Unfortunately, I don’t have access to the Uncut Mountain Press translation of the acts of the 879–880 council. On the Orthodox Ethos website, however, there is the following excerpt from the book (without page number):
“Objection XI.
After the pope’s epistles were read and the representatives of the bishop of Rome had asked the Council if they accepted them, the latter replied that they accept as many [parts of the epistles] as are contained in right and lawful speech, and not simply that they accept them, as had happened at the other Œcumenical Councils. Yet it must be said, first, that at the Council in Chalcedon Leo’s epistle is heavily scrutinized, as is Agatho’s in the Sixth and Hadrian’s in the Seventh. See those places and note especially that at that time also, the fathers discerningly accepted the things that had to do with the issues which the Councils were facing, but they did not also accept everything that the popes or others said about themselves. For this reason, at the Seventh Council the sections of Hadrian’s epistle that dealt with the holy icons were read, but what he said concerning the title ‘œcumenical’ and other such things were kept quiet and ignored. In fact, in opposition to the hushed demands, the fathers, every single one of them, called the bishop of Constantinople ‘œcumenical patriarch’. So here too, because the epistles contained some things that were off-topic, they were treated accordingly; see there. Therefore, the epistles were accepted for what they said concerning those matters for which the Council had been convened, which were right and lawful; the Council, however, did not accept the irrational things—the demand that they leave Bulgaria to the bishop of Rome and the pope’s excessive and uncanonical words concerning the Roman Church. In fact, they expressly rejected them, and the sin lies with the author and not with those who did not accept them.*” https://www.orthodoxethos.com/post/popes-and-councils
I wonder: is this quotation taken from the council’s official acts, or is it from Dositheus II of Jerusalem? If it is the former, that would seriously undermine the post’s argument that the East was fully aligned with the pope regarding papal claims. However, if it is the latter, then Orthodox Ethos would be presenting a later interpretive commentary as though it were part of the council’s own text, which would be seriously misleading...
That is the commentary of Dositheus II of Jerusalem, nearly 800 years after the fact. I directly address this very argument from Dositheus in the article.
Alright, thank you for your response. I just wanted to confirm that Dositheus was not directly quoting or paraphrasing the acts of the council. It seems that, once again, Orthodox Ethos is not a reliable source. I have written quite an extensive review of their book on baptism in Finnish (see https://journal.fi/ortodoksia/article/view/162410/115739), and it is also plagued by dubious use of sources and false claims.
Makes sense to me. Rome waa orthodox then, and then as now peple always looked to Rome for validation/approval given that Church's apostolic history and consistency. (To this day. Lefebrve & Co had to.make up loyalty to a ficticious "Eternal" Rome, wherever that is.) But the rock is not Peter per se, but the faith he expressed. At least, that is what.Catholics pray about the Papacy. One would think with all ink spilled on the Papacy as being part of divine revelation, that there would be tons of prayers about it. Lex orandi, lex credendi, right? The rule of prayer drives the rule of faith. And what do we find Catholics praying about Matthew 16? From the Collect of the feast of the chair of St.Peter, a very orthodox understanding: "Grant, we pray, almighty God,
that no tempests may disturb us,
for you have set us fast on the rock of the Apostle Peter's confession of faith.
Through our Lord Jesus Christ, your Son,
who lives and reigns with you in the unity of the Holy Spirit,
Great read, as always. Concerning your quotes about Photios and constantinople 879, its troublesome for me to harmonize this with the catholic rejection of said synod and official recognition of constantinople 869 as the eighth ecumenical council. How do you conceal that?
Also could you adress some topics in the future? I havent found a satisfactory defense of st augustine against eastern difamation, placing him as father of western heresies and beating strawmans of original sin, inherited guilt, irresistible grace, immaculate conception and so on.
Also on highlighting eastern catholics venerating so called pillars of orthodoxy, an apparent contradiction.
I think the clearest example of early papal supremacy is Pope Leo the Great at Chalcedon. However, there was much back and forth between Rome and Constantinople with Constantinople claiming equality with Rome and Pope Leo’s letter being used as the foundation for the Chalcedon definition. Though it is one of the clearest early examples of papal supremacy, it is one of the most confusing and political councils. I can understand why you did not include it.
On another note, I was wondering how Roman Catholics understand Pope Gregory’s injunction against a universal bishop? Was Pope Gregory wrong or do his writings only show that he was against Constantinople’s claim to universal jurisdiction?
Unfortunately, I don’t have access to the Uncut Mountain Press translation of the acts of the 879–880 council. On the Orthodox Ethos website, however, there is the following excerpt from the book (without page number):
“Objection XI.
After the pope’s epistles were read and the representatives of the bishop of Rome had asked the Council if they accepted them, the latter replied that they accept as many [parts of the epistles] as are contained in right and lawful speech, and not simply that they accept them, as had happened at the other Œcumenical Councils. Yet it must be said, first, that at the Council in Chalcedon Leo’s epistle is heavily scrutinized, as is Agatho’s in the Sixth and Hadrian’s in the Seventh. See those places and note especially that at that time also, the fathers discerningly accepted the things that had to do with the issues which the Councils were facing, but they did not also accept everything that the popes or others said about themselves. For this reason, at the Seventh Council the sections of Hadrian’s epistle that dealt with the holy icons were read, but what he said concerning the title ‘œcumenical’ and other such things were kept quiet and ignored. In fact, in opposition to the hushed demands, the fathers, every single one of them, called the bishop of Constantinople ‘œcumenical patriarch’. So here too, because the epistles contained some things that were off-topic, they were treated accordingly; see there. Therefore, the epistles were accepted for what they said concerning those matters for which the Council had been convened, which were right and lawful; the Council, however, did not accept the irrational things—the demand that they leave Bulgaria to the bishop of Rome and the pope’s excessive and uncanonical words concerning the Roman Church. In fact, they expressly rejected them, and the sin lies with the author and not with those who did not accept them.*” https://www.orthodoxethos.com/post/popes-and-councils
I wonder: is this quotation taken from the council’s official acts, or is it from Dositheus II of Jerusalem? If it is the former, that would seriously undermine the post’s argument that the East was fully aligned with the pope regarding papal claims. However, if it is the latter, then Orthodox Ethos would be presenting a later interpretive commentary as though it were part of the council’s own text, which would be seriously misleading...
That is the commentary of Dositheus II of Jerusalem, nearly 800 years after the fact. I directly address this very argument from Dositheus in the article.
Alright, thank you for your response. I just wanted to confirm that Dositheus was not directly quoting or paraphrasing the acts of the council. It seems that, once again, Orthodox Ethos is not a reliable source. I have written quite an extensive review of their book on baptism in Finnish (see https://journal.fi/ortodoksia/article/view/162410/115739), and it is also plagued by dubious use of sources and false claims.
Makes sense to me. Rome waa orthodox then, and then as now peple always looked to Rome for validation/approval given that Church's apostolic history and consistency. (To this day. Lefebrve & Co had to.make up loyalty to a ficticious "Eternal" Rome, wherever that is.) But the rock is not Peter per se, but the faith he expressed. At least, that is what.Catholics pray about the Papacy. One would think with all ink spilled on the Papacy as being part of divine revelation, that there would be tons of prayers about it. Lex orandi, lex credendi, right? The rule of prayer drives the rule of faith. And what do we find Catholics praying about Matthew 16? From the Collect of the feast of the chair of St.Peter, a very orthodox understanding: "Grant, we pray, almighty God,
that no tempests may disturb us,
for you have set us fast on the rock of the Apostle Peter's confession of faith.
Through our Lord Jesus Christ, your Son,
who lives and reigns with you in the unity of the Holy Spirit,
one God, for ever and ever."
Great read, as always. Concerning your quotes about Photios and constantinople 879, its troublesome for me to harmonize this with the catholic rejection of said synod and official recognition of constantinople 869 as the eighth ecumenical council. How do you conceal that?
Also could you adress some topics in the future? I havent found a satisfactory defense of st augustine against eastern difamation, placing him as father of western heresies and beating strawmans of original sin, inherited guilt, irresistible grace, immaculate conception and so on.
Also on highlighting eastern catholics venerating so called pillars of orthodoxy, an apparent contradiction.
I think the clearest example of early papal supremacy is Pope Leo the Great at Chalcedon. However, there was much back and forth between Rome and Constantinople with Constantinople claiming equality with Rome and Pope Leo’s letter being used as the foundation for the Chalcedon definition. Though it is one of the clearest early examples of papal supremacy, it is one of the most confusing and political councils. I can understand why you did not include it.
On another note, I was wondering how Roman Catholics understand Pope Gregory’s injunction against a universal bishop? Was Pope Gregory wrong or do his writings only show that he was against Constantinople’s claim to universal jurisdiction?
At the time of Gregory the Patriarch of Constantinople was calling himself EP, so this was a rebuking of that attitude.