružuje sebe. Definiše svoje važne pisce, važna dela, definiše vlastiti kulturni i književni život. Hrvatska književnost, ono što čini njen mejnstrim, pokušava sebe definisati tako da ja ostanem izvan nje. I to je meni sasvim okej. Hrvatska književnost i hrvatska kultura kroz cijeli dvadeseti vijek i ovaj dvadeset i prvi – sebe je najčešće definisala u negativnom smislu, definišući se preko toga što nije, a ne preko toga što jest. I tako je zaokruživala svoj imaginarni prostor. Nasuprot hrvatskom izolacionističkom principu, tokom dvadesetog vijeka srpska kultura je imala ekspanzionistički princip, neprestano je pokušavala da prisvoji i ono što se činilo izvan njenog obuhvata. U političkom smislu, ekspanzionizam je loša stvar, to znamo iz iskustva, ali u smislu kulturnog obuhvata i definisanja vlastitog kulturnog polja, ekspanzionizam je pozitivan. Ako želiš reći da su Meša Selimović i Ivo Andrić srpski pisci i ako srpsku književnost za vrijeme njihovog života definišeš tako što ih obuhvaćaš kao svoje, ti si na dobitku. Hrvati su svoju književnost definisali tako da ona obuhvaća sve ono što nije Ivo Andrić. I zato je danas smiješan i opskuran pokušaj hrvatske književnosti da, zbog žudnje za Andrićevom Nobelovom nagradom, njega integrišu u nešto čemu on nikako ne pripada prosto zato što je iz toga prethodno isključen. Pokušaj pljačke Andrićeva leša jedna je od odvratnijih stvari u savremenoj hrvatskoj kulturi.
      Jasne su razlike između vas i desnih književnih krugova. Koje su razlike između vas i lijevih književnih krugova u Hrvatskoj? Sa tim ljudima, ljevičarima iz hrvatske književnosti, dijelim minimalna politička uvjerenja, ali ništa osim toga. Sve drugo što oni jesu ja nisam, i obrnuto. Jer, književnost se definitivno ne definiše isključivo kroz političko uvjerenje autora. Književnost se ne definiše ni kroz političko uvjerenje čitalaca. U hrvatskom slučaju između tzv. književnih desničara i književnih ljevičara jedina razlika je u tom mininalnom političkom uvjerenju, i u tome što jedni glasaju za HDZ i ne žele čitati Dragana Velikića i Svetislava Basaru kao što ne čitaju ni bilo šta drugo, ali će zato rado poslušati Cecu. Ovi drugi, ljevičari, ako čitaju, pročitaće Velikića i Basaru i kititi se činjenicom da su ih čitali, i to će biti izraz njihove slobodoumnosti i njihovog velikog ljevičarstva, prema čemu ja imam načelne simpatije, ali mi i dalje ne znači previše. Pogotovo što se u trenutku kada dođu na vlast, odnosno kada njihova ministrica dođe na vlast, ne razlikuju od najcrnje desnice. Ta etapa, kada su u Hrvatskoj na vlasti bili lijevi ministri kulture, u kulturi bila je bitno gora od mnogo dužih etapa desnih ministara kulture. I što je važno: ništa manje isključiva, nacionalistička, sektaška. Po sitnom lopovluku, klijentelizmu i udovoljavanju svojim ljudima, braći od tetke i tetkama, lijevi ministri u Hrvatskoj bili su bitno gori.
      Izneli ste svojevremeno interesantnu tezu o tzv. integralnim fašistima koji su"dekorativni levičari", a koji takođe imaju totalitarni pogled na svet i ne podnose one koji imaju makar i samo za nijansu drugačije mišljenje. O kome ste tačno mislili? Mislio sam na mnoge. Mislio općenito na fenomen ljudi koji se kite lijevim folklorom, a zapravo su fašisti. Oni misle da se ljevica sastoji od majica sa likom Če Gevare, od razgovora o 1968, od čitanja Varufakisa i od crvenog folklora, a nikako od nekog stvarnog sadržaja. Dakle, ništa suštinski, ništa stvarno angažovano. Samo folklor.
      Kako gledate na pojave jugonostalgije i "titostalgiju", koje su prisutne u svim zemljama bivše Jugoslavije? Od samih početaka to mi ide na živce. A kako vrijeme prolazi i kako se pojam jugonostalgije okamenjuje, stvar me još više nervira. Kao prvo, Jugoslavija nije nešto za čim je mudro biti nostalgičan, i to iz elementarnih razloga. Ona je bila neslobodna društvena i politička zajednica. U Jugoslaviji nisu postojale elementarne građanske slobode. Mi smo se osamdesetih borili i potpisivali peticije za ukidanje člana 133 Kaznenog zakonika, odnosno verbalnog delikta. Ne možete biti nostalgični za zemljom u kojoj je verbalni delikt ukinut tri ili četiri godine prije njenog nestanka. Drugo, postoji nešto što se tiče elementarne čovjekove autopercepcije. Prirodno je, naime, da smo nostalgični, da smo bolećivi prema svojoj prošlosti. Naša bolećivost dolazi od onoga što se zove "optimizam sjećanja". Sva naša sjećanja su uljepšana. Sjećanja na Jugoslaviju su strašno uljepšana. A to zapravo nisu sjećanja na Jugoslaviju nego na našu vlastitu prošlost. Zaboravili smo da nam je bilo dosadno, grozno, zaboravili smo da smo bili zabrinuti, da nas je bolio zub, da smo bili bolesni, da smo imali grozne roditelje, da je grozno bilo u školi, da smo imali jedinicu iz matematike koju je valjalo popraviti... Sve smo to zaboravili, ostale su samo lijepe stvari. Naprosto zato što je to koncepcija ljudskog sjećanja. Pomalo je nedostojanstveno biti žrtva faličnosti sopstvenih sjećanja. U toj Jugoslaviji proveo sam petnaest mjeseci na odsluženju vojnog toka, a služenje JNA bila je kombinacija zatvora i ludnice. Danas postoji nostalgija i za tim vojničkim danima, što je najluđe od svega.
      Sa druge strane, ako ostavimo po strani to da je Jugoslavija bila loša, nepraktična, neslobodna zemlja, opasna za svoje građane, treba reći da je za čovjeka koji se zanima za kulturu, koji čita, sluša muziku, gleda filmove – bilo dobro živjeti na mnogostruko većem prostoru od ovih današnjih država. I takva, neslobodna Jugoslavija bila je više integrisana u Evropu i u svijet nego ijedna današnja postjugoslovenska zemlja, uključujući Sloveniju. Kada si bio čitalac u Jugoslaviji, ti si bio čitalac u Evropi. Tvoj svijet je bio evropski svijet. Danas smo spušteni deset spratova niže i od kulturne, intelektualne i svake druge bijede spasava nas samo to što smo dio digitalnog, internetskog svijeta, i što tako možeš da komuniciraš sa svijetom. Da nije tog kompjutera, mi bismo danas živjeli malo bolje nego što se živjelo u Enver Hodžinoj Albaniji, s tim što ne bismo bili izmučeni albanskom Partijom rada nego svijetom provincijskih tabloida. Tabloidi bi danas bili naš pakao da ne postoje kompjuteri i internet. U pitanju je užasno velika razlika između današnjih država i Jugoslavije, koja govori u korist Jugoslavije. Ali opet ponavljam, ne može se za tom i takvom zemljom, i tim i takvim društvom, biti nostalgičan. Jer, nostalgija za Jugoslavijom je i nostalgija za služenjem JNA. A meni je JNA, nakon matematike u osnovnoj i srednjoj školi, najstrašnije iskustvo u životu.
      Često se na regionalnim skupovima novinara ili nevladinih aktivista, ljudi iz bivših jugoslovenskih republika utrkuju da dokažu kako je kod njih – stanje najgore. Otkud potreba za tom vrstom ekskluziviteta? Putujući po zemljama bivše Jugoslavije, čovjek svuda dođe na dan-dva, tri, sedam, deset, petnaest... Čak i ako ostane dva-tri mjeseca, on je neko sa strane kog se toliko ne tiču, to jest nimalo ga se ne tiču lokalne stvari i lokalna sredstva maltretiranja. Uvijek si toliko izmaltretiran u svojoj maloj republici, u svom malom gradu, u svojoj maloj palanci, da ti se čini da je u onoj drugoj palanci, sa druge strane granice, puno bolje. Meni je, recimo, u Beogradu puno bolje nego u Zagrebu. Čak mislim da je i objektivno bolje, iz prostog razloga što je Beograd veći od Zagreba, pa sama ta veličina izrodi i nešto pozitivno. Ali, moj osjećaj da je ovdje bolje više se tiče činjenice da ja nisam odavde, da gledam, recimo, na Vučića kao na živopisnu pojavu sa ekrana, a ne na nekog ko ima bilo kakvog utjecaja na moj život. Kada moram pronaći način da prođem beogradskim Trgom republike, da nekako pronađem ulicu kojom se može ići – meni to predstavlja svojevrsnu avanturu, jednom u tri-četiri mjeseca, a ne svakodnevnu stvar. Ja se ne vozim beogradskim gradskim prevozom, gužvu na Brankovom mostu doživim jednom godišnje. O beogradskom, srbijanskom i vojvođanskom očaju saznajem od svojih prijatelja i poznanika i onda to uspoređujem sa svojim očajem. Uvijek je vlastiti očaj veći od tuđeg. To dolazi od toga i to je jedan veoma zanimljiv fenomen. Dok se nacionalisti, čak i kada imaju minimum svijesti da je u njihovoj zemlji loše, uvijek tješe time da je u Srbiji još gore, ili da je u Bosni još gore, ili da je u Hrvatskoj još gore, antinacionalistima se opet čini da je u Srbiji bolje, da je u Bosni bolje. Kažu, u Bosni su barem tri nacionalizma, a tri nacionalizma tlače manje nego jedan. Dok se onima koji su u Bosni čini da tri nacionalizma tlače više nego jedan. Sve je to razgovor ljudi koji zapravo nisu u stanju razgovarati, jer nisu u stanju izaći iz vlastite situacije i vlastite ucijenjenosti.
      Ipak će kolege iz regiona morati na kraju da priznaju da Srbija ima ubedljivo najgore tabloide. Kada dolazite ovde i vidite te pojave na kiosku ili ih listate, šta pomislite, o čemu se tu radi? Najprije da kažem, u Srbiji su novine bolje nego u Hrvatskoj. U Srbiji, naime, postoje i novine koje nisu tabloidi. Tačno je da u Hrvatskoj nema novina poput "Informera" ili "Srpskog telegrafa", ali su tzv. mejnstrim novine u velikoj mjeri tabloidi. Tako izgledaju, tako funkcionišu, i u jednom dobrom dijelu se bave taboidnim temama. Dok u Srbiji postoje dvoje-troje žanrovski ozbiljnih novina, potpuno svejedno da li su te novine nama politički simpatične ili nisu. Mislim da upravo to u Srbiji omogućava i postojanje tih jednokratnih žurnalističkih tabloidnih ludila... Prekjuče hodam pored trafike i ugledam na naslovnoj stranici glave masakriranih ljudi. I nešto ispod toga, neki naslov – ubilo, zaklalo... To je, recimo, nešto što se, čini mi se, više nigdje osim u Srbiji ne može vidjeti na kioscima. Kada bi nekome negdje palo na pamet da na naslovnu stranu ili uopšte u novine tako nešto stavi, to bi neko vijeće za štampu ili nekakav higijenski zavod jednostavno zabranilo.
      Vučić je u nekim zemljama Zapada doživljavan, poput onomad Miloševića, kao faktor regionalne stabilnosti. Istovremeno, njegovi mediji bljuju nacionalističku mržnju, a takva je i infrastruktura njegove vlasti, antidemokratska i antizapadna. Kako objašnjavate taj fenomen? Srpsko društvo i javna scena zasnovani su na nizu paradoksa. Tabloidi i poluautoritarna vlast – to je paradoks. Paradoksalno je i to da u Srbiji postoje tri gradića u kojima SNS nije na vlasti, a u isto vrijeme se vlast tako zdušno i tako energično bori protiv opozicije. To je suludo. Srpsko društvo, odnosno društvo koje stvara i projektuje ova vlast je ultrakonzervativno, a premijerka Ana Brnabić je žena sa seksualnim opredeljenjem koje jedva da nije protivzakonito. U Srbiji je nezamislivo, kao i u Hrvatskoj uostalom, da gej par ima dijete, a predsjednik Srbije premijerki šalje čestitku nakon što je ona u svojoj partnerskoj vezi dobila dijete. Da li to može samo ona!? Postoji li ikakav način da to može još neko? Ne, ne postoji. I to je paradoks. Kada je Ana Brnabić postala ministrica, a pogotovo kada je postala premijerka, vjerovao sam da će se ovako ili onako dogoditi nekakva dobra stvar. Naprosto da će ljudi, ta divlja masa, reći da je to okej, da će o njoj govoriti na osnovu toga kakva je ministrica ili premijerka, a ne na osnovu njenog seksualnog oprijedeljenja. Mislio sam da će njen izbor relaksirati situaciju u odnosu na tu manjinsku grupu. Međutim, nije se desilo ništa nalik tome. Dogodilo se to da je prihvaćeno kako je Ana Brnabić gej i da sa tim niko nema problema, pa čak ni episkopi. Ali, to se odnosi samo na nju i ni na koga više. To je takođe neviđeni paradoks. Jednako kao što je paradoksalno i to što pojedinci pišu na novčanicama da je Kosovo Srbija, a zaboravljaju da to znači i to da je bezmalo dva miliona Albanaca takođe Srbija. Ako su i oni Srbija, onda za početak, prijatelju, dužan si da pola večernjeg dnevnika bude na albanskom jeziku, i da ga uređuju od tebe nezavisni albanski novinari. Dužan si i da svaki natpis u Srbiji bude dvojezičan.
      Govorite o Kosovu i odnosu prema Albancima. Da li se može reći da svojevrsni kultur-rasizam prema kosovskim Albancima nije bio samo monopol Srbije i Srba već da je bio deo zajedničke kulture "naroda" bivše Jugoslavije? To je važno pitanje. U pitanju je bila bomba koja je morala da razori Jugoslaviju. To je i pokazatelj da je ideja o jugoslovenskom zajedništvu bila falična, nedovršena, kvarna, iznuđena... Svaki Albanac i svaki Mađar je morao, ali baš morao, da zna naš jezik. Svaki Albanac i svaki Mađar ga je u školi učio dok ga ne bi naučio, a onda bi se u JNA proveli kao bosi po trnju sa svojim nedovoljnim znanjem srpskohrvatskog jezika. Niko od nas većinaca nije u školama, makar fakultativno, morao ili mogao da uči ni mađarski ni albanski, pa ni makedonski ni slovenački jezik. Mi o njima ništa nismo znali i ništa nismo htjeli da znamo. To je bio mnogo veći problem Jugoslavije nego ideja o zajedničkoj kulturnoj sceni. U krajnjoj liniji, kosovski Albanci bivali su važnim akterima i činili deo jugoslovenske kulturne scene, ali samo u slučaju da su savršeno ili gotovo savršeno govorili naš jezik. Ili ako su kao pjesnici ili prozni pisci bili prevođeni u Jugoslaviji, to jest u Srbiji. Naime, izvan Srbije Albanci se i nisu prevodili kao što se ni danas ne prevode. U Hrvatskoj je preveden samo neki antisrpski esej velikoga albanskog pisca Ismaila Kadarea i to je, koliko se mogu sjetiti, jedina knjiga prevedena sa albanskog u Hrvatskoj u posljednje dvije i po decenije. Sa jedne strane, hrvatska se državna politika zalaže za prava Albanaca na Kosovu. Hrvatska je priznala Kosovo. Kada se na jednoj strani nađe albanski stav, a sa druge srpski, Hrvati će uvek biti za albanski stav, a kada treba prevesti knjigu ili pjesmicu ili bilo šta, onda se pokazuje da ih taj svijet jednostavno ne zanima. Još više ih ne zanima nego što ih nije zanimao u jugoslovenska vremena.
      Liberalni kapitalizam i Crveni Kmeri
      Koliko je uopšte kultura ovde moguća bez državne pomoći ili finansiranja iz nekih stranih donacija? Da li je moguće da ozbiljna kultura na ovim prostorima bude samoodrživa? Naravno da nije. Ne samo na Balkanu. Kada bi kultura bila oslobođena poreza, onda bi bila druga stvar. Porezi služe da se zadovoljavaju elementarne potrebe zajednice, a kultura je elementarna potreba zajednice. Pod uslovom da zajednica postoji, bilo kao nacija, bilo kao društvo povezano jezikom, državnim granicama i poreznim sistemom. Ideja da se kultura izostavi i prebriše iz elementarnih potreba zajednice huliganska je ideja, koja po svojim metodama i ciljevima pripada metodologiji Crvenih Kmera. Iako se u našim slučajevima to naziva idealom liberalnog kapitalizma. Ako je tako, onda između tako zamišljenog liberalnog kapitalizma i Crvenih Kmera nema nikakve razlike.
      Spomenuli ste Vučića. Da li je on vama literarno zanimljiv lik? Imam problem sa literarizacijom Vučića zato što mi on po svemu djeluje pretjerano. U takvom pretjerivanju nema lika, nema mogućnosti za priču. Taj njegov plačljivi gest, hirovita ljutljivost, i ta – ne bih htio da me se krivo shvati – gotovo pa ženska uvrijeđenost nešto je sa čim se ne umijem nositi ni kao građanin – makar strani – ni kao pisac. Kada kažem ženska uvrijeđenost, nadam se da ne trebam objašnjavati kako postoji i muška uvrijeđenost, koja od ženske nije ni bolja ni lošija, nego je različita. To što je Vučićeva uvrijeđenost ženska meni nipošto nije smiješno, samo me zbunjuje i ne da mi da o njemu dalje mislim kao o književnom liku. Ako bih nekoga iz Vučićevog kruga literarizirao, meni bi Ana Brnabić bila mnogo zanimljivija. Ona je sigurno žena s elementarnom građanskom hrabrošću, spremna pripadati prezrenoj i degradiranoj društvenoj manjini, razlikovati se, ne biti po mjeri čaršije. Ali njoj se, čini mi se, dogodila velika, teško objašnjiva transformacija. Od vremena kada je bila ministrica, od vremena kada je postala predsednica Vlade, pa do danas, ona se promijenila u svom nastupu, u svojoj gesti, u odnosu prema društvenim vrijednostima. Promijenila se u temperamentu. U nastupu je počela ličiti na Vučića, i to je jako zanimljivo s obzirom na prethodnu poziciju.
      Ako sam dobro razumeo, za Vučića nema prostora u nekoj ozbiljnoj književnosti? Možda bi imao prostora kod nekog pisca među kakve ja ne spadam. Možda bi Miodrag Bulatović u svojim najboljim danima mogao od Vučića da napravi književni lik. Ili recimo možda čak – ovo će malo čudno zvučati – možda čak i Kurt Vonegat. Možda bi on od njega uspeo napraviti nekog zanimljivog čudaka. Ja Vučićem kao književnim likom ne vladam. Moji su čudaci obični, svakodnevni autsajderi. A Vučić je krajnje artificijelna pojava, kakvih ima u literaturi, ali ih nema u stvarnosti. Ne bi me iznenadilo kada bih saznao da Aleksandar Vučić zapravo ne postoji.
      U jednom vašem intervjuu bilo je reči o dva spakovana kofera u kojem treba da držite sve važne stvari i uspomene, jer postoji velika mogućnost da će sve osim toga biti izgubljeno. U zbirci "Sarajevski marlboro" varirali ste tu Džumhurovu tezu. Da li sada imamo gdje da odemo, pobjegnemo, s obzirom na loše vijesti koje dolaze iz svijeta? Prije samo deset godina dijelili smo zajednički san o evropeizaciji naših prostora. U međuvremenu su se stvari radikalno promijenile. Svijet je prilično balkaniziran. Kada gledam i slušam Donalda Trampa, u sebi osjećam istu emociju kakvu sam osjećao prije dvadeset i pet godina, a koju osjećam pomalo i danas kada gledam i slušam Šešelja. Oni su užasno slični, ne toliko u fizičkom smislu, mada ni fizički nisu sasvim različiti, koliko u načinu na koji govore i emocijama koje odašilju. Slični su i u tom konstantnom prelaženju granice pristojnog, granice mogućeg, granice društveno prihvatljivog. Šešelj je osuđeni ratni zločinac sa radnim mjestom u Skupštini Srbije, što nije naročito visok položaj, a Donald Tramp je predsjednik Amerike, na neki način predsjednik svijeta. Donald Tramp je svijet. To znači da se Amerika, barem preko svog predsjednika i svega što on znači i što metastazira, pretvorila u Balkan. Ako je Amerika Balkan, onda se sa Balkana nema gdje pobjeći. Možda nije mudro ni bježati danas sa Balkana. Istina, Amerika je veličanstvena jer uspijeva već godinama držati Trampa na uzdama, što je pokazatelj snage jedne stvarne demokracije, ali sa druge strane, stvar je – zastrašujuća.
      Ipak, odavde ljudi odlaze i dalje na zapad, rezultati "egzodusa" su strašni? To je zajedničko svim našim zemljama. Tačno, mladi ljudi odlaze. Svi odlaze na zapad, i nacionalisti, i fundamentalisti, i vjerski manijaci bilo koje vjerske denominacije. Niko da ode u središte svoje vjere, osim ako ne ide malo da ratuje za ISIL ili za Rusiju. Odlaženje ljudi sa ovih prostora najviše se tiče nemogućnosti da se napravi projekcija vlastitog života u kojem bi se moglo zamisliti da će sljedeće godine biti bolje. Mislim da zbog toga ljudi odlaze, i sa te strane ih potpuno razumem. Neprestano je prisutna projekcija da će nam biti gore, i gore, i gore. Čak i kada je bolje, mi nemamo utisak da je tako jer imamo strah od sljedeće godine. Da se razumijemo, u proteklih petnaestak godina koješta je u ovim zemljama bivalo i bolje a da to nismo ni primijetili.
      Da li su izbeglice u Evropi zapravo novi varvari, oni iz legendarne Kavafijeve pesme, bez kojih ne znamo "šta će biti s nama"? Koliko je Evropa danas zajednica na koju treba da se ugleda ostatak sveta, a koliko jedan svet u zalasku? Iako su izbori za Evropski parlament, prema mnogima, zaustavili, bar delimično, uspon ekstremne desnice, ipak je snaga ovih stranaka neupitna. Izbori u Danskoj su pokazali i jednu zabrinjavajuću tendenciju: "izdominirali" su levičari koji takođe vode antiimigrantsku politiku. Najprije, ja nisam siguran da je riječ "izbjeglica" adekvatan pojam. Oni koji su bježali od rata, iz Sirije, jesu izbjeglice, ali ljudi iz različitih dijelova Afrike i ljudi iz drugih država Bliskog istoka i Srednjeg istoka koji su išli prema Evropi težeći za boljim životom – jesu gastarbajteri u pokušaju. Oni su ljudi koji se preseljavaju, ali nisu izbjeglice. Problem je u tome što smo mi u poslednjih nekoliko godina prihvatili kriminalizaciju ljudi koji idu za boljim životom. I koji se sele iz ekonomskih razloga. Odjednom je to postalo zazorno. Moram priznati da je to nešto što je veoma zabrinjavajuće, čak i u diskursu u tom smislu inače korektne Angele Merkel. I ona je počela da pravi razliku između ratnih izbjeglica i ekonomskih migranata, u kojima je potonje sumnjičila da nešto sa njima nije u redu. Težnja za boljim životom i težnja da se ide negdje gdje ćeš bolje živjeti, više zarađivati i gdje će tvojoj djeci biti bolje – najprirodnija je stvar na svijetu, i to je nešto što je upisano u sve naše porodične povijesti. Svi mi smo tako išli nekud, naši očevi ili pradjedovi... I Evropa je sastavljena od takvih ljudi. Kako da je to odjednom postao problem? Očito da je taj problem produkovan nizom informativnih kampanja i protivkampanja, i da je Evropa sama sebi stvorila ozbiljan problem tokom ove izbjegličke krize. Stvorila je problem u percepciji sebe same, a pogotovo u percepciji ljudi koji dolaze, prolaze, odlaze... I stvoreno je tako plodno tle za stvarno opasne tipove kakav je Viktor Orban. On je opasan, jer djeluje infektivno, zarazno. Istina, velika zaraza u Evropi nikada nije kretala iz male zemlje, a Mađarska je ipak mala zemlja, ali bez obzira na to, stvar nije ni ugodna ni bezazlena.
      Danski primjer samo potvrđuje kako je mondeno i moderno biti protiv drugih i drugačijih. Mi na Balkanu jako dobro znamo one koji su se na sličan ili isti takav način ponašali. Meni pada na pamet hrvatski solcijaldemokratski ministar kulture, lijevi ministar kulture koji se zvao Antun Vujić, i koji je bio ideološki guru SDP-a. On je, nakon što smo mi za svoj račun sa FAK-om (Festival alternativne književnosti) 2001. godine išli u Novi Sad i Beograd, sazvao konferenciju za štampu na kojoj nas je proglasio nacionalnim izdajnicima zato što smo se usudili ići u Srbiju prije nego Srbija vrati hrvatska blaga opljačkana u ratu. On je bio ikona hrvatske ljevice. Naprosto mu se isplatilo da nekom montira metu na čelu jer mu je to donosilo nekakvu popularnost. Istina, ta strategija se pokazala potpuno pogrešnom jer ideja da ćeš ti u nacionalizmu pobijediti nacionaliste doživjela je potpunu propast. Dugoročno, takve strategije svugdje izazivaju propast. Neumitno je da se partikularno, djelomično ljevičarenje kad-tad skrši na temeljnim pitanjima.
      Nedim SEJDINOVIĆ

       

Све поруке на форуму, осим званичних саопштења Српске Православне Цркве, су искључиво лична мишљења чланова форума 'Живе Речи Утехе' и уредништво не сноси никакву материјалну и кривичну одговорност услед погрешних информација. Објављивање информација са сајта у некомерцијалне сврхе могуће је само уз навођење URL адресе дискусије. За све друге видове дистрибуције потребно је имати изричиту дозволу администратора Поука.орг и/или аутора порука.  Коментари се на сајту Поуке.орг објављују у реалном времену и Администрација се не може сматрати одговорним за написано.  Забрањен је говор мржње, псовање, вређање и клеветање. Такав садржај ће бити избрисан чим буде примећен, а аутори могу бити пријављени надлежним институцијама. Чланови имају опцију пријављивања недоличних порука, те непримерен садржај могу пријавити Администрацији. Такође, ако имате проблема са регистрацијом или заборављеном шифром за сајтове Поуке.орг и Црква.нет, пошаљите нам поруку у контакт форми да Вам помогнемо у решавању проблема.

×
×
  • Create New...