Jump to content

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

Оцени ову тему


Препоручена порука

                                                                      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/

Link to comment
Подели на овим сајтовима

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. 

Link to comment
Подели на овим сајтовима

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 ;-)

Link to comment
Подели на овим сајтовима

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/

Link to comment
Подели на овим сајтовима

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.

  • Чланови који сада читају   0 чланова

    Нема регистрованих чланова који гледају ову страницу

  • Сличан садржај

    • Од Danijela,
      Relics of Agios Nektarios, which were kept in a special casket in front of his icon, in the Church of Agios Nektarios, in the village of Platanitis in central Greece, were stolen on Thursday.
      The thieves broke into the church in the middle of the night and, for an unknown reason, removed the holy relics which are visited and revered by thousands of Orthodox faithful every year.

      Nektarios, born in the mid-nineteenth century and died in the early twentieth century. Born in Selyvria, Thrace (part of present day Turkey), in October of 1846 as Anastasios Kephalas, Nektarios (his ordained name) began working and studying in Constantinople at the age of 14.
      In 1904 at the request of several nuns, he established a monastery for them on the island of Aegina. The monastery was then named Holy Trinity Monastery. In December of 1908, at the age of 62, Nektarios withdrew to the monastery on Aegina, where he lived out the rest of his life as a monk. He wrote, published, preached, and heard confessions from those who came from near and far to seek out his spiritual guidance.
      Thousands of miracles have been attributed to his intercession, with cases of cancer in particular, and other serious illnesses being totally cured.
      Nektarios died on the evening of November 8, 1920, at the age of 74. He was buried at the Holy Trinity Monastery on Aegina. His relics were removed from the grave in 1953 and parts were given to different churches around the Greek Orthodox world.
      Some relics were kept at the Church of Agios Nektarios, in the village of Platanitis, from where they were stolen on Thursday.
      Ηe was officially recognized as a saint by the Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople in 1961. His feast day is celebrated annually on November 9.
       
      https://greece.greekreporter.com/2020/07/17/relics-of-orthodox-saint-nektarios-stolen-from-greek-church/
    • Од Flojd,
      Pa eto, mislim da je trenutak, da se pohvalim sa svojim drugim romanom
      " Uzareni asfalt" 
      Na njemu sam radio desetak godina, a radnja se zasniva na nekom mom dugogodisnjem iskustvu u auto svetu.
      Ovde mozete procitajte i kriticki osvrt na roman koji je pisao moj brat a objavljivacu i misljenja drugih citaoca. ?




    • Од Bernard,
      Arhivi o Piju XII. končno odprti
      Gre za dva milijona dokumentov in pontifikat Pija XII. razumejo kot ključen za razumevanje zgodovine 20. stoletja. Materiala je 323 metrov, kar da kaže, kako živahna in razvejena je bila diplomatska dejavnost Svetega sedeža v tem času.

      Očitek, ki se je prijel Pija XII., je bil, da je pasivno sodeloval z nacizmom. Kritiki so namreč menili,­ da bi se med judovskim holokavstom v drugi svetovni vojni moral oglasiti in ga obsoditi ter se ne zaviti v molk, kar je dejansko storil. Nikoli namreč ni javno obsodil pregona in genocida nad Judi niti nad drugimi preganjanimi ljudmi ali skupinami ljudi.

      Prefekt vatikanskega apostolskega arhiva msgr. Sergio Pagano je za Radio Vatikan povedal, da priprave na to potekajo že kakih petnajst let. Gre za veliko dokumentov in v tem obdobju so jih digitalizirali. Znanstveniki, raziskovalci in zgodovinarji bodo poslej imeli veliko nadrobnega dela.

      Pagano ni skrival mnenja, da bodo dokumenti pokazali na dober in dobrodelen značaj Pija XII. in bodo na neki način spremenili zgodovinsko predsodbo, ki je nastala spontano. Da bi dan odprtja arhivov pospremili z ustrezno strokovno argumentacijo, je v Vatikanu 21. februarja potekal študijski dan. Tam so predstavili katalog dokumentov, ki so ga izdelovali zadnjih dvanajst do petnajst let.

      Za dostop do arhivov je uspešno zaprosilo 85 raziskovalcev, je poročal francoski LaCroix. Guardian je poročal o 150. Dovoljenje se nanaša na raziskovanje obdobja med letoma 1939 in 1958. To je tudi približen okvir papeževanja Pija XII., ki je trajalo skoraj 20 let. Raziskovalci prihajajo iz najmanj dvanajstih držav, deset, je poročal LaCroix, iz ZDA, vključno z dvema, ki prihajata iz washingtonskega muzeja holokavsta (Holocaust Memorial Museum). Sedem preučevalcev bo prišlo iz Izraela, štirinajst iz Nemčije, šestnajst iz Italije, dvajset iz vzhodne Evrope in Rusije, ostali iz Francije, Španije in Latinske Amerike.

      Osrednje vprašanje projekta »odpiranja arhivov« o papežu Piju XII. je v resnici njegov medvojni molk. Sergio Pagano, ki je preučeval te dokumente, že ko jih je katalogiziral, je izrazil prepričanje, da ni mogoče govoriti o pravem papeževem molku. Govoril je, kolikor je lahko, ni pa molčal, bi se lahko razumelo Paganove besede.

      Sploh bi lahko »molk« Pija XII. razdelili na tri dele. Britanski Observer je citiral ameriškega poznavalca razmerja med Katoliško cerkvijo in fašizmom Davida Ketzerja – ta bo že ta teden začel preiskovati dokumente –, ki je na vatikanski strani zaznal nervozo zaradi tega, kaj bi dokumenti lahko pokazali. Prvi del enigme je v dokazanem dejstvu, da se papež nikoli ni javno oglasil ali obsodil nacističnega zločina. Drugi del je v interpretaciji, da je s tem molkom »kupoval« možnost, da je v Rimu pod fašističnimi političnimi okoliščinami po tiho rešil več kot 1000 Judov.

      Razkrivanje arhivov bi lahko pokazalo, kakšni pogovori so potekali vzporedno, nad in pod mizo, kakšne so bile resnične okoliščine ter kakšni premisleki in strategija papeževega razmišljanja oziroma ukrepanja v tistem času. Tretji del bi utegnil pokazati na dodatne okoliščine dogajanja okrog komunistične internacionale in Pijevega antikomunizma, kamor bi lahko umestili tudi vzroke za politično ravnanje političnega katolicizma in slovenske Katoliške cerkve med letoma 1941 in 1945.

      Načela proti odtenkom dogajanja

      Okoliščine, ki so pogojevale ravnanje papeža Pija XII., najbrž vseeno ne odtehtajo generalnega dejstva, da je molčal, ko pravi mož ne sme molčati, in holokavst je gotovo dogodek, ob katerem se ne molči. Toda, je zapisal Observer, profesorica moderne evropske zgodovine na univerzi Sheffield Mary Vincent pravi, da kritika Pija XII. nikoli ni upoštevala »odtenkov« dogajanja.

      Njegova teza je, da je bil Pij XII. previden, asketski in precej nepriljubljen človek, ki je poskusil krmariti Cerkev tako rekoč skozi nemogoče okoliščine. Imel je jasno predstavo o nevarnosti in nesprejemljivosti sovjetskega komunizma, precej manj kritičen pa je bil do italijanskega fašizma. Toda te odločitve ga še ne postavljajo v črno-beli svet ali ga delajo le dobrega ali slabega, je povedala Mary Vincent.

      Pod njegovim prednikom Pijem XI. je bil državni sekretar in se je v Nemčiji kot papeški nuncij (oziroma odposlanec) leta 1933 pogajal o konkordatu med Svetim sedežem in Vatikanom. Pol leta pred izbruhom druge svetovne vojne je bil izvoljen za novega papeža, ohranjal je diplomatske stike s tretjim rajhom in ni obsodil nemškega napada na Poljsko 1. septembra 1939. Leta 1942 je brez dvoma vedel za nemško iztrebljanje Judov, to so mu poročali številni duhovniki. Njegova formula – o tej je leta 1943 pisal berlinskemu škofu, je poročal Observer – je bila, da Cerkev javno ne sme obsoditi holokavsta, da ne bi povzročila »še večjega zla«.

      Z drugimi besedami povedano, je šlo v njegovem razmisleku za znano tezo o manjšem zlu. V tistem času so tudi v Sloveniji pod njegovim vplivom potekale natanko takšne debate o OF, NOB, komunistični revoluciji, obrambi vere in »dovoljeni kolaboraciji« z nacizmom v imenu manjšega zla proti večjemu, ki pa da je komunizem in ta se je polastil NOB. Posledice so poznane.

      Tarča nacizma ali taktika ohranitve moči

      Msgr. Sergio Pagano je prepričan, da bo odprtje arhiva pripomoglo k rehabilitaciji imena papeža Pija XII. Če imamo po poročanju Observerja na eni strani britanskega avtorja Johna Cornwella, ki je leta 1999 napisal knjigo Hitlerjev papež, imamo te dni na drugi Pagana, ki je zatrdil, da je Pij XII. nedolžen in svetniški. Cornwell (in mnogi z njim) je zatrdil, da je šlo za narcisistično težnjo zavarovati prednosti in moč papeštva, za idealnega papeža za Hitlerjeve načrte, Pagan je na drugi strani zatrdil, da je bil papež pojem karitativnosti, da je od njega k revežem »odtekla« reka denarja, da nikomur ni odrekel karitativne pomoči in da je reševal tudi Jude.

      Zanimanje za dokument tistega časa je izjemno. STA je citirala kardinala Joséja Tolentina Calaça de Mendonça, cerkvenega arhivarja in knjižničarja v Vatikanu. Rekel je: »Odpiranje arhivov je odločilno za sodobno zgodovino cerkve in sveta«, kajti z odprtjem arhivov bodo raziskovalci lahko raziskovali najrazličnejše teme – »od verske do politične zgodovine, od cerkvene oblasti do odnosov Svetega sedeža z državami in mednarodno skupnostjo«.

      Včeraj se je po napovedih »odprtje« arhiva tudi zgodilo. Raziskovalcem so zdaj dostopni tudi dokumenti zgodovinskega arhiva oddelka za odnose z državami vatikanskega državnega tajništva. Podrobnosti je v intervjuju za Radio Vatikan pojasnil nadškof Paul Richard Gallagher, tajnik za odnose z državami.

      Gre za dva milijona dokumentov in pontifikat Pija XII. razumejo kot ključen za razumevanje zgodovine 20. stoletja. Materiala je 323 metrov, kar da kaže, kako živahna in razvejena je bila diplomatska dejavnost Svetega sedeža v tem času. Na voljo bodo tudi dokumenti službe, ki je bila v Vatikanu zadolžena za poslušanje tujih radijskih postaj. To so počele posebej izurjene redovnice.

      Tudi Gallagher je osvetlil lik papeža Pija XII. med drugo svetovno vojno. Označil ga je za »branilca človeštva, pristnega Pastirja in pogumnega diplomata«. Označil ga je tarča nacizma, kajti ta je jasno izrazil sovraštvo do »katoliške Cerkve in samega papeža«. Arhivi so odprti, verjetno bo zanimivo počakati na izsledke interpretacij necerkvenih zgodovinarskih ekspertov za topiko tega obdobja.
      https://www.delo.si/novice/svet/arhivi-o-piju-xii-koncno-odprti-284492.html
    • Од Bernard,
      Council in Trullo (A.D. 692)
      Canon 1
      That order is best of all which makes every word and act begin and end in God. Wherefore that piety may be clearly set forth by us and that the Church of which Christ is the foundation may be continually increased and advanced, and that it may be exalted above the cedars of Lebanon; now therefore we, by divine grace at the beginning of our decrees, define that the faith set forth by the God-chosen Apostles who themselves had both seen and were ministers of the Word, shall be preserved without any innovation, unchanged and inviolate.
      Moreover the faith of the three hundred and eighteen holy and blessed fathers who were assembled at Nice under Constantine our Emperor, against the impious Arius, and the gentile diversity of deity or rather (to speak accurately) multitude of gods taught by him, who by the unanimous acknowledgment of the faithful revealed and declared to us the consubstantiality of the Three Persons comprehended in the Divine Nature, not suffering this faith to lie hidden under the bushel of ignorance, but openly teaching the faithful to adore with one worship the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost, confuting and scattering to the winds the opinion of different grades, and demolishing and overturning the puerile toyings fabricated out of sand by the heretics against orthodoxy.
      Likewise also we confirm that faith which was set forth by the one hundred and fifty fathers who in the time of Theodosius the Elder, our Emperor, assembled in this imperial city, accepting their decisions with regard to the Holy Ghost in assertion of his godhead, and expelling the profane Macedonius (together with all previous enemies of the truth) as one who dared to judge Him to be a servant who is Lord, and who wished to divide, like a robber, the inseparable unity, so that there might be no perfect mystery of our faith.
      And together with this odious and detestable contender against the truth, we condemn Apollinaris, priest of the same iniquity, who impiously belched forth that the Lord assumed a body unendowed with a soul, thence also inferring that his salvation wrought for us was imperfect.
      Moreover what things were set forth by the two hundred God-bearing fathers in the city of Ephesus in the days of Theodosius our Emperor, the son of Arcadius; these doctrines we assent to as the unbroken strength of piety, teaching that Christ the incarnate Son of God is one; and declaring that she who bore him without human seed was the immaculate Ever-Virgin, glorifying her as literally and in very truth the Mother of God. We condemn as foreign to the divine scheme the absurd division of Nestorius, who teaches that the one Christ consists of a man separately and of the Godhead separately and renews the Jewish impiety.
      Moreover we confirm that faith which at Chalcedon, the Metropolis, was set forth in accordance with orthodoxy by the six hundred and thirty God-approved fathers in the time of Marcian, who was our Emperor, which handed down with a great and mighty voice, even unto the ends of the earth, that the one Christ, the son of God, is of two natures, and must be glorified in these two natures, and which cast forth from the sacred precincts of the Church as a black pestilence to be avoided, Eutyches, babbling stupidly and inanely, and teaching that the great mystery of the incarnation (οἰκονωμίας) was perfected in thought only. And together with him also Nestorius and Dioscorus of whom the former was the defender and champion of the division, the latter of the confusion [of the two natures in the one Christ], both of whom fell away from the divergence of their impiety to a common depth of perdition and denial of God.
      Also we recognize as inspired by the Spirit the pious voices of the one hundred and sixty-five God-bearing fathers who assembled in this imperial city in the time of our Emperor Justinian of blessed memory, and we teach them to those who come after us; for these synodically anathematized and execrated Theodore of Mopsuestia (the teacher of Nestorius), and Origen, and Didymus, and Evagrius, all of whom reintroduced feigned Greek myths, and brought back again the circlings of certain bodies and souls, and deranged turnings [or transmigrations] to the wanderings or dreamings of their minds, and impiously insulting the resurrection of the dead. Moreover [they condemned] what things were written by Theodoret against the right faith and against the Twelve Chapters of blessed Cyril, and that letter which is said to have been written by Ibas.
      Also we agree to guard untouched the faith of the Sixth Holy Synod, which first assembled in this imperial city in the time of Constantine, our Emperor, of blessed memory, which faith received still greater confirmation from the fact that the pious Emperor ratified with his own signet that which was written for the security of future generations. This council taught that we should openly profess our faith that in the incarnation of Jesus Christ, our true God, there are two natural wills or volitions and two natural operations; and condemned by a just sentence those who adulterated the true doctrine and taught the people that in the one Lord Jesus Christ there is but one will and one operation; to wit, Theodore of Pharan, Cyrus of Alexandria, Honorius of Rome, Sergius, Pyrrhus, Paul and Peter, who were bishops of this God-preserved city; Macarius, who was bishop of Antioch; Stephen, who was his disciple, and the insane Polychronius, depriving them henceforth from the communion of the body of Christ our God.
      And, to say so once for all, we decree that the faith shall stand firm and remain unsullied until the end of the world as well as the writings divinely handed down and the teachings of all those who have beautified and adorned the Church of God and were lights in the world, having embraced the word of life. And we reject and anathematize those whom they rejected and anathematized, as being enemies of the truth, and as insane ragers against God, and as lifters up of iniquity.
      But if any one at all shall not observe and embrace the aforesaid pious decrees, and teach and preach in accordance therewith, but shall attempt to set himself in opposition thereto, let him be anathema, according to the decree already promulgated by the approved holy and blessed Fathers, and let him be cast out and stricken off as an alien from the number of Christians. For our decrees add nothing to the things previously defined, nor do they take anything away, nor have we any such power.
      Canon 2
      It has also seemed good to this holy Council, that the eighty-five canons, received and ratified by the holy and blessed Fathers before us, and also handed down to us in the name of the holy and glorious Apostles should from this time forth remain firm and unshaken for the cure of souls and the healing of disorders. And in these canons we are bidden to receive the Constitutions of the Holy Apostles [written] by Clement. But formerly through the agency of those who erred from the faith certain adulterous matter was introduced, clean contrary to piety, for the polluting of the Church, which obscures the elegance and beauty of the divine decrees in their present form. We therefore reject these Constitutions so as the better to make sure of the edification and security of the most Christian flock; by no means admitting the offspring of heretical error, and cleaving to the pure and perfect doctrine of the Apostles. But we set our seal likewise upon all the other holy canons set forth by our holy and blessed Fathers, that is, by the 318 holy God-bearing Fathers assembled at Nice, and those at Ancyra, further those at Neocæsarea and likewise those at Gangra, and besides, those at Antioch in Syria: those too at Laodicea in Phrygia: and likewise the 150 who assembled in this heaven-protected royal city: and the 200 who assembled the first time in the metropolis of the Ephesians, and the 630 holy and blessed Fathers at Chalcedon. In like manner those of Sardica, and those of Carthage: those also who again assembled in this heaven-protected royal city under its bishop Nectarius and Theophilus Archbishop of Alexandria. Likewise too the Canons [i.e. the decretal letters] of Dionysius, formerly Archbishop of the great city of Alexandria; and of Peter, Archbishop of Alexandria and Martyr; of Gregory the Wonder-worker, Bishop of Neocæsarea; of Athanasius, Archbishop of Alexandria; of Basil, Archbishop of Cæsarea in Cappadocia; of Gregory, Bishop of Nyssa; of Gregory Theologus; of Amphilochius of Iconium; of Timothy, Archbishop of Alexandria; of Theophilus, Archbishop of the same great city of Alexandria; of Cyril, Archbishop of the same Alexandria; of Gennadius, Patriarch of this heaven-protected royal city. Moreover the Canon set forth by Cyprian, Archbishop of the country of the Africans and Martyr, and by the Synod under him, which has been kept only in the country of the aforesaid Bishops, according to the custom delivered down to them. And that no one be allowed to transgress or disregard the aforesaid canons, or to receive others beside them, supposititiously set forth by certain who have attempted to make a traffic of the truth. But should any one be convicted of innovating upon, or attempting to overturn, any of the afore-mentioned canons, he shall be subject to receive the penalty which that canon imposes, and to be cured by it of his transgression.
      Canon 3
      Since our pious and Christian Emperor has addressed this holy and ecumenical council, in order that it might provide for the purity of those who are in the list of the clergy, and who transmit divine things to others, and that they may be blameless ministrants, and worthy of the sacrifice of the great God, who is both Offering and High Priest, a sacrifice apprehended by the intelligence: and that it might cleanse away the pollutions wherewith these have been branded by unlawful marriages: now whereas they of the most holy Roman Church purpose to keep the rule of exact perfection, but those who are under the throne of this heaven-protected and royal city keep that of kindness and consideration, so blending both together as our fathers have done, and as the love of God requires, that neither gentleness fall into licence, nor severity into harshness; especially as the fault of ignorance has reached no small number of men, we decree, that those who are involved in a second marriage, and have been slaves to sin up to the fifteenth of the past month of January, in the past fourth Indiction, the 6109th year, and have not resolved to repent of it, be subjected to canonical deposition: but that they who are involved in this disorder of a second marriage, but before our decree have acknowledged what is fitting, and have cut off their sin, and have put far from them this strange and illegitimate connection, or they whose wives by second marriage are already dead, or who have turned to repentance of their own accord, having learned continence, and having quickly forgotten their former iniquities, whether they be presbyters or deacons, these we have determined should cease from all priestly ministrations or exercise, being under punishment for a certain time, but should retain the honour of their seat and station, being satisfied with their seat before the laity and begging with tears from the Lord that the transgression of their ignorance be pardoned them: for unfitting it were that he should bless another who has to tend his own wounds. But those who have been married to one wife, if she was a widow, and likewise those who after their ordination have unlawfully entered into one marriage that is, presbyters, and deacons, and subdeacons, being debarred for some short time from sacred ministration, and censured, shall be restored again to their proper rank, never advancing to any further rank, their unlawful marriage being openly dissolved. This we decree to hold good only in the case of those that are involved in the aforesaid faults up to the fifteenth (as was said) of the month of January, of the fourth Indiction, decreeing from the present time, and renewing the Canon which declares, that he who has been joined in two marriages after his baptism, or has had a concubine, cannot be bishop, or presbyter, or deacon, or at all on the sacerdotal list; in like manner, that he who has taken a widow, or a divorced person, or a harlot, or a servant, or an actress, cannot be bishop, or presbyter, or deacon, or at all on the sacerdotal list.
      Canon 4
      If any bishop, presbyter, deacon, subdeacon, lector, cantor, or doorkeeper has had intercourse with a woman dedicated to God, let him be deposed, as one who has corrupted a spouse of Christ, but if a layman let him be cut off.
      Canon 5
      Let none of those who are on the priestly list possess any woman or maid servant, beyond those who are enumerated in the canon as being persons free from suspicion, preserving himself hereby from being implicated in any blame. But if anyone transgresses our decree let him be deposed. And let eunuchs also observe the same rule, that by foresight they may be free of censure. But those who transgress, let them be deposed, if indeed they are clerics; but if laymen let them be excommunicated.
      Canon 6
      Since it is declared in the apostolic canons that of those who are advanced to the clergy unmarried, only lectors and cantors are able to marry; we also, maintaining this, determine that henceforth it is in nowise lawful for any subdeacon, deacon or presbyter after his ordination to contract matrimony but if he shall have dared to do so, let him be deposed. And if any of those who enter the clergy, wishes to be joined to a wife in lawful marriage before he is ordained subdeacon, deacon, or presbyter, let it be done.
      Canon 7
      Since we have learned that in some churches deacons hold ecclesiastical offices, and that hereby some of them with arrogancy and license sit daringly before the presbyters: we have determined that a deacon, even if in an office of dignity, that is to say, in whatever ecclesiastical office he may be, is not to have his seat before a presbyter, except he is acting as representative of his own patriarch or metropolitan in another city under another superior, for then he shall be honoured as filling his place. But if anyone, possessed with a tyrannical audacity, shall have dared to do such a thing, let him be ejected from his peculiar rank and be last of all of the order in whose list he is in his own church; our Lord admonishing us that we are not to delight in taking the chief seats, according to the doctrine which is found in the holy Evangelist Luke, as put forth by our Lord and God himself. For to those who were called he taught this parable: When you are bidden by anyone to a marriage sit not down in the highest place lest a more honourable man than you shall have been bidden by him; and he who bade you and him come and say to you: Give this man place, and you begin with shame to take the lowest place. But when you are bidden, sit down in the lowest place, so that when he who bade you comes he may say to you, Friend go up higher: then you shall have honor in the presence of those who sit with you. For whosoever exalts himself shall be abased, and he that humbles himself shall be exalted. But the same thing also shall be observed in the remaining sacred orders; seeing that we know that spiritual things are to be preferred to worldly dignity.
      Canon 8
      Since we desire that in every point the things which have been decreed by our holy fathers may also be established and confirmed, we hereby renew the canon which orders that synods of the bishops of each province be held every year where the bishop of the metropolis shall deem best. But since on account of the incursions of barbarians and certain other incidental causes, those who preside over the churches cannot hold synods twice a year, it seems right that by all means once a year — on account of ecclesiastical questions which are likely to arise — a synod of the aforesaid bishops should be holden in every province, between the holy feast of Easter and October, as has been said above, in the place which the Metropolitan shall have deemed most fitting. And let such bishops as do not attend, when they are at home in their own cities and are in good health, and free from all unavoidable and necessary business, be fraternally reproved.
      Canon 9
      Let no cleric be permitted to keep a public house. For if it be not permitted to enter a tavern, much more is it forbidden to serve others in it and to carry on a trade which is unlawful for him. But if he shall have done any such thing, either let him desist or be deposed.
      Canon 10
      A bishop, or presbyter, or deacon who receives usury, or what is called hecatostæ, let him desist or be deposed.
      Canon 11
      Let no one in the priestly order nor any layman eat the unleavened bread of the Jews, nor have any familiar intercourse with them, nor summon them in illness, nor receive medicines from them, nor bathe with them; but if anyone shall take in hand to do so, if he is a cleric, let him be deposed, but if a layman let him be cut off.
      Canon 12
      Moreover this also has come to our knowledge, that in Africa and Libya and in other places the most God-beloved bishops in those parts do not refuse to live with their wives, even after consecration, thereby giving scandal and offense to the people. Since, therefore, it is our particular care that all things tend to the good of the flock placed in our hands and committed to us — it has seemed good that henceforth nothing of the kind shall in any way occur. And we say this, not to abolish and overthrow what things were established of old by Apostolic authority, but as caring for the health of the people and their advance to better things, and lest the ecclesiastical state should suffer any reproach. For the divine Apostle says: Do all to the glory of God, give none offense, neither to the Jews, nor to the Greeks, nor to the Church of God, even as I please all men in all things, not seeking my own profit but the profit of many, that they may be saved. Be imitators of me even as I also am of Christ. But if any shall have been observed to do such a thing, let him be deposed.
      Canon 13
      Since we know it to be handed down as a rule of the Roman Church that those who are deemed worthy to be advanced to the diaconate or presbyterate should promise no longer to cohabit with their wives, we, preserving the ancient rule and apostolic perfection and order, will that the lawful marriages of men who are in holy orders be from this time forward firm, by no means dissolving their union with their wives nor depriving them of their mutual intercourse at a convenient time. Wherefore, if anyone shall have been found worthy to be ordained subdeacon, or deacon, or presbyter, he is by no means to be prohibited from admittance to such a rank, even if he shall live with a lawful wife. Nor shall it be demanded of him at the time of his ordination that he promise to abstain from lawful intercourse with his wife: lest we should affect injuriously marriage constituted by God and blessed by his presence, as the Gospel says: What God has joined together let no man put asunder; and the Apostle says, Marriage is honourable and the bed undefiled; and again, Are you bound to a wife? Seek not to be loosed. But we know, as they who assembled at Carthage (with a care for the honest life of the clergy) said, that subdeacons, who handle the Holy Mysteries, and deacons, and presbyters should abstain from their consorts according to their own course [of ministration]. So that what has been handed down through the Apostles and preserved by ancient custom, we too likewise maintain, knowing that there is a time for all things and especially for fasting and prayer. For it is meet that they who assist at the divine altar should be absolutely continent when they are handling holy things, in order that they may be able to obtain from God what they ask in sincerity.
      If therefore anyone shall have dared, contrary to the Apostolic Canons, to deprive any of those who are in holy orders, presbyter, or deacon, or subdeacon of cohabitation and intercourse with his lawful wife, let him be deposed. In like manner also if any presbyter or deacon on pretence of piety has dismissed his wife, let him be excluded from communion; and if he persevere in this let him be deposed.
      Canon 14
      Let the canon of our holy God-bearing Fathers be confirmed in this particular also; that a presbyter be not ordained before he is thirty years of age, even if he be a very worthy man, but let him be kept back. For our Lord Jesus Christ was baptized and began to teach when he was thirty. In like manner let no deacon be ordained before he is twenty-five, nor a deaconess before she is forty.
      Canon 15
      A subdeacon is not to be ordained under twenty years of age. And if any one in any grade of the priesthood shall have been ordained contrary to the prescribed time let him be deposed.
      Canon 16
      Since the book of the Acts tells us that seven deacons were appointed by the Apostles, and the synod of Neocæsarea in the canons which it put forth determined that there ought to be canonically only seven deacons, even if the city be very large, in accordance with the book of the Acts; we, having fitted the mind of the fathers to the Apostles' words, find that they spoke not of those men who ministered at the Mysteries but in the administration which pertains to the serving of tables. For the book of the Acts reads as follows: In those days, when the number of the disciples was multiplied, there arose a murmuring dissension of the Grecians against the Hebrews, because their widows were neglected in the daily ministrations. And the Twelve called the multitude of the disciples with them and said, It is not meet for us to leave the word of God and serve tables. Look out therefore, brethren, from among you seven men of good report full of the Holy Ghost and of wisdom, whom we may appoint over this business. But we will give ourselves continually unto prayer and unto the ministry of the word. And the saying pleased the whole multitude: and they chose Stephen a man full of faith and of the Holy Ghost, and Philip, and Prochorus, and Nicanor, and Timon, and Parmenas, and Nicolas a proselyte of Antioch: whom they set before the Apostles.
      John Chrysostom, a Doctor of the Church, interpreting these words, proceeds thus: It is a remarkable fact that the multitude was not divided in its choice of the men, and that the Apostles were not rejected by them. But we must learn what sort of rank they had, and what ordination they received. Was it that of deacons? But this office did not yet exist in the churches. But was it the dispensation of a presbyter? But there was not as yet any bishop, but only Apostles, whence I think it is clear and manifest that neither of deacons nor of presbyters was there then the name.
      But on this account therefore we also announce that the aforesaid seven deacons are not to be understood as deacons who served at the Mysteries, according to the teaching before set forth, but that they were those to whom a dispensation was entrusted for the common benefit of those that were gathered together, who to us in this also were a type of philanthropy and zeal towards those who are in need.
      Canon 17
      Since clerics of different churches have left their own churches in which they were ordained and betaken themselves to other bishops, and without the consent of their own bishop have been settled in other churches, and thus they have proved themselves to be insolent and disobedient; we decree that from the month of January of the past IVth Indiction no cleric, of whatsoever grade he be, shall have power, without letters dimissory of his own bishop, to be registered in the clergy list of another church. Whoever in future shall not have observed this rule, but shall have brought disgrace upon himself as well as on the bishop who ordained him, let him be deposed together with him who also received him.
      Canon 18
      Those clerics who in consequence of a barbaric incursion or on account of any other circumstance have gone abroad, we order to return again to their churches after the cause has passed away, or when the incursion of the barbarians is at an end. Nor are they to leave them for long without cause. If anyone shall not have returned according to the direction of this present canon — let him be cut off until he shall return to his own church. And the same shall be the punishment of the bishop who received him.
      Canon 19
      It behooves those who preside over the churches, every day but especially on Lord's days, to teach all the clergy and people words of piety and of right religion, gathering out of holy Scripture meditations and determinations of the truth, and not going beyond the limits now fixed, nor varying from the tradition of the God-bearing fathers. And if any controversy in regard to Scripture shall have been raised, let them not interpret it otherwise than as the lights and doctors of the church in their writings have expounded it, and in those let them glory rather than in composing things out of their own heads, lest through their lack of skill they may have departed from what was fitting. For through the doctrine of the aforesaid fathers, the people coming to the knowledge of what is good and desirable, as well as what is useless and to be rejected, will remodel their life for the better, and not be led by ignorance, but applying their minds to the doctrine, they will take heed that no evil befall them and work out their salvation in fear of impending punishment.
      Canon 20
      It shall not be lawful for a bishop to teach publicly in any city which does not belong to him. If any shall have been observed doing this, let him cease from his episcopate, but let him discharge the office of a presbyter.
      Canon 21
      Those who have become guilty of crimes against the canons, and on this account subject to complete and perpetual deposition, are degraded to the condition of layman. If, however, keeping conversion continually before their eyes, they willingly deplore the sin on account of which they fell from grace, and made themselves aliens therefrom, they may still cut their hair after the manner of clerics. But if they are not willing to submit themselves to this canon, they must wear their hair as laymen, as being those who have preferred the communion of the world to the celestial life.
      Canon 22
      Those who are ordained for money, whether bishops or of any rank whatever, and not by examination and choice of life, we order to be deposed as well as those also who ordained them.
      Canon 23
      That no one, whether bishop, presbyter, or deacon, when giving the immaculate Communion, shall exact from him who communicates fees of any kind. For grace is not to be sold, nor do we give the sanctification of the Holy Spirit for money; but to those who are worthy of the gift it is to be communicated in all simplicity. But if any of those enrolled among the clergy make demands on those he communicates let him be deposed, as an imitator of the error and wickedness of Simon.
      Canon 24
      No one who is on the priestly catalogue nor any monk is allowed to take part in horse-races or to assist at theatrical representations. But if any clergyman be called to a marriage, as soon as the games begin let him rise up and go out, for so it is ordered by the doctrine of our fathers. And if any one shall be convicted of such an offense let him cease therefrom or be deposed.
      Canon 25
      Moreover we renew the canon which orders that country (ἀγροικικὰς) parishes and those which are in the provinces (ἐ γχωρίους) shall remain subject to the bishops who had possession of them; especially if for thirty years they had administered them without opposition. But if within thirty years there had been or should be any controversy on the point, it is lawful for those who think themselves injured to refer the matter to the provincial synod.
      Canon 26
      If a presbyter has through ignorance contracted an illegal marriage, while he still retains the right to his place, as we have defined in the sacred canons, yet he must abstain from all sacerdotal work. For it is sufficient if to such an one indulgence is granted. For he is unfit to bless another who needs to take care of his own wounds, for blessing is the imparting of sanctification. But how can he impart this to another who does not possess it himself through a sin of ignorance? Neither then in public nor in private can he bless nor distribute to others the body of Christ, [nor perform any other ministry]; but being content with his seat of honour let him lament to the Lord that his sin of ignorance may be remitted. For it is manifest that the nefarious marriage must be dissolved, neither can the man have any intercourse with her on account of whom he is deprived of the execution of his priesthood.
      Canon 27
      None of those who are in the catalogue of the clergy shall wear clothes unsuited to them, either while still living in town or when on a journey: but they shall wear such clothes as are assigned to those who belong to the clergy. And if any one shall violate this canon, he shall be cut off for one week.
      Canon 28
      Since we understand that in several churches grapes are brought to the altar, according to a custom which has long prevailed, and the ministers joined this with the unbloody sacrifice of the oblation, and distributed both to the people at the same time, we decree that no priest shall do this for the future, but shall administer the oblation alone to the people for the quickening of their souls and for the remission of their sins. But with regard to the offering of grapes as first fruits, the priests may bless them apart [from the offering of the oblation] and distribute them to such as seek them as an act of thanksgiving to him who is the Giver of the fruits by which our bodies are increased and fed according to his divine decree. And if any cleric shall violate this decree let him be deposed.
      Canon 29
      A canon of the Synod of Carthage says that the holy mysteries of the altar are not to be performed but by men who are fasting, except on one day in the year on which the Supper of the Lord is celebrated. At that time, on account perhaps of certain occasions in those places useful to the Church, even the holy Fathers themselves made use of this dispensation. But since nothing leads us to abandon exact observance, we decree that the Apostolic and Patristic tradition shall be followed; and define that it is not right to break the fast on the fifth feria of the last week of Lent, and thus to do dishonour to the whole of Lent.
      Canon 30
      Willing to do all things for the edification of the Church, we have determined to take care even of priests who are in barbarian churches. Wherefore if they think that they ought to exceed the Apostolic Canon concerning the not putting away of a wife on the pretext of piety and religion, and to do beyond that which is commanded, and therefore abstain by agreement with their wives from cohabitation, we decree they ought no longer to live with them in any way, so that hereby they may afford us a perfect demonstration of their promise. But we have conceded this to them on no other ground than their narrowness, and foreign and unsettled manners.
      Canon 31
      Clerics who in oratories which are in houses offer the Holy Mysteries or baptize, we decree ought to do this with the consent of the bishop of the place. Wherefore if any cleric shall not have so done, let him be deposed.
      Canon 32
      Since it has come to our knowledge that in the region of Armenia they offer wine only on the Holy Table, those who celebrate the unbloody sacrifice not mixing water with it, adducing, as authority thereof, John Chrysostom, a doctor of the Church, who says in his interpretation of the Gospel according to St. Matthew:
      And wherefore did he not drink water after he was risen again, but wine? To pluck up by the roots another wicked heresy. For since there are certain who use water in the Mysteries to show that both when he delivered the mysteries he had given wine and that when he had risen and was setting before them a mere meal without mysteries, he used wine, 'of the fruit,' says he, 'of the vine.' But a vine produces wine, not water. And from this they think the doctor overthrows the admixture of water in the holy sacrifice. Now, lest on the point from this time forward they be held in ignorance, we open out the orthodox opinion of the Father. For since there was an ancient and wicked heresy of the Hydroparastatæ (i.e., of those who offered water), who instead of wine used water in their sacrifice, this divine, confuting the detestable teaching of such a heresy, and showing that it is directly opposed to Apostolic tradition, asserted that which has just been quoted. For to his own church, where the pastoral administration had been given him, he ordered that water mixed with wine should be used at the unbloody sacrifice, so as to show forth the mingling of the blood and water which for the life of the whole world and for the redemption of its sins, was poured forth from the precious side of Christ our Redeemer; and moreover in every church where spiritual light has shined this divinely given order is observed.
      For also James, the brother, according to the flesh, of Christ our God, to whom the throne of the church of Jerusalem first was entrusted, and Basil, the Archbishop of the Church of Cæsarea, whose glory has spread through all the world, when they delivered to us directions for the mystical sacrifice in writing, declared that the holy chalice is consecrated in the Divine Liturgy with water and wine. And the holy Fathers who assembled at Carthage provided in these express terms: That in the holy Mysteries nothing besides the body and blood of the Lord be offered, as the Lord himself laid down, that is bread and wine mixed with water. Therefore if any bishop or presbyter shall not perform the holy action according to what has been handed down by the Apostles, and shall not offer the sacrifice with wine mixed with water, let him be deposed, as imperfectly showing forth the mystery and innovating on the things which have been handed down.
      Canon 33
      Since we know that, in the region of the Armenians, only those are appointed to the clerical orders who are of priestly descent (following in this Jewish customs); and some of those who are even untonsured are appointed to succeed cantors and readers of the divine law, we decree that henceforth it shall not be lawful for those who wish to bring any one into the clergy, to pay regard to the descent of him who is to be ordained; but let them examine whether they are worthy (according to the decrees set forth in the holy canons) to be placed on the list of the clergy, so that they may be ecclesiastically promoted, whether they are of priestly descent or not; moreover, let them not permit any one at all to read in the ambo, according to the order of those enrolled in the clergy, unless such an one have received the priestly tonsure and the canonical benediction of his own pastor; but if any one shall have been observed to act contrary to these directions, let him be cut off.
      Canon 34
      But in future, since the priestly canon openly sets this forth, that the crime of conspiracy or secret society is forbidden by external laws, but much more ought it to be prohibited in the Church; we also hasten to observe that if any clerics or monks are found either conspiring or entering secret societies, or devising anything against bishops or clergymen, they shall be altogether deprived of their rank.
      Canon 35
      It shall be lawful for no Metropolitan on the death of a bishop of his province to appropriate or sell the private property of the deceased, or that of the widowed church: but these are to be in the custody of the clergy of the diocese over which he presided until the election of another bishop, unless in the said church there are no clergymen left. For then the Metropolitan shall protect the property without diminution, handing over everything to the bishop when he is appointed.
      Canon 36
      Renewing the enactments by the 150 Fathers assembled at the God-protected and imperial city, and those of the 630 who met at Chalcedon; we decree that the see of Constantinople shall have equal privileges with the see of Old Rome, and shall be highly regarded in ecclesiastical matters as that is, and shall be second after it. After Constantinople shall be ranked the See of Alexandria, then that of Antioch, and afterwards the See of Jerusalem.
      Canon 37
      Since at different times there have been invasions of barbarians, and therefore very many cities have been subjected to the infidels, so that the bishop of a city may not be able, after he has been ordained, to take possession of his see, and to be settled in it in sacerdotal order, and so to perform and manage for it the ordinations and all things which by custom appertain to the bishop: we, preserving honour and veneration for the priesthood, and in no wise wishing to employ the Gentile injury to the ruin of ecclesiastical rights, have decreed that those who have been ordained thus, and on account of the aforesaid cause have not been settled in their sees, without any prejudice from this thing may be kept [in good standing] and that they may canonically perform the ordination of the different clerics and use the authority of their office according to the defined limits, and that whatever administration proceeds from them may be valid and legitimate. For the exercise of his office shall not be circumscribed by a season of necessity when the exact observance of law is circumscribed.
      Canon 38
      The canon which was made by the Fathers we also observe, which thus decreed: If any city be renewed by imperial authority, or shall have been renewed, let the order of things ecclesiastical follow the civil and public models.
      Canon 39
      Since our brother and fellow-worker, John, bishop of the island of Cyprus, together with his people in the province of the Hellespont, both on account of barbarian incursions, and that they may be freed from servitude of the heathen, and may be subject alone to the sceptres of most Christian rule, have emigrated from the said island, by the providence of the philanthropic God, and the labour of our Christ-loving and pious Empress; we determine that the privileges which were conceded by the divine fathers who first at Ephesus assembled, are to be preserved without any innovations, viz.: that new Justinianopolis shall have the rights of Constantinople and whoever is constituted the pious and most religious bishop thereof shall take precedence of all the bishops of the province of the Hellespont, and be elected [?] by his own bishops according to ancient custom. For the customs which obtain in each church our divine Fathers also took pains should be maintained, the existing bishop of the city of Cyzicus being subject to the metropolitan of the aforesaid Justinianopolis, for the imitation of all the rest of the bishops who are under the aforesaid beloved of God metropolitan John, by whom, as custom demands, even the bishop of the very city of Cyzicus shall be ordained.
      Canon 40
      Since to cleave to God by retiring from the noise and turmoil of life is very beneficial, it behooves us not without examination to admit before the proper time those who choose the monastic life, but to observe respecting them the limit handed down by our fathers, in order that we may then admit a profession of the life according to God as for ever firm, and the result of knowledge and judgment after years of discretion have been reached. He therefore who is about to submit to the yoke of monastic life should not be less than ten years of age, the examination of the matter depending on the decision of the bishop, whether he considers a longer time more conducive for his entrance and establishment in the monastic life. For although the great Basil in his holy canons decreed that she who willingly offers to God and embraces virginity, if she has completed her seventeenth year, is to be entered in the order of virgins: nevertheless, having followed the example respecting widows and deaconesses, analogy and proportion being considered, we have admitted at the said time those who have chosen the monastic life. For it is written in the divine Apostle that a widow is to be elected in the church at sixty years old: but the sacred canons have decreed that a deaconess shall be ordained at forty, since they saw that the Church by divine grace had gone forth more powerful and robust and was advancing still further, and they saw the firmness and stability of the faithful in observing the divine commandments. Wherefore we also, since we most rightly comprehend the matter, appoint the benediction of grace to him who is about to enter the struggle according to God, even as impressing speedily a certain seal upon him, hereupon introducing him to the not-long-to-be-hesitated-over and declined, or rather inciting him even to the choice and determination of good.
      Canon 41
      Those who in town or in villages wish to go away into cloisters, and take heed for themselves apart, before they enter a monastery and practise the anchorite's life, should for the space of three years in the fear of God submit to the Superior of the house, and fulfil obedience in all things, as is right, thus showing forth their choice of this life and that they embrace it willingly and with their whole hearts; they are then to be examined by the superior (προέδρος) of the place; and then to bear bravely outside the cloister one year more, so that their purpose may be fully manifested. For by this they will show fully and perfectly that they are not catching at vain glory, but that they are pursuing the life of solitude because of its inherent beauty and honour. After the completion of such a period, if they remain in the same intention in their choice of the life, they are to be enclosed, and no longer is it lawful for them to go out of such a house when they so desire, unless they be induced to do so for the common advantage, or other pressing necessity urging on to death; and then only with the blessing of the bishop of that place.
      And those who, without the above-mentioned causes, venture forth of their convents, are first of all to be shut up in the said convent even against their wills, and then are to cure themselves with fasting and other afflictions, knowing how it is written that no one who has put his hand to the plough and has looked back, is fit for the kingdom of heaven.
      Canon 42
      Those who are called Eremites and are clothed in black robes, and with long hair go about cities and associate with the worldly both men and women and bring odium upon their profession — we decree that if they will receive the habit of other monks and wear their hair cut short, they may be shut up in a monastery and numbered among the brothers; but if they do not choose to do this, they are to be expelled from the cities and forced to live in the desert (ἐρήμους) from whence also they derive their name.
      Canon 43
      It is lawful for every Christian to choose the life of religious discipline, and setting aside the troublous surgings of the affairs of this life to enter a monastery, and to be shaven in the fashion of a monk, without regard to what faults he may have previously committed. For God our Saviour says: Whose comes to me, I will in no wise cast out.
      As therefore the monastic method of life engraves upon us as on a tablet the life of penitence, we receive whoever approaches it sincerely; nor is any custom to be allowed to hinder him from fulfilling his intention.
      Canon 44
      A monk convicted of fornication, or who takes a wife for the communion of matrimony and for society, is to be subjected to the penalties of fornicators, according to the canons.
      Canon 45
      Whereas we understand that in some monasteries of women those who are about to be clothed with the sacred habit are first adorned in silks and garments of all kinds, and also with gold and jewels, by those who bring them there, and that they thus approach the altar and are there stripped of such a display of wealth, and that immediately thereafter the blessing of their habit takes place, and they are clothed with the black robe; we decree that henceforth this shall not be done. For it is not lawful for her who has already of her own free will put away every delight of life, and has embraced that method of life which is according to God, and has confirmed it with strong and stable reasons, and so has come to the monastery, to recall to memory the things which they had already forgotten, things of this world which perishes and passes away. For thus they raise in themselves doubts, and are disturbed in their souls, like the tossing waves, turning hither and there. Moreover, they should not give bodily evidence of heaviness of heart by weeping, but if a few tears drop from their eyes, as is like enough to be the case, they may be supposed by those who see them to have flowed μὴ μᾶλλον on account of their affection (διαθέσεως, affectionem) for the ascetic struggle rather than (ἢ) because they are quitting the world and worldly things.
      Canon 46
      Those women who choose the ascetic life and are settled in monasteries may by no means go forth of them. If, however, any inexorable necessity compels them, let them do so with the blessing and permission of her who is mother superior; and even then they must not go forth alone, but with some old women who are eminent in the monastery, and at the command of the lady superior. But it is not at all permitted that they should stop outside.
      And men also who follow the monastic life let them on urgent necessity go forth with the blessing of him to whom the rule is entrusted.
      Wherefore, those who transgress that which is now decreed by us, whether they be men or women, are to be subjected to suitable punishments.
      Canon 47
      No woman may sleep in a monastery of men, nor any man in a monastery of women. For it behooves the faithful to be without offense and to give no scandal, and to order their lives decorously and honestly and acceptably to God. But if any one shall have done this, whether he be cleric or layman, let him be cut off.
      Canon 48
      The wife of him who is advanced to the Episcopal dignity, shall be separated from her husband by their mutual consent, and after his ordination and consecration to the episcopate she shall enter a monastery situated at a distance from the abode of the bishop, and there let her enjoy the bishop's provision. And if she is deemed worthy she may be advanced to the dignity of a deaconess.
      Canon 49
      Renewing also the holy canon, we decree that the monasteries which have been once consecrated by the Episcopal will, are always to remain monasteries, and the things which belong to them are to be preserved to the monastery, and they cannot any more be secular abodes nor be given by any one to seculars. But if anything of this kind has been done already, we declare it to be null; and those who hereafter attempt to do so are to be subjected to canonical penalties.
      Canon 50
      No one at all, whether cleric or layman, is from this time forward to play at dice. And if any one hereafter shall be found doing so, if he be a cleric he is to be deposed, if a layman let him be cut off.
      Canon 51
      This holy and ecumenical synod altogether forbids those who are called players, and their spectacles, as well as the exhibition of hunts, and the theatrical dances. If any one despises the present canon, and gives himself to any of the things which are forbidden, if he be a cleric he shall be deposed, but if a layman let him be cut off.
      Canon 52
      On all days of the holy fast of Lent, except on the Sabbath, the Lord's day and the holy day of the Annunciation, the Liturgy of the Presanctified is to be said.
      Canon 53
      Whereas the spiritual relationship is greater than fleshly affinity; and since it has come to our knowledge that in some places certain persons who become sponsors to children in holy salvation-bearing baptism, afterwards contract matrimony with their mothers (being widows), we decree that for the future nothing of this sort is to be done. But if any, after the present canon, shall be observed to do this, they must, in the first place, desist from this unlawful marriage, and then be subjected to the penalties of fornicators.
      Canon 54
      The divine scriptures plainly teach us as follows, You shall not approach to any that is near of kin to you to uncover their nakedness. Basil, the bearer-of-God, has enumerated in his canons some marriages which are prohibited and has passed over the greater part in silence, and in both these ways has done us good service. For by avoiding a number of disgraceful names (lest by such words he should pollute his discourse) he included impurities under general terms, by which course he showed to us in a general way the marriages which are forbidden. But since by such silence, and because of the difficulty of understanding what marriages are prohibited, the matter has become confused; it seemed good to us to set it forth a little more clearly, decreeing that from this time forth he who shall marry the daughter of his father's brother; or a father or son with a mother and daughter; or a father and son with two girls who are sisters; or a mother and daughter with two brothers; or two brothers with two sisters, fall under the canon of seven years, provided they openly separate from this unlawful union.
      Canon 55
      Since we understand that in the city of the Romans, in the holy fast of Lent they fast on the Saturdays, contrary to the ecclesiastical observance which is traditional, it seemed good to the holy synod that also in the Church of the Romans the canon shall immovably stands fast which says: If any cleric shall be found to fast on a Sunday or Saturday (except on one occasion only) he is to be deposed; and if he is a layman he shall be cut off.
      Canon 56
      We have likewise learned that in the regions of Armenia and in other places certain people eat eggs and cheese on the Sabbaths and Lord's days of the holy lent. It seems good therefore that the whole Church of God which is in all the world should follow one rule and keep the fast perfectly, and as they abstain from everything which is killed, so also should they from eggs and cheese, which are the fruit and produce of those animals from which we abstain. But if any shall not observe this law, if they be clerics, let them be deposed; but if laymen, let them be cut off.
      Canon 57
      It is not right to offer honey and milk on the altar.
      Canon 58
      None of those who are in the order of laymen may distribute the Divine Mysteries to himself if a bishop, presbyter, or deacon be present. But whoever shall dare to do such a thing, as acting contrary to what has been determined shall be cut off for a week and thenceforth let him learn not to think of himself more highly than he ought to think.
      Canon 59
      Baptism is by no means to be administered in an oratory which is within a house; but they who are about to be held worthy of the spotless illumination are to go to a Catholic Church and there to enjoy this gift. But if any one shall be convicted of not observing what we have determined, if he be a cleric let him be deposed, if a layman let him be cut off.
      Canon 60
      Since the Apostle exclaims that he who cleaves to the Lord is one spirit, it is clear that he who is intimate with his [i.e. the Lord's] enemy becomes one by his affinity with him. Therefore, those who pretend they are possessed by a devil and by their depravity of manners feign to manifest their form and appearance; it seems good by all means that they should be punished and that they should be subjected to afflictions and hardships of the same kind as those to which they who are truly demoniacally possessed are justly subjected with the intent of delivering them from the [work or rather] energy of the devil.
      Canon 61
      Those who give themselves up to soothsayers or to those who are called hecatontarchs or to any such, in order that they may learn from them what things they wish to have revealed to them, let all such, according to the decrees lately made by the Fathers concerning them, be subjected to the canon of six years. And to this [penalty] they also should be subjected who carry about she-bears or animals of the kind for the diversion and injury of the simple; as well as those who tell fortunes and fates, and genealogy, and a multitude of words of this kind from the nonsense of deceit and imposture. Also those who are called expellers of clouds, enchanters, amulet-givers, and soothsayers.
      Canon 62
      The so-called Calends, and what are called Bota and Brumalia, and the full assembly which takes place on the first of March, we wish to be abolished from the life of the faithful. And also the public dances of women, which may do much harm and mischief. Moreover we drive away from the life of Christians the dances given in the names of those falsely called gods by the Greeks whether of men or women, and which are performed after an ancient and un-Christian fashion; decreeing that no man from this time forth shall be dressed as a woman, nor any woman in the garb suitable to men. Nor shall he assume comic, satyric, or tragic masks; nor may men invoke the name of the execrable Bacchus when they squeeze out the wine in the presses; nor when pouring out wine into jars [to cause a laugh ], practising in ignorance and vanity the things which proceed from the deceit of insanity. Therefore those who in the future attempt any of these things which are written, having obtained a knowledge of them, if they be clerics we order them to be deposed, and if laymen to be cut off.
      Canon 63
      We forbid to be publicly read in Church, histories of the martyrs which have been falsely put together by the enemies of the truth, in order to dishonour the martyrs of Christ and induce unbelief among those who hear them, but we order that such books be given to the flames. But those who accept them or apply their mind to them as true we anathematize.
      Canon 64
      It does not befit a layman to dispute or teach publicly, thus claiming for himself authority to teach, but he should yield to the order appointed by the Lord, and to open his ears to those who have received the grace to teach, and be taught by them divine things; for in one Church God has made different members, according to the word of the Apostle: and Gregory the Theologian, wisely interpreting this passage, commends the order in vogue with them saying: This order brethren we revere, this we guard. Let this one be the ear; that one the tongue, the hand or any other member. Let this one teach, but let that one learn. And a little further on: Learning in docility and abounding in cheerfulness, and ministering with alacrity, we shall not all be the tongue which is the more active member, not all of us Apostles, not all prophets, nor shall we all interpret. And again: Why do you make yourself a shepherd when you are a sheep? Why become the head when you are a foot? Why do you try to be a commander when you are enrolled in the number of the soldiers? And elsewhere: Wisdom orders, Be not swift in words; nor compare yourself with the rich, being poor; nor seek to be wiser than the wise. But if any one be found weakening the present canon, he is to be cut off for forty days.
      Canon 65
      The fires which are lighted on the new moons by some before their shops and houses, upon which (according to a certain ancient custom) they are wont foolishly and crazily to leap, we order henceforth to cease. Therefore, whosoever shall do such a thing, if he be a cleric, let him be deposed; but if he be a layman, let him be cut off. For it is written in the Fourth Book of the Kings And Manasses built an altar to the whole host of heaven, in the two courts of the Lord, and made his sons to pass through the fire, he used lots and augurs and divinations by birds and made ventriloquists [or pythons ] and multiplied diviners, that he might do evil before the Lord and provoke him to anger.
      Canon 66
      From the holy day of the Resurrection of Christ our God until the next Lord's day, for a whole week, in the holy churches the faithful ought to be free from labour, rejoicing in Christ with psalms and hymns and spiritual songs; and celebrating the feast, and applying their minds to the reading of the holy Scriptures, and delighting in the Holy Mysteries; for thus shall we be exalted with Christ and together with him be raised up. Therefore, on the aforesaid days there must not be any horse races or any public spectacle.
      Canon 67
      The divine Scripture commands us to abstain from blood, from things strangled, and from fornication. Those therefore who on account of a dainty stomach prepare by any art for food the blood of any animal, and so eat it, we punish suitably. If anyone henceforth venture to eat in any way the blood of an animal, if he be a clergyman, let him be deposed; if a layman, let him be cut off.
      Canon 68
      It is unlawful for anyone to corrupt or cut up a book of the Old or New Testament or of our holy and approved preachers and teachers, or to give them up to the traders in books or to those who are called perfumers, or to hand it over for destruction to any other like persons: unless to be sure it has been rendered useless either by bookworms, or by water, or in some other way. He who henceforth shall be observed to do such a thing shall be cut off for one year. Likewise also he who buys such books (unless he keeps them for his own use, or gives them to another for his benefit to be preserved) and has attempted to corrupt them, let him be cut off.
      Canon 69
      It is not permitted to a layman to enter the sanctuary (Holy Altar, Gk.), though, in accordance with a certain ancient tradition, the imperial power and authority is by no means prohibited from this when he wishes to offer his gifts to the Creator.
      Canon 70
      Women are not permitted to speak at the time of the Divine Liturgy; but, according to the word of Paul the Apostle, let them be silent. For it is not permitted to them to speak, but to be in subjection, as the law also says. But if they wish to learn anything let them ask their own husbands at home.
      Canon 71
      Those who are taught the civil laws must not adopt the customs of the Gentiles, nor be induced to go to the theatre, nor to keep what are called Cylestras, nor to wear clothing contrary to the general custom; and this holds good when they begin their training, when they reach its end, and, in short, all the time of its duration. If any one from this time shall dare to do contrary to this canon he is to be cut off.
      Canon 72
      An orthodox man is not permitted to marry an heretical woman, nor an orthodox woman to be joined to an heretical man. But if anything of this kind appear to have been done by any [we require them] to consider the marriage null, and that the marriage be dissolved. For it is not fitting to mingle together what should not be mingled, nor is it right that the sheep be joined with the wolf, nor the lot of sinners with the portion of Christ. But if any one shall transgress the things which we have decreed let him be cut off. But if any who up to this time are unbelievers and are not yet numbered in the flock of the orthodox have contracted lawful marriage between themselves, and if then, one choosing the right and coming to the light of truth and the other remaining still detained by the bond of error and not willing to behold with steady eye the divine rays, the unbelieving woman is pleased to cohabit with the believing man, or the unbelieving man with the believing woman, let them not be separated, according to the divine Apostle, for the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife by her husband.
      Canon 73
      Since the life-giving cross has shown to us Salvation, we should be careful that we render due honour to that by which we were saved from the ancient fall. Wherefore, in mind, in word, in feeling giving veneration (προσκύνησιν) to it, we command that the figure of the cross, which some have placed on the floor, be entirely removed therefrom, lest the trophy of the victory won for us be desecrated by the trampling under foot of those who walk over it. Therefore those who from this present represent on the pavement the sign of the cross, we decree are to be cut off.
      Canon 74
      It is not permitted to hold what are called Agapæ, that is love-feasts, in the Lord's houses or churches, nor to eat within the house, nor to spread couches. If any dare to do so let him cease therefrom or be cut off.
      Canon 75
      We will that those whose office it is to sing in the churches do not use undisciplined vociferations, nor force nature to shouting, nor adopt any of those modes which are incongruous and unsuitable for the church: but that they offer the psalmody to God, who is the observer of secrets, with great attention and compunction. For the Sacred Oracle taught that the Sons of Israel were to be pious.
      Canon 76
      It is not right that those who are responsible for reverence to churches should place within the sacred bounds an eating place, nor offer food there, nor make other sales. For God our Saviour teaching us when he was tabernacling in the flesh commanded not to make his Father's house a house of merchandize. He also poured out the small coins of the money-changers, and drove out all those who made common the temple. If, therefore, anyone shall be taken in the aforesaid fault let him be cut off.
      Canon 77
      It is not right that those who are dedicated to religion, whether clerics or ascetics, should wash in the bath with women, nor should any Christian man or layman do so. For this is severely condemned by the heathens. But if any one is caught in this thing, if he is a cleric let him be deposed; if a layman, let him be cut off.
      Canon 78
      It behooves those who are illuminated to learn the Creed by heart and to recite it to the bishop or presbyters on the Fifth Feria of the Week.
      Canon 79
      As we confess the divine birth of the Virgin to be without any childbed, since it came to pass without seed, and as we preach this to the entire flock, so we subject to correction those who through ignorance do anything which is inconsistent therewith. Wherefore since some on the day after the holy Nativity of Christ our God are seen cooking σεμίδαλῖν, and distributing it to each other, on pretext of doing honour to the puerperia of the spotless Virgin Maternity, we decree that henceforth nothing of the kind be done by the faithful. For this is not honouring the Virgin (who above thought and speech bare in the flesh the incomprehensible Word) when we define and describe, from ordinary things and from such as occur with ourselves, her ineffable parturition. If therefore anyone henceforth be discovered doing any such thing, if he be a cleric let him be deposed, but if a layman let him be cut off.
      Canon 80
      If any bishop, or presbyter, or deacon, or any of those who are enumerated in the list of the clergy, or a layman, has no very grave necessity nor difficult business so as to keep him from church for a very long time, but being in town does not go to church on three consecutive Sundays — three weeks — if he is a cleric let him be deposed, but if a layman let him be cut off.
      Canon 81
      Whereas we have heard that in some places in the hymn Trisagion there is added after Holy and Immortal, Who was crucified for us, have mercy upon us, and since this as being alien to piety was by the ancient and holy Fathers cast out of the hymn, as also the violent heretics who inserted these new words were cast out of the Church; we also, confirming the things which were formerly piously established by our holy Fathers, anathematize those who after this present decree allow in church this or any other addition to the most sacred hymn; but if indeed he who has transgressed is of the sacerdotal order, we command that he be deprived of his priestly dignity, but if he be a layman or monk let him be cut off.
      Canon 82
      In some pictures of the venerable icons, a lamb is painted to which the Precursor points his finger, which is received as a type of grace, indicating beforehand through the Law, our true Lamb, Christ our God. Embracing therefore the ancient types and shadows as symbols of the truth, and patterns given to the Church, we prefer grace and truth, receiving it as the fulfilment of the Law. In order therefore that that which is perfect may be delineated to the eyes of all, at least in colored expression, we decree that the figure in human form of the Lamb who takes away the sin of the world, Christ our God, be henceforth exhibited in images, instead of the ancient lamb, so that all may understand by means of it the depths of the humiliation of the Word of God, and that we may recall to our memory his conversation in the flesh, his passion and salutary death, and his redemption which was wrought for the whole world.
      Canon 83
      No one may give the Eucharist to the bodies of the dead; for it is written Take and eat. But the bodies of the dead can neither take nor eat.
      Canon 84
      Following the canonical laws of the Fathers, we decree concerning infants, as often as they are found without trusty witnesses who say that they are undoubtedly baptized; and as often as they are themselves unable on account of their age to answer satisfactorily in respect to the initiatory mystery given to them; that they ought without any offense to be baptized, lest such a doubt might deprive them of the sanctification of such a purification.
      Canon 85
      We have received from the Scriptures that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word shall be established. Therefore we decree that slaves who are manumitted by their masters in the presence of three witnesses shall enjoy that honour; for they being present at the time will add strength and stability to the liberty given, and they will bring it to pass that faith will be kept in those things which they now witness were done in their presence.
      Canon 86
      Those who to the destruction of their own souls procure and bring up harlots, if they be clerics, they are to be [cut off and] deposed, if laymen to be cut off.
      Canon 87
      She who has left her husband is an adulteress if she has come to another, according to the holy and divine Basil, who has gathered this most excellently from the prophet Jeremiah: If a woman has become another man's, her husband shall not return to her, but being defiled she shall remain defiled; and again, He who has an adulteress is senseless and impious. If therefore she appears to have departed from her husband without reason, he is deserving of pardon and she of punishment. And pardon shall be given to him that he may be in communion with the Church. But he who leaves the wife lawfully given him, and shall take another is guilty of adultery by the sentence of the Lord. And it has been decreed by our Fathers that they who are such must be weepers for a year, hearers for two years, prostrators for three years, and in the seventh year to stand with the faithful and thus be counted worthy of the Oblation [if with tears they do penance].
      Canon 88
      No one may drive any beast into a church except perchance a traveller, urged thereto by the greatest necessity, in default of a shed or resting-place, may have turned aside into said church. For unless the beast had been taken inside, it would have perished, and he, by the loss of his beast of burden, and thus without means of continuing his journey, would be in peril of death. And we are taught that the Sabbath was made for man: wherefore also the safety and comfort of man are by all means to be placed first. But should anyone be detected without any necessity such as we have just mentioned, leading his beast into a church, if he be a cleric let him be deposed, and if a layman let him be cut off.
      Canon 89
      The faithful spending the days of the Salutatory Passion in fasting, praying and compunction of heart, ought to fast until the midnight of the Great Sabbath: since the divine Evangelists, Matthew and Luke, have shown us how late at night it was [that the resurrection took place], the one by using the words ὀΨὲ σαββάτων, and the other by the words ὄρθρου βαθέος .
      Canon 90
      We have received from our divine Fathers the canon law that in honour of Christ's resurrection, we are not to kneel on Sundays. Lest therefore we should ignore the fullness of this observance we make it plain to the faithful that after the priests have gone to the Altar for Vespers on Saturdays (according to the prevailing custom) no one shall kneel in prayer until the evening of Sunday, at which time after the entrance for compline, again with bended knees we offer our prayers to the Lord. For taking the night after the Sabbath, which was the forerunner of our Lord's resurrection, we begin from it to sing in the spirit hymns to God, leading our feast out of darkness into light, and thus during an entire day and night, we celebrate the Resurrection.
      Canon 91
      Those who give drugs for procuring abortion, and those who receive poisons to kill the fœtus, are subjected to the penalty of murder.
      Canon 92
      The holy synod decrees that those who in the name of marriage carry off women and those who in any way assist the ravishers, if they be clerics, they shall lose their rank, but if they be laymen they shall be anathematized.
      Canon 93
      If the wife of a man who has gone away and does not appear, cohabit with another before she is assured of the death of the first, she is an adulteress. The wives of soldiers who have married husbands who do not appear are in the same case; as are also they who on account of the wanderings of their husbands do not wait for their return. But the circumstance here has some excuse, in that the suspicion of his death becomes very great. But she who in ignorance has married a man who at the time was deserted by his wife, and then is dismissed because his first wife returns to him, has indeed committed fornication, but through ignorance; therefore she is not prevented from marrying, but it is better if she remain as she is. If a soldier shall return after a long time, and find his wife on account of his long absence has been united to another man, if he so wishes, he may receive his own wife [back again], pardon being extended in consideration of their ignorance both to her and to the man who took her home in second marriage.
      Canon 94
      The canon subjects to penalties those who take heathen oaths, and we decree to them excommunication.
      Canon 95
      Those who from the heretics come over to orthodoxy, and to the number of those who should be saved, we receive according to the following order and custom. Arians, Macedonians, Novatians, who call themselves Cathari, Aristeri, and Testareskaidecatitæ, or Tetraditæ, and Apollinarians, we receive on their presentation of certificates and on their anathematizing every heresy which does not hold as does the holy Apostolic Church of God: then first of all we anoint them with the holy chrism on their foreheads, eyes, nostrils, mouth and ears; and as we seal them we say — The seal of the gift of the Holy Ghost.
      But concerning the Paulianists it has been determined by the Catholic Church that they shall by all means be rebaptized. The Eunomeans also, who baptize with one immersion; and the Montanists, who here are called Phrygians; and the Sabellians, who consider the Son to be the same as the Father, and are guilty in certain other grave matters, and all the other heresies— for there are many heretics here, especially those who come from the region of the Galatians — all of their number who are desirous of coming to the Orthodox faith, we receive as Gentiles. And on the first day we make them Christians, on the second Catechumens, then on the third day we exorcise them, at the same time also breathing thrice upon their faces and ears; and thus we initiate them, and we make them spend time in church and hear the Scriptures; and then we baptize them.
      And the Manichæans, and Valentinians and Marcionites and all of similar heresies must give certificates and anathematize each his own heresy, and also Nestorius, Eutyches, Dioscorus, Severus, and the other chiefs of such heresies, and those who think with them, and all the aforesaid heresies; and so they become partakers of the holy Communion.
      Canon 96
      Those who by baptism have put on Christ have professed that they will copy his manner of life which he led in the flesh. Those therefore who adorn and arrange their hair to the detriment of those who see them, that is by cunningly devised intertwinings, and by this means put a bait in the way of unstable souls, we take in hand to cure paternally with a suitable punishment: training them and teaching them to live soberly, in order that having laid aside the deceit and vanity of material things, they may give their minds continually to a life which is blessed and free from mischief, and have their conversation in fear, pure, [and holy ]; and thus come as near as possible to God through their purity of life; and adorn the inner man rather than the outer, and that with virtues, and good and blameless manners, so that they leave in themselves no remains of the left-handedness of the adversary. But if any shall act contrary to the present canon let him be cut off.
      Canon 97
      Those who have commerce with a wife or in any other manner without regard thereto make sacred places common, and treat them with contempt and thus remain in them, we order all such to be expelled, even from the dwellings of the catechumens which are in the venerable temples. And if any one shall not observe these directions, if he be a cleric let him be deposed, but if a layman let him be cut off.
      Canon 98
      He who brings to the intercourse of marriage a woman who is betrothed to another man who is still alive, is to lie under the charge of adultery.
      Canon 99
      We have further learned that, in the regions of the Armenians, certain persons boil joints of meat within the sanctuary and offer portions to the priests, distributing it after the Jewish fashion. Wherefore, that we may keep the church undefiled, we decree that it is not lawful for any priest to seize the separate portions of flesh meat from those who offer them, but they are to be content with what he that offers pleases to give them; and further we decree that such offering be made outside the church. And if any one does not thus, let him be cut off.
      Canon 100
      Let your eyes behold the thing which is right, orders Wisdom, and keep your heart with all care. For the bodily senses easily bring their own impressions into the soul. Therefore we order that henceforth there shall in no way be made pictures, whether they are in paintings or in what way so ever, which attract the eye and corrupt the mind, and incite it to the enkindling of base pleasures. And if any one shall attempt to do this he is to be cut off.
      Canon 101
      The great and divine Apostle Paul with loud voice calls man created in the image of God, the body and temple of Christ. Excelling, therefore, every sensible creature, he who by the saving Passion has attained to the celestial dignity, eating and drinking Christ, is fitted in all respects for eternal life, sanctifying his soul and body by the participation of divine grace. Wherefore, if any one wishes to be a participator of the immaculate Body in the time of the Synaxis, and to offer himself for the communion, let him draw near, arranging his hands in the form of a cross, and so let him receive the communion of grace. But such as, instead of their hands, make vessels of gold or other materials for the reception of the divine gift, and by these receive the immaculate communion, we by no means allow to come, as preferring inanimate and inferior matter to the image of God. But if any one shall be found imparting the immaculate Communion to those who bring vessels of this kind, let him be cut off as well as the one who brings them.
      Canon 102
      It behooves those who have received from God the power to loose and bind, to consider the quality of the sin and the readiness of the sinner for conversion, and to apply medicine suitable for the disease, lest if he is injudicious in each of these respects he should fail in regard to the healing of the sick man. For the disease of sin is not simple, but various and multiform, and it germinates many mischievous offshoots, from which much evil is diffused, and it proceeds further until it is checked by the power of the physician. Wherefore he who professes the science of spiritual medicine ought first of all to consider the disposition of him who has sinned, and to see whether he tends to health or (on the contrary) provokes to himself disease by his own behaviour, and to look how he can care for his manner of life during the interval. And if he does not resist the physician, and if the ulcer of the soul is increased by the application of the imposed medicaments, then let him mete out mercy to him according as he is worthy of it. For the whole account is between God and him to whom the pastoral rule has been delivered, to lead back the wandering sheep and to cure that which is wounded by the serpent; and that he may neither cast them down into the precipices of despair, nor loosen the bridle towards dissolution or contempt of life; but in some way or other, either by means of sternness and astringency, or by greater softness and mild medicines, to resist this sickness and exert himself for the healing of the ulcer, now examining the fruits of his repentance and wisely managing the man who is called to higher illumination. For we ought to know two things, to wit, the things which belong to strictness and those which belong to custom, and to follow the traditional form in the case of those who are not fitted for the highest things, as holy Basil teaches us.
       
      http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/3814.htm
×
×
  • Креирај ново...