Follow
Last week we concluded an eight-week series on the Early Church’s position on papal, Roman and Petrine primacy. As we demonstrated, the Early Church did not want or seek a chief earthly metropolis, did not recognize a chief episcopate in Rome, and did not believe there was a visible chief shepherd on earth. Her Chief Shepherd ruled the Church from heaven. Further, the early Church believed that every lawfully elected bishop on earth was a successor to St. Peter and sat in his Chair, and on some occasions it was necessary to correct, rebuke and separate from the bishop of Rome in order to preserve the Petrine unity of the Church.
The strongest ante-Nicene case Roman Catholicism can make for Roman or Papal primacy is in Irenæus’ 2nd century work, Against Heresies, Book III, Chapter 3, and Cyprian’s 3rd century treatise, On the Unity of the Church, and his letters against the schisms of Felicissimus in Carthage and Novatian in Rome. Thus, we spent three out of eight weeks on Irenæus and Cyprian. This week we will address the Council of Sardica (343 A.D.), Rome’s strongest post-Nicene case for Roman or Papal primacy before the general apostasy that occurred in the latter part of the 4th century. As we shall demonstrate, Roman Catholicism’s reliance on Sardica undermines rather than supports her claims for early papal primacy. In fact, the correspondence and decisions regarding the controversy show that the bishop of Rome was still recognized as possessing equal authority with the rest of the bishops, and was therefore subject to their scrutiny. Rome’s apologists can therefore use Sardica to advance the cause of early papal primacy only by first divorcing Sardica from its historical context.
Background and Outcome of the Council of Sardica
The Council of Sardica in 343 A.D. was occasioned by the raucous judicial proceedings that began with the accusations of Eusebius of Nicomedia against Athanasius of Alexandria in 335 A.D.. Athanasius had been indicted by the Council of Tyre in 335 A.D. on false charges of violence and murder (Athanasius, Apologia Contra Arianos, Part I, chapter 1, paragraph 6). The charges of murder were dismissed when the alleged victim was presented, alive, to the court. The charges of violence were remanded to a commission for further investigation. Nevertheless, the civil officer, Count Dionysius, “threatened him with violence, and was very zealous against him” (Epistle of Julius, paragraph 9). Athanasius escaped from Tyre by boat and fled to Constantinople to make an oral appeal to Constantine, complaining of the behavior of Count Dionysius. Constantine therefore summoned the disputing parties to the Imperial Court and resolved to settle the matter himself. Athanasius explains,
“Whereupon Eusebius and his fellows went up [to Constantinople] and falsely charged Athanasius, not with the same offenses which they had published against him at Tyre, but with an intention of detaining the vessels laden with grain, as though Athanasius had been the man to pretend that he could stop the exports of grain from Alexandria to Constantinople. … Eusebius did not hesitate publicly to repeat the charge, and swore that Athanasius was a rich man, and powerful, and able to do anything; in order that it might thence be supposed that he had used this language.” (Athanasius, Apologia Contra Arianos, Part I, chapter 1, paragraph 9)
Unable to persuade Constantine of his innocence, the charge stood “that Athanasius was a rich man, and powerful” and therefore had interfered with the shipments of grain to Constantinople. On this charge Athanasius was exiled to Gaul. After Constantine’s death in 337 A.D., Athansius was allowed to return to his seat in Alexandria, and the Eusebians reconvened a council in Antioch “where Constantius was in residence for the winter” (Schaff, Nicene and Post-Nicen Fathers, Series 2, vol 4, Athanasius, Athanasius, Select Works and Letters). At Antioch they were able to convince Constantius that the Eusebians were powerless against “powerful” Athanasius—”very few of us are now left. … for we … are left destitute” (Athanasius, History of the Arians, Part II, chapter 9). On this basis they deposed Athanasius, and appointed Gregory of Cappadocia in his place.
Athanasius departed again, this time seeking refuge in Rome (Athanasius, Circular Letter, Chapter 2). Another Council was therefore called in Rome (342 A.D.) at the request of the accusers, but when they realized that Athanasius would be present to answer to the charges, they refused to participate. Nevertheless, the council proceeded without them, and Athanasius was again exonerated by “more than fifty bishops” in Rome under the presidency of “pope” Julius (Athanasius, Apologia Contra Arianos, Part I, chapter 2).
Although Eusebius had died in 341 A.D., his followers were still stirring up trouble, and “the most religious Emperors Constantius and Constans being informed of this, commanded the Bishops from both the West and East to meet together in the city of Sardica,” and Athanasius “challenged the associates of Eusebius and his followers to submit to a trial” (Athanasius, Apologia Contra Arianos, Part I, chapter 3). The Eusebian party came to Sardica “for the purpose of undergoing a trial,” but when they realized that the venue would not be favorable to their charges, they were again unwilling, and again the council proceed without them, and again, Athanasius was exonerated by “more than three hundred Bishops” (Athanasius, Apologia Contra Arianos, Part I, chapter 1). The findings of the Council of Sardica were then forwarded to Emperor Constantius for his final consideration (Athanasius, Apologia Contra Arianos, Part I, chapter 4).
The events and letters surrounding the council have been proposed to support early Roman and Papal Primacy. Of these events, the New World Encyclopedia reports that “pope” Julius wrote to the Eastern bishops asserting papal primacy after the council in Rome, and then a larger council followed to reaffirm those claims:
“Julius’ subsequent letter to the Eastern bishops represents an early instance of the claims of primacy for the bishop of Rome. … [And] some 300 western bishops remained in place at Sardica and confirmed the decisions of the previous Roman synod, as well as affirming the pope’s authority.” (New World Encyclopedia, Pope Julius I)
We think this summary from the encyclopedia fairly represents the Roman Catholic position, as well as the perceived testimony from secular history. We also believe that when Sardica is viewed in its actual historical context, its ostensible support for Roman and papal primacy completely evaporates.
Our objectives in this series are to:
- Summarize the Roman Catholic Argument on Sardica from the evidence
- Summarize the Inadequacy of the Roman Catholic Argument
- Explain Sardica within its historical context of Constantinian Judicial Reform, especially the appellate process
- Show how the canons of Sardica—forged in that historical context—were then extracted from their context and appended to the canons of Nicæa by the Roman delegation at Chalcedon as if they had all been decreed at Nicæa.
We will cover objectives 1 and 2 this week. What we shall demonstrate is that, contrary to the designs of Roman Catholic apologists, the Council of Sardica and its related documentation militate for the collegiality and equality of all bishops, demonstrate that the Church saw itself united under the protection of the Christian emperors rather than under the authority of a chief shepherd in Rome, and demonstrate that the church was at that time adapting itself to the appellate process established by the judicial reforms under Constantine and continued under his sons.
The Roman Catholic Argument
The argument from Roman Catholic apologists on Sardica is that “pope” Julius rebuked the Eusebian party in Antioch because they had violated the custom of writing to Rome first, so that a “just decision” could be passed “from this place”:
“… the case ought to have been conducted against them, not after this manner, but according to the Canon of the Church. … Are you ignorant that the custom has been for word to be written first to us, and then for a just decision to be passed from this place? If then any such suspicion rested upon the Bishop there, notice thereof ought to have been sent to the Church of this place” (Athanasius, Apologia Contra Arianos, Part I, chapter 2, Letter of Julius to the Eusebians at Antioch).
Additionally, at the Council of Sardica, the presiding bishop, Hosius, proposed in Canon III that in the case of an appeal, those requesting it ought to “write to Julius, the bishop of Rome,” to request a retrial:
“But if perchance sentence be given against a bishop in any matter and he supposes his case to be not unsound but good, in order that the question may be reopened, let us, if it seem good to your charity, honour the memory of Peter the Apostle, and let those who gave judgment write to Julius, the bishop of Rome, so that, if necessary, the case may be retried by the bishops of the neighbouring provinces and let him appoint arbiters; but if it cannot be shown that his case is of such a sort as to need a new trial, let the judgment once given not be annulled, but stand good as before. ” (Council of Sardica, Canon III)
There is one additional datum from Sardica, and it is extracted from a Synodical Letter from the council to “pope” Julius as found in the Fragments of Hilary of Poitiers. The Synodical letter is alleged to contain the following summary from the Council:
“It was best and fittest that the priests from all the provinces should make their reports to the head, that is, the chair of St. Peter.”
We note that Bryan Cross, in his article on The Chair of St. Peter, cites this sentence from the Letter to Julius without elaboration. But there is much, much more to be said about it. We will defer to Schaff here, to let him explain the consensus of scholars who recognize that the sentence had been inserted after the fact, and is recognized by them as a spurious interpolation, and injurious to the flow of the text:
“Among the Fragments of St. Hilary is found a letter from the synod to Pope Julius. Hefele says that the text is ‘considerably injured.’ One clause of this letter above all others has given occasion to much controversy. The passage runs as follows: ‘It was best and fittest that the priests [i.e., bishops] from all the provinces should make their reports to the head, that is, the chair of St. Peter.’ Blondell declares the passage to be an interpolation, resting his opinion upon the barbarous Latin of the expression valde congruentissimum. And even Remi Ceillier, while explaining this by the supposition, which is wholly gratuitous, that the original was Greek, yet is forced to confess that the sentence interrupts the flow of thought and looks like an insertion. Bower, in his History of the Popes, and Fuchs have urged still more strongly the spurious character of the phrase, the latter using the convenient ‘marginal comment’ explanation.” (Schaff, Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, series 2, vol. 14, the Seven Ecumenical Councils, Excursus on the Other Acts of the Council)
Because of the scholarly recognition that the sentence in question is a spurious interpolation, we will limit our discussion in the next section to the accepted data, instead of the spurious data proposed from the fragment of Hilary.
Inadequacy of the Roman Catholic Argument
We find the Roman Catholic argument on Sardica to be inadequate for several reasons, the most important of which we will discuss below. First, Julius’ statement on the custom of writing to Rome first is actually an acknowledgment that he is acting as the presiding judge of a lower court. Second, Julius knew that it was fully legitimate for decisions of councils—including his own—to be judged by other councils—as his would be. Third, Julius insisted that he was not exerting papal primacy. And Fourth, Hosius’ insistence that the Canons of Sardica only made the Roman bishop the appellate judge if the appellant chose Rome as the court of appeals. We will address these one at a time.
1) Julius’ alleged appeal to the custom of “writing to Rome first”
In his letter to the Eusebians at Antioch, Julius criticized them for prosecuting the charges against Athanasius “after this manner,” but should rather have prosecuted it “according to the Canon of the Church.” Therefore, the Roman Catholic will argue, Julius’ position was that the custom of writing to the bishop of Rome first is what had been violated. But the context and history do not justify that conclusion.
The problem with the Roman Catholic position is that the Eusebians had written to Rome first, and in fact had written to Julius alone. In his letter of response, Julius explains that he had already received their first letter, for they had indeed written to him first:
“But I wonder also how you could ever have written that part of your [second] letter, in which you say, that I alone wrote, and not to all of you, but to Eusebius and his fellows only. In this complaint one may discover more of readiness to find fault than of regard for truth. I received the [first] letters against Athanasius from none other than Martyrius, Hesychius and their fellows, and I necessarily wrote to them who had written against him. Either then Eusebius and his fellows ought not alone to have written [their first letter], apart from you all, or else you, to whom I did not write, ought not to be offended that I wrote to them who had [first] written to me.” (Athanasius, Apologia Contra Arianos, Part I, chapter 2, Letter of Julius to the Eusebians at Antioch, paragraph 26).
As Julius continues, he complains that the Eusebians should not have written to him alone, but should rather have “written to us all” so that “a just sentence might proceed from all”:
“O beloved, the decisions of the Church [in Antioch] are no longer according to the Gospel, but tend only to banishment and death. Supposing, as you assert, that some offense rested upon those persons, the case ought to have been conducted against them, not after this manner, but according to the Canon of the Church. Word should have been written of it to us all, that so a just sentence might proceed from all.” (Athanasius, Apologia Contra Arianos, Part I, chapter 2, Letter of Julius to the Eusebians at Antioch, paragraph 35).
Thus, it is clear that the Eusebian party had already written to Julius once, and Julius had responded in writing. The Eusebians then wrote a second letter, which Julius found to be quite uncharitable. He complained to them of both the tone and contents of their second letter:
“I have read your [second] letter which was brought to me by my Presbyters Elpidius and Philoxenus, and I am surprised to find that, whereas I wrote to you in charity and with conscious sincerity, you have replied to me in an unbecoming and contentious temper; for the pride and arrogance of the writers is plainly exhibited in that [second] letter.” (Athanasius, Apologia Contra Arianos, Part I, chapter 2, Letter of Julius to the Eusebians at Antioch, paragraph 21).
Thus, Julius acknowledges that in regard to the charges against Athanasius, Rome had received the written complaint from Antioch about Athanasius. To this fact, both Athanasius and the Council of Sardica also testify in their findings:
“Eusebius and his fellows wrote also to Julius, and thinking to frighten me, requested him to call a council, and to be himself the judge, if he so pleased.” (Athanasius, Apologia Contra Arianos, Part I, chapter 2, Letter of Julius to the Eusebians at Antioch, paragraph 1).
“Eusebius and his fellows wrote long ago to Julius our brother and Bishop of the Church of the Romans, against our forementioned brethren, that is to say, Athanasius, Marcellus, and Asclepas … ” (Athanasius, Apologia Contra Arianos, Part I, chapter 3, Encyclical Letter of the Council of Sardica, paragraph 44)
Clearly ,the Eusebian party had already written to Rome first, and asked him to be the judge. But if the Eusebians wrote to Julius first, what did Julius mean when he spoke of the Eusebian violation of the custom of “writing to us first”? The answer lies in the Constantinian appellate processes being adopted by the Church at the time.
Under Constantinian appellate reforms, the job of the appellate judge (in this case, Julius) was to collect information from both parties, in order to compile the data for review and analysis in a higher court:
“Constantine [had] created a new system of appeal to the imperial court, conducted entirely through official correspondence … [in which] the appeal consists of a dossier in the form of a consultation in which all the pertinent documents are brought by official couriers to the imperial court.” (Dillon, John Noël The Justice of Constantine: Law, Communication, and Control. (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, (2012) 215, 218)
Julius’ job was to serve as an appellate judge and collect all the pertinent documents and prepare them for submittal to the Imperial Court by official couriers.
In the exercise of these duties as appellate judge, Julius had written to the Eusebians at Antioch in response to their first letter, asking for additional information about the case. What the Eusebians had violated was not the custom of writing to Rome first—they had written to Rome immediately—but the custom of waiting out the appeals process before taking the matter to the Imperial Court.
Upon a closer reading of Julius’ second letter to the Eusebians at Antioch, we find that the Eusebians had not answered his inquiries about the charges that had been leveled in their first letter. Instead, they refused to allow the matter to work its way through the appeals process, and had continued pressing their case directly with Emperor. Thus, Julius complains that in their response, they had not addressed any of his questions about the Church at Alexandria, and instead had proceeded “on their own authority,” outside of the appeals process, before the appellate court had been given sufficient time to rule:
“And why was nothing said [in your second letter] to us concerning the Church of the Alexandrians in particular? Are you ignorant that the custom has been for word to be written first to us, and then for a just decision to be passed from this place? If then any such suspicion rested upon the Bishop there, notice thereof ought to have been sent to the Church of this place; whereas, after neglecting to inform us, and proceeding on their own authority as they pleased, now they desire to obtain our concurrence in their decisions, though we never condemned him.” (Athanasius, Apologia Contra Arianos, Part I, chapter 2, Letter of Julius to the Eusebians at Antioch, paragraph 21)
The whole point of the appellate reforms of Constantine was that it ostensibly “relieved the emperor of the burden of a multitude of complaints,” while at the same time making the Emperor’s system of justice available to all citizens (Dillon, 215). The Eusebians had violated the appeals process by taking their case before the Emperors while Julius was still attempting to fulfill his duties as an appellate judge:
“For see, they cease not to disturb the ear of royalty with fresh reports against us; … They have dared in their letters to the Emperors to pour forth language such as no contentious person would employ … nor shrink they from any journey however long, provided only all greater courts may be filled with their accusations.” (Athanasius, Apologia Contra Arianos, Part I, chapter 1, Encyclical Letter of the Council of Egypt, paragraph 3)
“…and at last they made so violent an assault against the Faith, that it became known even to the piety of our most religious Emperors.” (Athanasius, Apologia Contra Arianos, Part I, chapter 3, Encyclical Letter of the Council of Sardica, paragraph 44)
Thus it is clear from Julius’ letter to the Eusebians at Antioch, they had violated ecclesiastical canons by writing to Julius alone instead of “to us all, that so a just sentence might proceed from all,” and they had violated the appeals process by failing to respond to Julius’ inquiry “concerning the Church of the Alexandrians in particular,” and pressing their case directly to “the ear of royalty.” When understood in this context, Julius has not found them guilty of disrespecting Roman primacy. Rather, he has found them guilty of disrespecting the collegiality of bishops, and has found them in contempt of his ad hoc court of appeals. This, of course, frustrated the charitable bonds of the church as well as her attempts to comply with Constantine’s reforms.
As we shall demonstrate in more detail next week, Julius’ council in Rome, and Hosius’ council in Sardica were, collectively, an attempt to conform the Church’s appellate process to that of Constantine’s civil judicial reforms. When understood in this light, Julius saw himself as the judge of a lower court, not as the final court of appeals. To this fact, Julius was all too willing to agree, as we see in item 2.
2) Julius’ claim that councils are to be judged by other councils
In the same letter to the Eusebian party, Julius refers to the authority of Nicæa to justify the practice of taking the decisions of one council under the judgment of another. In this case, Julius is explaining that the Eusebians should not be offended that their decisions at Tyre and at Antioch will be subject to scrutiny in Rome, for “the decisions of one council should be examined in another”:
“The Bishops who assembled in the great Council of Nicæa agreed, not without the will of God, that the decisions of one council should be examined in another, to the end that the judges, having before their eyes that other trial which was to follow, might be led to investigate matters with the utmost caution, and that the parties concerned in their sentence might have assurance that the judgment they received was just, and not dictated by the enmity of their former judges.” (Athanasius, Apologia Contra Arianos, Part I, chapter 2, Letter of Julius to the Eusebians at Antioch, paragraph 22).
We can already hear the objections of Roman Catholic apologists: “Of course the judgments of other councils are to be judged by Rome—that’s our whole point!” But that objection is raised one council too soon, for the judgments of the Council of Rome were themselves judged by the Council of Sardica the next year. To Julius, it was right and proper for Sardica to do so, for he himself had said, “the decisions of one council should be examined in another.” What was good for the Antiochian goose was good for the Roman gander. Both the Eusebian party and the party of the bishop of Rome ought to be prepared for their decisions to be weighed in another council, and Julius was prepared for precisely that eventuality. Julius’ concession of that point creates a problem for Roman Catholic claims of papal primacy in the matter of Sardica.
Anticipating this problem, Peter de Marca (De Concordia Sacerdotii et Imp, (1771)) reasoned in vain that Hosius, bishop of Cordova, must have presided over the Council of Sardica as a representative of a Roman Bishop (see Schaff’s excursus on Canon I here.) If that were so, then the problem of a Council of Rome being judged by a Council of Sardica could be resolved. However, there is simply no evidence to support de Marca’s anachronistic reasoning. The Synodical letter from the Council of Sardica lists as its first signatory, “Hosius of Spain” and then lists the representatives from Rome by name and delegation (Athanasius, Apologia Contra Arianos, Part I, chapter 3, Encyclical Letter of the Council of Sardica, paragraph 50). De Marca’s attempt to subordinate Sardica to Rome is doubly anachronistic from the fact that Constantinian judicial reforms prohibited a judge from hearing an appeal against his own ruling:
“It was a fundamental principle, for one, that a judge could not try an appeal made against his own sentence.” (Dillon, 221)
Thus, it would have been outside the bounds of Constantine’s judicial reforms for a Roman bishop or his representative to hear an appeal against the decision of a Roman court. That, of course, would have made Constantine’s reforms self-defeating.
As we shall demonstrate in more detail next week, the proceedings of the Council of Rome, as well as that of the Council of Sardica, were an attempt to adapt the appellate processes of the Church to the appellate reforms of the Constantinian judiciary. Under that rubric, once the emperors remanded the decision to Sardica, Julius became the judge a quo, and Hosius the judge ad quem, which is to say that Julius became the president of the lower court:
“[A]s in the ordinary appellate procedure … the judge a quo checked the formal admissibility of an appeal, the judge ad quem the legal soundness of its claim.” (Dillon, 222)
“His ruling [of the judge ad quem] both rescinded and replaced that of the judge a quo.” (Dillon, 218)
Under Constantinian judicial reform, Hosius’ decision “both rescinded and replaced” Julius’. From Julius’ own words to the Eusebians at Antioch, he was fully aware of that fact “the decisions of one council should be examined in another.” Thus, just like the decision of the Council of Rome under “pope” Melchiades in 313 A.D. was “more carefully examined and settled at Arles” in 314 A.D. (Augustine, Letter 43, chapter 2.4), so was the decision of the Council of Rome in 342 A.D. more carefully examined at Sardica in 343 A.D..
Notably, it was only after the appeals process had run its course that Sardica’s decision was elevated to the Imperial Court for a final ruling. Thus, it was Hosius’ ruling, not Julius’, that prompted Emperor Constantius finally to acquit Athanasius of all charges and return him to his see:
“When the most religious Emperor Constantius heard of these things [the outcome of Sardica], he sent for me, having written privately to his brother Constans of blessed memory, and to me three several times in the following terms.
‘Constantius Victor Augustus to Athanasius. Our benignant clemency will not suffer you to be any longer tempest-tossed by the wild waves of the sea …’ ” (Athanasius, Apologia Contra Arianos, Part I, chapter 4, Imperial and Ecclesiastical Acts in Consequence of the Decision of the Council of Sardica, paragraph 51)
Clearly, the appellate process established under Constantine had achieved its desired end—an appellate process that subjected the decision of a Roman court to that of a Sardician court, before the decision was finally elevated to the Emperor for a final ruling.
3) Julius’ own claim that he is not exerting primacy
Julius’ insistence, above, that “Word should have been written of it to us all” is significant because Julius, in the same letter, insists that it is not his judgment, but the judgment of all the bishops of Italy, that he has compiled and forwarded to them:
“Nevertheless it is necessary that I should acquaint you that, although I wrote, yet the sentiments I expressed were not those of myself alone, but of all the Bishops throughout Italy and in these parts. I indeed was unwilling to cause them all to write, lest the others should be overpowered by their number. The Bishops however assembled on the appointed day, and agreed in these opinions, which I again write to signify to you; so that, dearly beloved, although I alone address you, yet you may be assured that these are the sentiments of all.” (Athanasius, Apologia Contra Arianos, Part I, chapter 2, Letter of Julius to the Eusebians at Antioch, paragraph 26).
Then again, in the same letter, Julius concedes the point of the Eusebian party that all bishops “have the same and equal authority,” and that the authority of any the bishops is not “according to the magnitude of their cities”:
“Now if you really believe that all Bishops have the same and equal authority, and you do not, as you assert, account of them according to the magnitude of their cities; he that is entrusted with a small city ought to abide in the place committed to him, and not from disdain of his trust to remove to one that has never been put under him; despising that which God has given him, and making much of the vain applause of men. You ought then, dearly beloved, to have come and not declined, that the matter may be brought to a conclusion; for this is what reason demands.” (Athanasius, Apologia Contra Arianos, Part I, chapter 2, Letter of Julius to the Eusebians at Antioch, paragraph 25).
Those are not the words of a bishop who is attempting to exercise Roman or Papal primacy based on the magnitude of the city of Rome, or due to his residence in it.
4) Hosius’ particular example of a deposed bishop’s right of appeal
At Sardica, Hosius suggested that a deposed bishop’s case ought to be taken up by the bishop of Rome, and the council agreed (Council of Sardica, Canon III). Bishop Gaudentius then insisted that a deposed bishop’s see remain vacant “unless the bishop of Rome judge and render a decision as to this” (Council of Sardica, Canon IV). Hosius then clarified in the next canon that the reason the bishop of Rome is even in view here is because of the license of the appellant to appeal to whomever he wished:
“Decreed, that if any bishop is accused, and the bishops of the same region assemble and depose him from his office, and he appealing, so to speak, takes refuge with the most blessed bishop of the Roman church, and he be willing to give him a hearing, and think it right to renew the examination of his case, let him be pleased to write to those fellow-bishops who are nearest the province that they may examine the particulars with care and accuracy and give their votes on the matter in accordance with the word of truth.” (Council of Sardica, Canon V)
In the context of Sardica—namely, Athanasius’ participation in the appellate process—it is clear that the participation of the bishop of Rome was according to the preference of the accused. Thus, in Canon 9, Hosius acknowledges that there are several lawful avenues of appeal in order to obtain imperial justice, depending on the particular diocese of original jurisdiction. The metropolitan of that diocese can handle the appeals process from there, as can any bishops who “have friends at the Court and should wish to make requests of them as to some proper object.” But if the appeal is being made in Rome (as Athanasius had done), Julius was the one to act as appellate judge in that instance:
“But those who come to Rome ought, as I said before, to deliver to our beloved brother and fellow bishop, Julius, the petitions which they have to give, in order that he may first examine them, lest some of them should be improper, and so, giving them his own advocacy and care, shall send them to the Court.” (Council of Sardica, Canon IX)
Other metropolitans can take jurisdiction and comply with the appeals process from their see. But appellants in Rome should take their appeals to Julius. That is hardly a ringing endorsement of the Roman Catholic interpretation that all matters must be judged by Rome. What it shows is that once Athanasius appealed to Rome, the appellate process required that Julius be given time to compile the position of both parties and then “send them to the Court.” Other avenues were equally lawful, as long as the appellate process was not violated, and the appellant was free to choose whichever avenue suited him.
Under the Constantinian judicial process, “It was forbidden to appeal to a lower judge, but otherwise the choice of the appellate judge appears to have been left to the discretion of the appellant” (Dillon, 216). As Athanasius testified to Emperor Constantius later, “When I left Alexandria , I did not go to your brother’s head-quarters, or to any other persons, but only to Rome; and having laid my case before the Church (for this was my only concern)” (Athanasius, Apologia ad Constantium, paragraph 4). Because Athanasius, according to custom, was invoking the right of appeal in Rome, Julius was the appropriate judge in that venue. Clearly, Athanasius could have used another avenue, and other avenues were available to him, as Canon IX later recorded. He was not required to appeal through Julius—he was only required to appeal through Julius if he wanted to lodge his appeal in Rome, which he clearly did. Julius and Hosius both knew this.
As we noted above, the four items we cataloged above are not the only inadequacies of the Roman Catholic argument, but they certainly demonstrate that neither the council of Rome nor that in Sardica imposed papal primacy on the Church, or granted judicial supremacy to Rome. According to Julius, the violation of the canon was when the Eusebians wrote to him alone instead of to “all of us.” When they violated custom, it was not in failing to write to him, for they had clearly had. The violation of custom was to lodge an appeal, and then continue to argue their case in the Imperial Court, ignoring Julius’ discovery process as he investigated the claims of both parties. Julius of course was not claiming Roman or papal primacy—he was of equal authority as the rest of the bishops, and all councils, including a Roman one, were subject to judicial review in a higher court. When Sardica decreed that appeals must be made through the Bishop of Rome, it was only in the particular case when the appellant chose Rome as the venue for appeal. Other venues were available in other dioceses, and appeals through those dioceses to the Imperial Court were equally valid.
Julius’, Hosius’ and Athanasius’ rigid adherence to this process showed that Church was adapting to, and attempting to comply with, the appellate reforms of the Constantinian judiciary. Under those reforms, the bishop of Rome served as the judge a quo to the judge ad quem of a higher court, and thereby subjected his rulings to the scrutiny of both ecclesiastical and Imperial oversight. Hardly a case of Roman or Papal primacy.
When we continue next week, we will demonstrate that Sardica’s canons were intended to solidify the customary ecclesiastical compliance with the civil appellate process. And who better to preside at such a council than the man who had served in Constantine’s Imperial Court when his judicial reforms were first being formulated: bishop Hosius himself.
For those who want the rest of the story, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Council_of_Sardica
Seems the Council of Sardica was deemed a failure and therefore not considered ecumenical.
The Arian heresy was a really nasty heresy. Parties on both sides thought they were right and could “prove” it using Scripture. It took several councils to finally put it down. Note that Emperor Constantius was Arian. And the “appellate process” of Constantine’s almost played right into the hands of the Arian heresy. That is why Athanasius appealed to Rome because Rome was orthodox. Unfortunately, by Constantine’s appellate process, Athanasius fate was back in the hands of the Arians. Emperor Constantius, trying to placate both parties, acquitted Athanasius and reseated him. It settled nothing. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arianism
So, in Constantine’s great appellate process, who did he place as the highest court of appeal? Who makes the final decision that binds all? It looks to me, if all decisions can be appealed equally, then the litigants can never receive a final judgement. It just gets appealed to a different court, which gets appealed to a different court, etc, etc, until the Emperor gets tired of the run-around and makes a SECULAR decision on ecclesiastical matters.
The more and more I read your articles and the sources you quote and the history behind them, it becomes more and more apparent to me for the need of a strong central episcopate.
You may not think the early church needed one. And by your conclusions, the early church may not have thought they needed one. But by the way things were going, many couldn’t see the “Invisible Shepherd” and were going off on their own way. And by the heresies that arose, the apostolicity wasn’t very visible either. From your viewpoint, maybe that’s the way it’s supposed to be. After all, look at the Protestant Church today.
Thank you, Bob. I am not entirely sure which point you are making. As I read your responses, you seem to waver between “There was a strong central episcopate in the early church” and “There was a need for a strong central episcopate in the early church.” Do you believe there was a strong central episcopate in the early church? By early, I mean, prior to 380 A.D..
Regarding the appeals process, the imperial court was the final court of appeals. That is why Julius forwarded to the imperial court all the relevant documentation he could collect. The imperial court received the dossier and when the Eusebian data was not fully expressed (the Eusebian party at Antioch kept refusing to participate), it was clear that even the emperor could not come to a conclusion. It was the emperors, not the Arians or Athanasias who brought about the council of Sardica. In any case, the appellate judge had the responsibility to collect all the relevant data, and each party had a specified amount of time to provide it. Additionally, the appellant had the right to have a copy of all the legal documentation related to his case, and the appellate judge had a specified amount of time to provide it. If anyone missed the deadlines they were either in contempt of court, or guilty of negligence. Constantine’s rules required that every possible defense and objection be documented and forwarded to his court for a final ruling. So no, the appellants could not just appeal and appeal and appeal to no end.
It is true that Constantius was Arian. He ruled the east. Constans, his brother in the west, was not Arian. Athanasius took his appeal west because the emperor ruling there was sympathetic to his claim. It wasn’t about Rome. It was about Milan. But the appeals process prohibited direct appeals to the emperor’s court in Milan until all the data was collected by the appellate judge, so Athanasius would have had no business going to Milan until Julius had completed his discovery process. As it turns out, he did go to Milan, but only when summoned there by Constans. So when you say, “Unfortunately, by Constantine’s appellate process, Athanasius fate was back in the hands of the Arians,” that’s not actually true. The two brothers, sons of Constantine, were ruling the empire together, one in the East and one in the West, the former Arian the latter orthodox. When they finally agreed on Sardica, they chose a city on the border between their two regions, and then chose a 90-year-old man who had the respect of their father, the entire church and the whole empire to preside: Hosius. And Hosius was not Arian.
Thanks,
Tim
TIM–
You said: “Thank you, Bob. I am not entirely sure which point you are making. As I read your responses, you seem to waver between “There was a strong central episcopate in the early church” and “There was a need for a strong central episcopate in the early church.” Do you believe there was a strong central episcopate in the early church? By early, I mean, prior to 380 A.D..”
I believe there is evidence to make a case for a Petrine primacy with the Chair of Peter in Rome. The dire need for a strong central episcopate arose especially during the fight against heresies and culminated on the Arian conflict. So yes, I believe in both.
You also said: “Regarding the appeals process, the imperial court was the final court of appeals… It is true that Constantius was Arian. He ruled the east. Constans, his brother in the west, was not Arian.”
So, in a nutshell, the Church gave the final say-so in matters concerning the Church to the state–“the strong central episcopate” which in fact was divided between the whims of two ruling Emperors.
One baptism, one faith, one Church–sorta kinda. Why do you suppose the Church let that happen if it is guided by the “One Invisible Shepherd”? I suppose they were just glad to be protected by the state instead of being persecuted and hoping another Diocletian wasn’t waiting in the wings.
And you also said: “When they finally agreed on Sardica, they chose a city on the border between their two regions, and then chose 90-year-old man who had the respect of their father, the entire church and the whole empire to preside: Hosius. And Hosius was not Arian.”
Ah yes, Hosius. He didn’t know what was in store for himself in this matter:
“For nearly 50 years Hosius was the foremost bishop of his time. He was held in universal esteem and exercised great influence. In 340 Athanasius of Alexandria was expelled from his diocese by the Arians. After passing three years in Rome, Athanasius went into Gaul to confer with Hosius. From there, they went to the Council of Sardica, which began in the summer, or, at latest, in the autumn of 343. Hosius presided, proposed the canons, and was the first to sign the Acts of the council.
After Constantine’s death, the prestige given to the orthodox cause in the Arianist controversy by the support of the venerable Hosius led the Arians to bring pressure to bear upon Constantius II, who had him summoned to Milan where he declined to condemn Athanasius nor to extend communion to Arians. He so impressed the emperor that he was authorized to return home. More Arian pressure led to Constantius writing a letter demanding whether he alone was going to remain obstinate. In reply, Hosius sent his courageous letter of protest against imperial interference in Church affairs(355), preserved by Athanasius which led to Hosius’ exile in 355 to Sirmium, an imperial center in Pannonia (in modern Serbia). From his exile he wrote to Constantius II his only extant composition, a letter justly characterized by the French historian Sebastian Tillemont as displaying gravity, dignity, gentleness, wisdom, generosity and in fact all the qualities of a great soul and a great bishop.
Subjected to continual pressure from the Arians the old man, who was near his hundredth year, was weak enough to sign the formula adopted by the third Council of Sirmium in 357, which involved communion with the Arians but not the condemnation of Athanasius. He was then permitted to return to his Hispanic diocese, where he died in 359.” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hosius_of_Corduba
Where was his ally Constans in all this? Well, let’s just say he was indisposed. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constans
Thanks, Bob,
Of Hosius, you wrote,
There is, I think you’ll agree, a rather significant point that wikipedia leaves out:
That’s why it is so important to consult the original sources.
In any case, I maintain: Hosius was not Arian.
You also wrote,
Ok, you are welcome to make the case here. Constans in Milan. Constantius in Constantinople. Hosius in Cordoba—held in higher esteem than any other bishop in the church for five decades. How does this end up supporting primacy of the chair of Peter in Rome?
Thanks,
Tim
TIM–
You said: “That’s why it is so important to consult the original sources. In any case, I maintain: Hosius was not Arian. ”
I never said he was. But Constantius–the highest authority–was Arian. And look what he did to Hosius (who was held in higher esteem than any other bishop in the church for five decades). He exiled him for having the nerve to tell the Emperor, of all people, to butt out of Church business. But he said it nicely, of course.
How does this end up supporting primacy of the chair of Peter in Rome? It doesn’t. It usurps it. The grunts in the field would call it FUBAR.
And you blame Pope Damasus for taking control. I know you don’t like Damasus, but the alternative was Arian.
Tim, years ago I read of Athanasius’ ordeal and the battle to protect the Church from Arianism. I appreciate the opportunity to learn more about the historical context. God bless you for your diligence and love for the truth.
Maria
Lets look at another deception, much like the deception you are pertetrating on the Pope of the Apostolic Catholic Church:
Matthew 4:1-11.
“If you are the Son of God, command these stone to turn into bread.” Humm. What? Didn’t Satan know that Jesus was the Son of God. Wasn’t he a witness to the Incarnation? Sow the seeds of doubt. Just like in the Garden………sow the seeds of doubt.
What kind of seed are you casting? The seed of doubt, just like Satan. Only you are casting the seed of doubt on the Bishop of Rome, the Vicar of Christ; otherwise known as the Pope.
I don’t know much about you, but from this article I can see you are not a member of the Apostolic Churches. You know the one’s I’m talking about? The Catholic Church, the Coptic Church, the Assyrian Church of the East, Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, to name a few.
I really want to know how started your church? Was it someone named Joseph Smith? John Calvin? Zwingli, John Wesley? Mary Baker Eddy, Wormwood, or Charles Manson? Who? Or was it someone named Simon Peter, James, John, etc, etc.?
Was it invented by a man? Or by Jesus through his Apostles? Namely Peter. It would help me to understand what you are trying to say in these articles as opposed to me thinking you are trying to do the same as Satan did by sowing the seeds of doubt of the Pope.
Most members of non Apostolic Churches, namely those from Reformation or Post-Reformational Churches usually try to destroy the one Church that Jesus did establish on Earth and that was by the giving Simon Peter the Keys to the Kingdom.
I have news for you. It ain’t going to happen. You know why? Jesus said the Gates of Hades will not stand against this church…….the church you are so trying to discredit. Nope. When your church or denomination or sect or whatever it is you want to call it, has died, the Apostolic Churches will still be here. Accepting Sinners and the Righteous, the darnel and the wheat.
So go right ahead and cast the seeds of doubt, and misimformation mixed in with some truth. The Church Jesus establish, not the one established by men, will still be forgiving sins and binding and loosing. Just pray you get in before it’s too late.
In Christ,
R. Zell
Thank you, R. Zell,
I think it would be well for you to consider who started your church. We can start with something easy. You claim antiquity, but the ancient Church prohibited kneeling on the Lord’s Day, and Pope Leo the Great said that the canons of Nicæa stand forever:
I can already anticipate the typical Roman Catholic responses: “Pope Leo wasn’t speaking infallibly,” or “Canon 20 of Nicæa was just a disciplinary canon, not a doctrinal canon.”
I know… The pope is only infallible when he is speaking on faith and morals from the chair, and maybe Letter 106 was not infallible. But Letter 28 was—or at least some think so. But that’s just it—you can’t know when the pope is speaking infallibly, and therefore you can’t know when he isn’t. Unable to discern when the pope is speaking ex cathedra and when he is speaking of his own opinion, you are left evaluating every writing of Leo’s and then comparing it to what you currently believe to be true (or to Denzinger), and then determining by that standard which of Leo’s statements are trustworthy. Since Letter 106 says the Canons of Nicæa stand until the end of time, and Roman Catholics are now to kneel on the Lord’s day, you simply conclude that Leo was wrong about that one particular statement. Not by any other standard than your own personal opinion (or Denzinger’s).
That of course leads us to wonder why kneeling on the Lord’s Day came into practice in the late 11th century. Justin Martyr (early 2nd century) said it was common practice to rise prior to the celebration of the Lord’s Supper (Justin Marty, First Apology, chapter 67).
Tertullian (204 A.D.) wrote that kneeling in worship was unlawful on the Lord’s Day:
The following councils confirmed the canons of Nicæa without once rescinding the prohibition against kneeling, and several times reemphasizing it:
But suddenly, in the 11th century, kneeling became appropriate on the Lord’s Day. You can read more of the history on this in It’s Complicated….
So far, have I misrepresented anything? You expressed concern that I cast “misinformation mixed in with some truth.” Is there any misinformation so far?
I believe we can both affirm that kneeling was forbidden on the Lord’s Day in the early church and from Easter to Pentecost, and for the first 1,000 years this was maintained. Then kneeling on the Lord’s Day took the world by storm, right about the time that Eucharistic Adoration took the world by storm. How can you claim apostolicity when something that is so central to your religion (kneeling during the consecration) cannot be traced any earlier than the 1100s? And if kneeling is so important, as Pope Benedict XVI said it was, how could the Church of St. Peter, as you call it, go 1,000 years without paying to the Eucharist the reverence you claim it was due? According to Pope Benedict, kneeling has been one of the most reverential postures since the apostolic era—and yet it was for a thousand years prohibited on the day the priest allegedly transubstantiates the bread into the body, blood, soul and divinity of Christ. If the early church really believed and understood the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist, and kneeling has been the most reverential posture since the days of the apostles, then the early church should have required kneeling on the Lord’s Day instead of forbidding it.
I could go on and ask why veneration of Relics, the doctrine of Mary’s perpetual virginity, Mary’s sinlessness, Mary’s assumption, the use of images in Worship, etc… cannot be traced any earlier than the late 4th century. And yet you still maintain to me that yours is the religion of Peter and mine is the novelty.
But let’s just start with kneeling. Why should I abandon the Early Church and join your late-breaking religion? And if I am to submit to the Pope, can you tell me when he is speaking infallibly so I know which statements are infallible, like Letter 28, and which are not, like 106?
In short, why should I Protest against the Church of the Apostles and join your new religion?
In any case, due to the expansive chasm that exists between your religion and the Early Church, I can see you are not a member of the Apostolic Church.
Thanks,
Tim
LOL. I think I’ll stick with Jesus’ Apostolic Church, not yours.
Kneeling? Really? What does kneeling signify? Did St. Paul kneel? Yes he did. Do you think that the earliest Christians and the ministers of Gods word missed that little act of piety? Eph 3:14.
Tim, do you love everybody Jesus loves? He loved his Mother. Do you Love her also? The spouse of the Holy Spirit. The only eyewitness to The Incarnation. She is under the Cross in Sorrow never her faith failing as the words of the Angel Gabriel gave her strengh and with the words of Simeon echoing in her mind. Jesus gives her to us as our Mother. She receives the gift of the Holy Spirit a second time. I’ll stick with the New Testament teaching of the Apostolic Catholic Church on this one.
Just a little quote I found:
Catholic Church A.D. 30, and when was your church founded again?
Blessings,
R. Zell
R. Zell,
Yes, kneeling. If you can’t answer that, you cannot be trusted as a source of apostolicity. It’s a simple question. You want me to leave the apostolic religion of Christ to join you in your novelties, so I ask you a simple question: should I kneel on Sundays and any day from Easter until Pentecost? The Early Church said no. Your religion says yes. Why should I leave the ancient religion of the apostles to join your new denomination which did not start kneeling on Sundays until the late 1000s? You can laugh as you like (laughers are welcome here), but what it comes down to is that you do not know what you believe, and you do not know why you believe it. The pope is infallible, so you say, and the pope said the canons of Nicæa stand forever unchanged. The Catholic church says ecumenical councils are also infallible.
Ok. 1000 years of prohibiting kneeling on Sundays, and then you come along and “discover” that the church was supposed to be kneeling all along.
I don’t know who to believe. You, Benedict, Francis, Nicæa, Leo. To whom shall I turn? If only I knew when the pope was speaking infallibly. Can you tell me? Do you know?
If so, what are his infallible ex cathedra statements. If not, why should I join you in your ignorance and your new traditions.
As I said, why should I protest the apostolic church and join your new denomination?
As is typical, because you cannot answer the question, you turn to the old diversion of assuming what it is your duty to prove: the antiquity of Roman Catholicism. I do not apologize to inform you that your religion came late in time, 300 years after Jesus established the Church upon the Rock.
Speaking of Mary, John Chrysostom said, “He [Jesus] both healed the disease of [her] vainglory, and rendered the due honor to His mother” (John Chrysostom, Homilies in Matthew, Homily 44.3). He also said Mary was attempting “to render herself more conspicuous,” and “desiring to gain credit from His [Jesus] miracles,” wrongly believing according to custom that it was hers “to direct Him in all things, when she ought to have reverenced and worshipped Him” (John Chrysostom, Homilies in John, Homily 21.2).
Is it ok if I love Mary the way John Chrysostom did—by which I mean, based on what is revealed to us in the Scriptures? By which I mean that she was a sinner in need of regeneration, faith, forgiveness and justification. Can you love Mary as I do? In truth?
Thanks,
Tim
R. Zell–
For your information:
Council of Nicaea
Canon 20
“Forasmuch as there are certain persons who kneel on the Lord’s Day and in the days of Pentecost, therefore, to the intent that all things may be uniformly observed everywhere (in every parish), it seems good to the holy Synod that prayer be made to God standing.”
Comments:
In De Corona (ch. 3) Tertullian, around A.D. 200, says that the practice of praying while standing on Sunday and between Passover and Pentecost was a long-standing tradition. So this tradition predates Nicea by around two centuries, at least.
The reason for this is that the first day of the week and Passover were days to celebrate the resurrection. Since they were days of celebration, kneeling and fasting were forbidden. Tertullian seems to think those traditions were observed everywhere.
Obviously, they weren’t, but the council is asking that those practices become universal.
There are many who believe, falsely, that the Council of Nicea instituted the observance of Sunday as the Lord’s day. They did not. It’s mentioned in Ignatius’ Letter to the Magnesians mentions observing the Lord’s day rather than the Sabbath in A.D. 110 and The Letter of Barnabas mentions the first day of the week in opposition to the Jewish Sabbath around A.D. 130 (possibly earlier).
The observance of the Lord’s day and the avoidance of fasting and kneeling on the first day of the week is a very ancient tradition.
Why don’t you ask Tim if he sits in a pew during Sunday service? It’s plain that Nicaea didn’t allow sitting, either.
The congregations of the early church didn’t, then why does his church allow it?
Bob,
How do you know Nicæa didn’t allow sitting? How is that “plain” to you?
Tim
What part of “it seems good to the holy Synod that prayer be made to God standing” do you not understand? I take it as “not kneeling”, and “not prostrate” and “not sitting”. Standing is exclusive of sitting, wouldn’t you say?
Bob,
It does not say that the only thing we do on Sundays is pray. It says that prayers should be offered standing. It does not say we should stand all day long or even for the whole service. There was a portion of the service during which prayers were offered to God as the sacrifice of the New Covenant. Everyone was seated until then. At the time the prayers were offered, they rose to offer them on their feet. For example, Justing Martyr:
As you have noted from Nicæa, prayers are offered standing. As Basil said, “We pray standing, on the first day of the week, …” (Basil, de Spiritu Sancto, chapter 27).
But part of the service is dedicated to the reading of the Word, and then a part of the service is dedicated to the exhortation based on what was read. “Then we all rise together and pray.”
If the early church forbade kneeling, and then when the time came to offer prayers they stood up, from what position do you presume that they arose?
Don’t minimize the fact that the medieval church thought this was so important that they restated it (as did all the ecumenical councils) at the Council of Trullo in 692 A.D.: “We have received from our divine Fathers the canon law that in honour of Christ’s resurrection, we are not to kneel on Sundays” (Council of Trullo, Canon 90). Then at Nicæa 2 in 787 A.D. all the Canons of Nicæ 1 were reaffirmed under Pope Hadrian 1, who in his letter to Tenasius of Constantinople, affirmed the six ecumenical councils to date, including all the canons of Trullo.
But let’s not get off track by saying “kneeling, schmeeling.” Pope Leo said that the Canons of Nicæa were inviolable for ever until the end of the world:
This is about authority and unity and centrality and primacy—all of which I am to accept when I finally swim the Tiber. So if the pope is infallible, and ecumenical councils are infallible, and Pope Leo said the canons of Nicæa are in effect until the end of the world and anyone who opposes their authority is utterly destitute of all authority, why should I listen to anyone who disagrees with the canons of Nicæa? Why should I listed to R. Zell?
Did you notice that R. Zell immediately ran to his own private interpretation of Ephesians 3:14? But I thought the whole problem with Protestants is that they rely on their own private interpretation. What is the solution to the chaos? A pope and an infallible magisterium, they say. So flying from the alleged confusion of private interpretation I seek refuge in the pope and the councils, and R. Zell comes back at me with his own private interpretation and rejects the Pope and the council.
It sounds to me like Roman Catholicism is not founded upon a Rock at all. Everyone just runs about willy nilly affirming what they happen to agree with at the time, but unable really to know what is true and what is not, but sure somehow that the church knows what it is doing and can save them.
I cite the highest authority on earth to a Roman Catholic, and the response I get is priceless:
Yes, kneeling. Why should I kneel on the Lord’s Day, and any time between Easter and Pentecost?
In other words, why should I Protest against the religion of the apostles to join the late-breaking novelty of Roman Catholicism?
Thanks,
Tim
TIM–
“If the early church forbade kneeling, and then when the time came to offer prayers they stood up, from what position do you presume that they arose?”
I would imagine prostrate or reclining from the floor.
There were no chairs, seats, or benches in early church buildings. People stood the whole time. It wasn’t until the Reformation that pews were finally introduced in churches and it was the Protestants who introduced them. The Catholics installed them later on. Many Eastern Orthodox Church buildings to this day do not have seating in their sanctuaries. You might want to brush up on your history a bit.
TIM–
You said: “This is about authority and unity and centrality and primacy—all of which I am to accept when I finally swim the Tiber.”
And that is what this whole blog is about–authority. If the Church has the authority to promulgate Canon Law, then it also has the authority to change Canon Law. And you, Tim, have given yourself the authority to judge the error of the Church. That’s ok. That’s what sinners do. Welcome to the club of Cafeteria Christianity. It’s obvious you won’t be swimming the Tiber anytime soon. I myself am very comfortable as a Methodist.
Now, about the “kneeling, schmeeling” thing. We are to walk in the spirit and not the letter, right? What that tells me is that we do things with the right purpose in mind. Example:
In certain circumstances, Texas law requires a stop sign installed at an intersection for one direction and not the other direction to regulate traffic safely. The purpose of the stopping of one direction of traffic is to yield to heavier cross traffic until such time as the traffic flow will allow one to safely pull out into the intersection. The law requires that one must come to a complete stop when encountering a properly placed stop sign. If this law is properly executed, it prevents dangerous and costly collisions at that particular intersection. The letter of the law requires one to come to a complete stop at a stop sign. The spirit of the law requires one to be careful and yield to cross traffic until it is safe to proceed through the intersection.
Now let’s say you are approaching a stop sign at an intersection on a remote county road on the flat South Plains of the panhandle of Texas. It is a beautiful afternoon, not a cloud in the sky, the sun is high above, and temperature is 72 degrees and you can see for miles and miles. All four corners of the intersection are freshly plowed for planting providing for no obstruction of view. It’s Saturday and most everybody has gone to town or they are watching basketball. No one is on the road in either direction except you. Are you required to obey the letter of the law, or is it ok for you to obey the spirit of the law? I’m a spirit kinda guy myself.
Also, Texas law requires one to use turn signals before one makes a turn or a lane change . It was enacted to inform others of ones actions so that others may regulate their driving accordingly. Again, that is done to prevent collisions. Apply this law to the same situation at the stop sign on the remote county road. Are you required to obey the letter of the law, or is it ok to obey the spirit? I don’t signal, even though the law requires it, because there is no one to signal to!
How does this apply to kneeling or standing in prayer on Sunday? Standing is showing respect for Jesus’ Resurrection on the Lord’s Day. Kneeling is showing respect to Jesus because he is our Lord and our King and Our God:
Phl 2:9 For this reason also, God highly exalted Him, and bestowed on Him the name which is above every name,
so that at the name of Jesus EVERY KNEE WILL BOW, of those who are in heaven and on earth and under the earth,
and that every tongue will confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.
Both standing and kneeling in prayer show respect and worship. What does the Spirit tell you to do? What does the letter of Scripture say?
Now let’s look at what goes on in the Catholic mass. When the congregation joins in prayer, they are asked to stand–every time–the Kyrie, the Gloria, the intersessions, the Sanctus, the Proclamation of Faith , the Our Father, the Benediction. They sit when the word of God is read and the psalms are sung. They stand during the Alleluia and when the Gospel is read. Some songs are sung sitting, some are standing. They kneel during the rite of consecration of the Eucharist as the priest stands while praying the words of consecration. And they kneel again in reflection after receiving communion. So, in accordance with Nicaea, they stand in prayer. And since the Church has the authority to promulgate Canon Law, they also have the authority to change it as well.
And since you, Tim, do not recognize the authority of the Catholic Magisterium on Canon Law, well, it’s their rules, not yours. You can make your own rules. That’s the Protestant way.
Bob,
And what are those rules? The pope speaks infallibly, except when he doesn’t. Ecumenical councils are infallible, except when they’re not. 1,000 years of the church absolutely, positively forbidding all kneeling on Sunday. A millennium of the church stating and restating, affirming and reaffirming, that kneeling is prohibited, and that the canons of Nicæa cannot be changed, and are inviolable until the end of time. A thousand years of statements like this in 692 A.D.:
That doesn’t sound like Texas rules to me. It doesn’t sound like kneeling was an option if you feel led to kneel. It sounds to me like uniformity of doctrine and practice without a strong central episcopate to be found (at least until when Roman primacy was accepted some time after Nicæa).
Then you come along and by invalid inference think Nicæa “makes it plain” that sitting is prohibited (it was not), but then when Trullo actually makes it plain that that “we are not to kneel on Sundays,” and Pope Hadrian I affirms all the canons of all the ecumenical councils to date, including Trullo, and suddenly you think kneeling or standing is a personal preference and all those formal prohibitions for a thousand years are just suggestions rather than canon law. Or in the words of Jason Evert at Catholic Answers, “It’s complicated.” Yes, Catholic rules are complicated.
Just like how complicated it is to find relic veneration in the early church. And Mary’s immaculate conception and sinlessness. And the assumption. And Roman and papal primacy. And the sacrifice of the mass. And baptismal regeneration. And transubstantiation. And Eucharistic adoration. And a visible chief shepherd on earth. And papal infallibility.
It sounds to me like Roman Catholicism is one big heap of complicated and unsubstantiated claims of antiquity, and we Protestants are expected to accept the gross discontinuity and Roman novelties on the authority of… a Roman novelty. In fact, Protestants are expected to stipulate the antiquity of the novelties as a condition of polite conversation, while Rome casually and repeatedly protests against the apostolicity of the early church, and looks down her nose as if WE were the ones who were separated from the apostolic religion of Christ.
I won’t stipulate the antiquity of Rome’s novelties as a condition of polite conversation. No, I certainly will not.
The funny thing is, for Rome, kneeling was the easy one. It only gets harder for Rome after we get past her 11th century novelty of worshiping the consecrated host on bended knee on Sundays.
Thanks,
Tim
TIM–
You quoted: “Bob,“It’s their rules”
And what are those rules? The pope speaks infallibly, except when he doesn’t. Ecumenical councils are infallible, except when they’re not.”
Interesting notes on the Council of Trullo:
Many of the council’s canons were aimed at settling differences in ritual observance and clerical discipline in different parts of the Christian Church. Being held under Byzantine auspices, with an exclusively Eastern clergy, these overwhelmingly took the practice of the Church of Constantinople as orthodox. It explicitly condemned some customs of Armenian Christians: using wine unmixed with water for the Eucharist (canon 32), choosing children of clergy for appointment as clergy (canon 33), eating eggs and cheese on Saturdays and Sundays of Lent (canon 56), and decreed deposition for clergy and excommunication for laypeople who contravened these canons. Likewise, it reprobated, with similar penalties, the Roman customs of requiring perpetual continence (even outside of times of serving at the altar) of those ordained to the diaconate or priesthood (canon 13), and fasting on Saturdays of Lent (canon 55). Without explicitly mentioning the Roman Church, it also reprobated celebration of the Eucharist on days in Lent other than Saturdays, Sundays, and the feast of the Annunciation (canon 52).
The Eastern Orthodox Church holds this council to be part of the Fifth and Sixth Ecumenical Councils, adding its canons thereto. The Catholic Church has never accepted the council as authoritative or ecumenical. In the West, Bede calls it (in De sexta mundi aetate) a “reprobate” synod, and Paul the Deacon an “erratic” one. For the attitude of the Popes, in face of the various attempts to obtain their approval of these canons see Hefele “Conciliengesch” III, 345-48. However, Pope Hadrian I did write favourably of the canons of this council.
The Pope of the time of the council, Sergius I, who was of Syrian origin, rejected it, preferring, he said, “to die rather than consent to erroneous novelties”: though a loyal subject of the Empire, he would not be “its captive in matters of religion” and refused to sign the canons.Emperor Justinian II ordered his arrest and abduction to Constantinople by the notoriously violent protospatharios Zacharias. However, the militia of the exarchate of Ravenna frustrated the attempt. Zacharias nearly lost his life in his attempt to arrest Sergius I. Louis Duchesne suggests that it was in protest against the Council’s banning of representations of Christ as a Lamb that Pope Sergius introduced the singing of the Agnus Dei at the breaking of the host at Mass.
In Visigothic Spain, the council was ratified by the Eighteenth Council of Toledo at the urging of the king, Wittiza (694 – probably 710), who was vilified by later chroniclers for his decision. Fruela I of Asturias (757–768) reversed the decision.
Yes. It’s their rules–hashed and rehashed over hundreds of years until the current teaching has been decided upon. And that official teaching is that of the Catechism of the Catholic Church. And Eastern Orthodox and Presbyterians are excluded, of course.
So now let’s look at some current rules that are being hashed out in the Presbyterian Church:
Presbyterians approve gay marriage in church constitution http://www.connectamarillo.com/news/story.aspx?id=1179299
Three Amarillo churches planning to leave Presbyterian Church (USA)
http://www.connectamarillo.com/news/story.aspx?id=1061510
First Presbyterian leaves denomination | Amarillo Globe-News amarillo.com › News › Local Newshttp://amarillo.com/news/local-news/2014-01-17/first-presbyterian-leaves-denomination
And these are your church’s rules, wouldn’t you say Tim?
And you rant about Catholic novelties. I just grin and shake my head.
oh Tim, beloved Brother
here in Switzerland, its 4 o clock in the morning. And since weeks, i can not stop to be on the Blog. I see you, fighting against the world, like Luther.
I see you like a machine-gun.
you are absolutely amazing, i have never seen such thing in my life.
Sometimes i ask myself, does Tim have Children or Family? Dont take it seriously, but i think myself, all this studies, all this work, it seems he havent done anything but study hours every day, since his conversion.
I like it! But really, do you have children?
They would be very blessed.
Tim, i hope i can meet you one day en earth. Christ took you, to give me Peace.
Honor and Glory to God.
deep thankfullness to Machine-Gun Timothy F. Kauffman! Men i love you, in a brotherly sense, and i dont even know you.