Follow
Last week, we examined Hosius of Spain, and his more than five decade career as an accomplished jurist and prominent bishop, especially his efforts to codify Constantine’s judicial reforms in the canons of the church. Once the data is evaluated, it becomes very clear that when the Council of Sardica was convened—bishop Hosius presiding—its purpose was to evaluate the evidence collected and the sententiam issued by the lower court in Rome and prepare a judgment to forward to the Emperor in order, finally, to settle the dispute. The whole process was taking place under the rubric of Constantine’s judicial reforms. Julius’ complaint to the Eusebian (Arian) party, therefore, was not that they had failed to recognize Roman primacy, but rather that they had failed to comply with their obligations under Constantine’s reformed judiciary.
This week we will briefly examine the semantic confluence of Constantine’s reforms with the ecclesiastical communications related to Sardica, as well as the canons of Sardica as they relate to the particular case before the court. What will become clear in the analysis is that under no circumstances did the Council of Sardica have any intent to canonize Roman or papal primacy, and that the bishops merely affirmed the propriety or impropriety of the actions of the plaintiffs and defendants as reflected in the dossier that had been provided to them. This was done using language that subordinated Rome to Sardica, and Sardica to the Imperial Court. When the whole debacle is reviewed in its historical and literary context, the matter of Constantinian reforms becomes plainly apparent, and the argument for Roman primacy disappears.
The Semantics of Sardica
Under Constantine, consultatio ante sententiam, (consulting the Emperor prior to a ruling from a lower court) was forbidden, although under previous emperors it had been allowed. Ignoring this policy, the Eusebian party had consulted the Emperor while Julius was still compiling his sententiam and refused to answer his subpoena for additional information. That was a plain violation of Constantine’s explicit policy from as early as 316 A.D., in which he had declared, “It is not permitted to supplicate while a case is pending” (Dillon, John Noël, The Justice of Constantine: Law, Communication, and Control (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, (2012) 211). The outcome of the council of Sardica was that the church prohibited consultatio ante sententiam (Canon 7 and Canon 9).
Because Constantine had empowered many and distant officials to hear cases, he also understood that powerful persons—potentiores—in the provinces, could corrupt the appeals process by their influence over his judicial representatives. Constantine considered these potentiores a threat to the independence of his judiciary (Dillon, 196). It is no wonder that the Eusebians accused Athanasius of being “a rich man, and powerful” (Athanasius, Apologia Contra Arianos, Part I, chapter 1, paragraph 9) in order to bias Constantine against him. The outcome of the council of Sardica was that the Church dealt with the matter of potentiores within the church (Canon 11), prohibiting episcopal translations from small cities to large dioceses, and setting limits on how long a powerful and influential bishop could remain in another bishop’s province or diocese.
Under Constantine’s reforms, appeals were “conducted entirely through official correspondence” (Dillon, 215), and the Emperor required “a thorough interrogation of the parties … should the judge later decide to refer the case to the emperor.” To this Constantine added, “nor may anything be sent to Us that lacks full documentation (instructio plena)” (Dillon, 205). The Emperor insisted in an edict of 321 A.D. to the prefect of the city of Rome that the presiding judge “must … investigate the facts of the case through exhaustive inquiry” and ask for “any new evidence that ought to be included” in the dossier to be forwarded to the Imperial Court:
“A judge must examine everything and investigate the facts of the case through exhaustive inquiry, permitting (the litigants) to ask questions, lay out (their cases), and make additions, in such a way that when the pleading of the parties is finished, and their litigation has concluded not through the interference of the judge, but because of the satisfaction of the litigants, the judge may ask frequently and repeatedly whether there remains any new evidence that ought to be included in the materials cited in litigation, since this is useful both whether the case is to be concluded by the judge or referred to Our Knowledge.” (Dillon, 203)
When the dispute is seen in this light, we can understand Julius’ frustration that the Eusebians were not cooperating with his “exhaustive inquiry” and his request for “any new evidence that ought to be included.” He was supposed to conduct the inquiries in writing so that a complete dossier would be forwarded to the Emperor. Under the reforms, appeals were submitted by “rescripts” from lower courts (Dillon, 198), and when the Eusebians scoffed at Julius’ request for a rescript in his first letter to them, he responded with an appropriate observation in his second letter: “And why was nothing said [literally, written (scriptum)] to us concerning the Church of the Alexandrians in particular?”
What has been translated from Julius’ letter into English as “notice thereof ought to have been sent to the Church of this place,” is actually related to Julius’ previous request for a rescript, or literally, a written reply: “ad hanc ecclesiam illud rescribendum fuit.” (Athanasius, Apologia Contra Arianos, Part I, chapter 2, Letter of Julius to the Eusebians at Antioch, paragraph 35 (see P.G. XXV, col. 307)). The problem was not that Julius had not been notified. The problem was that Julius had not received the written reply that he had requested from the Eusebians, a written reply that was due to him under Constantine’s reforms. The entire focus is on written correspondence because the entire appeals process was required to be conducted by that means so that full documentation for the case could be compiled in writing. It is for this reason that the bishops in Sardica commended Julius for his efforts to resolve the matter “by correspondence,” and criticized the Eusebian party for its reluctance to participate in “judicial enquiry” (Athanasius, Apologia Contra Arianos, Part I, chapter 3, Letter of the Council of Sardica, paragraph 37).
Under Constantine’s reforms, lower courts collected data and forwarded the data along with their sentences—sententiam—to the Imperial Court “by official couriers” (Dillon, 218). As Athanasius explains, Julius had compiled the sententiam to the best of his abilities, “and sent it by the hand of Count Gabianus” to the Imperial Court (Athanasius, Apologia Contra Arianos, Part I, chapter 2, paragraphs 20 & 26).
Under his reforms, Constantine had made “the rulings of provincial judgments subject to challenge” (Dillon, 214). Bishop Julius not only insisted that the decision of the council of Tyre could be reevaluated in Rome, but also that the whole purpose of such judicial review was to ensure that the appellants could be assured of an unbiased judgment “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). That was an affirmation of “a fundamental principle” of Constantine’s reforms, namely that to ensure justice, “a judge could not try an appeal made against his own sentence” (Dillon, 221). Thus Julius could not, and did not, object when this same principle was applied to him, and when the Roman sententiam of the Italian bishops was revisited in an appeal at Sardica in Illyricum under Hosius of Spain. As Dillon informs us, “Constantine clearly preferred that a case be brought to a higher court rather than permit the potential judge a quo [Julius, in this case] to weigh the law further” (Dillon, 222). And in this case, Sardica was that higher court.
Constantine also recognized that it was not only potentiores who could interfere with the appeals process by their unlawful influence over local judges. Appellants could also corrupt the appeals process by appealing improperly. Thus, Constantine insists in one edict, “Help must not be denied to those who appeal well,” and “appealing well” included adherence to several formalities introduced by his reforms (Dillon, 222). We see this same construct emerge in the canons of Sardica. For example, Hosius decrees that if a deposed bishop, Athanasius in this case, “shall announce that his case is to be examined in the city of Rome” (Canon 4), and “takes refuge with the most blessed bishop of the Roman church” in order to lodge an appeal (Canon 5), the basis of his appeal is to be reviewed by the bishop of Rome, and if it is determined that his case “be not unsound but good,” then, “the case may be retried…”
“…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.” (Sardica, Canon 3)
Hosius revisits this theme in Canon 14, insisting that “a hearing ought not to be denied those who ask it” (Sardica, Canon 14). These statements are in conformance with Constantine’s desire that help not be denied to those who “appeal well,” and were decreed at Sardica in what appear to be the very words of Constantine.
We have reviewed the basic semantics of Constantine’s reforms and the semantics of the church’s communications leading up to Sardica, to demonstrate one important and often overlooked artifact: the whole dispute from Nicæa to Sardica occurred at the same time that Constantine was changing the way the imperial judiciary conducted its business, and it is clear that the church was attempting to comply with those changes. The dispute between Athanasius and the Eusebians began just after Constantine’s reforms had been completed in 331 A.D. (Dillon, 11), and the entirety of the case before the court at Sardica was being conducted under those completed reforms.
The reason this matter is so significant to us is that the Council of Sardica has typically been analyzed in clinical isolation from its native context, and for this reason, the significance of Constantine’s judicial reforms is completely overlooked. In the English translation of Julius’ Letter to the Eusebians in Antioch, sententiam is rendered as “sentiments,” scriptum is rendered as “said,” and rescribendum is rendered as “notice,” completely separating the terms from their context. Under such a rendering, Julius’ formal demand for a written reply that can “be included in the materials” to be forwarded to the Emperor for judicial review comes across as if Rome is the highest court, and Julius highest judge, and the final decision his to make. Under such a rendering, Sardica’s observation that Julius “was also able to advance this fair argument … by correspondence” is read outside of the context in which all appeals were conducted “entirely through official correspondence.” Under such a rendering, Julius sending his sententiam “by the hand of Count Gabianus” is read outside of the context in which the correspondence was required to be forwarded from the lower court to the higher court by “by official couriers.”
Put it all back into its native context and Julius becomes the judge of a lower court, collecting evidence from the litigants, preparing a dossier of formal correspondence and a sententiam to be sent to the a higher court by official courier for a judicial review and ratification, in accordance with the edict of an Emperor who presided over the entire judicial system—all of which is entirely inconsistent with Roman Catholic claims of early Roman primacy.
The same may be observed of Julius’ insistence that it is Rome’s prerogative to review the findings of the council of Tyre. Rendered in clinical isolation from its context, it sounds like Rome is the final court of appeals. Put it all back into its native context, and Julius is acknowledging not only that the decisions of Tyre were subject to judicial review by Rome, but also that it was perfectly legitimate for Rome’s decisions to be subject to judicial review by Sardica, which is exactly what happened.
Once the correspondence of Julius, Athanasius, the Eusebians and the Emperors are placed back into the historical and literary context of Constantine’s recently completed appellate reforms, it also becomes clear that Hosius’ canons at Sardica were the higher court’s judicial review of, and amendments to, the sententiam that was forwarded to him from the lower court—which is also entirely inconsistent with Roman Catholic claims of early Roman primacy.
The Canons of Sardica
When reading the synodical letters from the Council of Sardica, what can be seen is that the council was not evaluating the merits of Arianism, and was not advancing a case for Roman primacy, but was solely considering the evidence regarding the dispute between Athanasius and the Arian party that had deposed him. That is the only thing being considered at Sardica. Thus in the opening remarks of the letters to Egypt, Libya and Alexandria, bishop Hosius makes some cursory remarks about the errors of Arianism, and then proceeds with the matter at hand—the deposition of Athanasius and the accusations against him:
“At any rate they endeavoured by violence and tyranny to surprise the innocence of our brother and fellow bishop Athanasius, and therefore conducted their enquiry into his case without any care, without any faith, without any sort of justice.” (Athanasius, Apologia contra Arianos, Part I, Letter of the Council of Sardica to the Church of Alexandria, paragraph 37)
When viewed in this light, the matter before the council comes into sharp focus. Athanasius was innocent and his detractors were guilty. The canons simply review the actions of both parties and decree whether they were right or wrong based on the evidence compiled by the lower court in Rome.
Canon 1 essentially declares that the Eusebians were guilty of moving from smaller cities to larger ones for illicit purposes: “Let no bishop be allowed to remove from a small city to a different [larger] one” (Sardica, Canon 1). That is precisely the offense of the Eusebians, for their “Bishops also have made a practice of removing from one place to another” (Athanasius, Apologia Contra Arianos, Part I, chapter 2, Letter of Julius to the Eusebians at Antioch, paragraph 25), and their errors included “translations from small cities to larger dioceses” (Athanasius, Apologia Contra Arianos, Part I, chapter 3, Encyclical Letter of the Council of Sardica, paragraph 49).
Canon 2 essentially declares that the Eusebians were guilty of promoting themselves on the basis of “false letters,” and prohibits bishops from moving about from province to province claiming “that he had brought letters from the people [laity]” (Sardica, Canon 2). That is precisely the offense of the Eusebians, for they had engaged in “conspiracies by means of false letters,” and had “invaded their Churches” on the authority of the forgeries (Athanasius, Apologia Contra Arianos, Part I, chapter 3, Encyclical Letter of the Council of Sardica, paragraph 49).
Canon 3 essentially declares that Athanasius, though he too had translated between provinces, had not been in violation of Canon 1, because when he translated between provinces, it was by invitation. Such translations are disallowed “unless indeed he be called by his brethren, that we seem not to close the gates of charity” or unless he is taking refuge (Sardica, Canon 3; Canon 17 also reaffirms this).
Canon 3 also prohibits litigants in one province to call in arbiters from another:
“[I]f in any province a bishop has some matter against his brother and fellow-bishop, neither of the two should call in as arbiters bishops from another province.” (Sardica, Canon 3)
This speaks to the particular matter that occurred regarding Ischyras of the Mareotis, where allegations were made against Athanasius regarding a violent outburst. Outsiders were inappropriately called in to investigate the matter, as the clergy at the Mareotis report:
“Whereas Theognius, Maris, Macedonius, Theodorus, Ursacius, and Valens, as if sent by all the Bishops who assembled at Tyre, came into our Diocese alleging that they had received orders to investigate certain ecclesiastical affairs, among which they spoke of the breaking of a cup of the Lord, of which information was given them by Ischyras” (Athanasius, Apologia contra Arianos, Part II, chapter 6, paragraph 76).
All of this information about external arbiters was included in the dossier that had been forwarded to Sardica for review, for it was related to the case against Athanasius. These arbiters should not have been called in to investigate, since by then Athanasius had already requested the aid of Rome. As Rome thus became the new venue for the appeal, and the bishop there was responsible to compile the dossier, it was he who should have arranged for the arbiters from the neighboring provinces. Thus Canon 3 also declares that “those who gave judgment” against Athanasius in Tyre should have written to Julius in order to comply with the appeals process and to cooperate in a retrial:
“…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;” (Sardica, Canon 3)
It was inappropriate to call in arbiters from another province when the matter had already been elevated to a higher court for review. It is the primacy of Constantine’s appeals process, not the primacy of Rome, that is in view here.
Lest the Roman Catholic apologist run out ahead of us and conclude that the obligation of the Eusebians to write to Julius was imposed by ancient ecclesiastical canon, we should let the preeminent Roman Catholic historian and apologist, Bishop Karl Josef von Hefele explain that the Eusebians were to write to Julius “at the desire of the condemned“—which is to say that they were obligated to write to Rome because Athanasius said so, not because Julius said so or because the Apostles had said so:
“According to the Greek text, … those who had pronounced the first judgment were to write to Rome [and] they were to do this at the desire of the condemned” (von Hefele, Karl Josef, A History of the Councils of the Church, from the Original Documents, Vol. 2, (Edinburgh: T & T Clark (1826)) 114, n2)
That Hefele’s reading is correct here—namely that the obligation to write to Rome was imposed on the Eusebians by the preferences of the condemned—is made abundantly clear by Canons 5 and 9. These canons identify Rome as the appellate court on the authority of the accused, not on the authority of Rome herself, i.e.,
“if he who has been deposed shall appeal and take refuge with the bishop of the Roman church…” (Sardica, Canon 5)
“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…” (Sardica, Canon 9)
It is in these canons of Sardica that we see Julius’ conditional relevance to the case: appeals could be conducted by any authorized official in the empire, and Julius only matters if Rome is the chosen venue, and Rome is the chosen venue only if the accused resorts there to lodge the appeal. When Hosius himself says “But those who come to Rome ought, as I said before” (Sardica, Canon 9), he is referring to Canon 5 in which the Rome’s relevance to the case is determined by the appellant, not by ancient apostolic canon:
“if any one [Athanasius] require that his case be heard yet again [under Constantine’s appellate reforms], and at his [Athanasius’] request it seem good to move the bishop of Rome…” (Sardica, Canon 5)
Thus, Hosius casts the light of his own intended meaning upon the preceding canons. Canon 3 is to be read in light of the fact that Athanasius had appealed to Rome for a retrial, and had therefore been invited to Rome by Julius, for he was “called” to Rome “by his brethren” (Sardica, Canon 3). In that particular case, the Bishop of Rome should preside, and in that particular case, the lower court should wait patiently until the required sententiam is prepared (Sardica, Canon 4), and then the bishop of Rome “shall send them to the [Imperial] Court” for review and ratification (Sardica, Canon 9).
But the Emperor could not and would not ratify the decision of Rome, and so remanded the matter to Sardica, where Athanasius “challenged the associates of Eusebius and his fellows to submit to a trial” (Athanasius, Apologia Contra Arianos, Part I, chapter 3, paragraph 36). This could have transpired anywhere, not only in Rome. As Hosius explained in Canon 9, bishops in “any province whatever” may submit their petitions via the metropolitan of that province—i.e., “he that is in the largest city, that is, the metropolis,”—so that the petition could be forwarded in an orderly fashion by any of the brethren who happened to reside currently in “the places or cities in which the most pious Emperor is administering public affairs” (Sardica, Canon 9). And then Hosius continues in the matter of the case before the court: “But those who come to Rome ought…” (Sardica, Canon 9). Canons 3 and 5 are therefore to be read as judgments on the current case before the court, not as all-encompassing rules of appeal. This is evidence of Roman metropolitanism, not evidence of Roman primacy.
To continue, Canon 4 essentially declares that Athanasius’ rights under Constantine’s appellate reforms had been violated by the Eusebians, for they had seated Athanasius’ replacement without due process:
“[I]f any bishop be deposed by the sentence of these neighbouring bishops, and assert that he has fresh matter in defence, a new bishop be not settled in his see, unless the bishop of Rome judge and render a decision as to this” (Sardica, Canon 4).
Athanasius had the right to appeal the sentence of a lower court, and that right required that the sententiam of the lower court be reviewed before the deposed bishop could be replaced. In violation of his rights, the Eusebians had appointed Gregory as bishop of Alexandria to replace him (Athanasius, Apologia Contra Arianos, Part I, chapter 2, paragraph 30). In other words, the Eusebians were not only guilty of consultatio ante sententiam, they were also guilty of denying Athanasius his right to appeal the sententiam before he was formally replaced.
In a related and similar canon, number 14, Hosius brings up the matter of Ischyras, the alleged presbyter who had made against Athanasius accusations “of breaking a cup and overturning a table” in anger. Ischyras was a puppet in the hands of the Arians, and his accusations were determined to be false, and so he was deprived of communion at the Church of the Mareotis. But after confessing his error, “he wished to be admitted to communion,” yet still “he was not received.” The matter was considered by a court in Alexandria, at which court Hosius also presided, and Ischyras was found not even to be a legitimate presbyter. He was thence stripped of his the title, but was restored to communion as a layman:
“But, notwithstanding he assumed this designation [of presbyter], he was deposed in the presence of our Father Hosius at the Council which assembled at Alexandria, and was admitted to communion as a layman, and so he continued subsequently, having fallen from his falsely reputed rank of presbyter.” (Athanasius, Apologia Contra Ariano, Part II, chapter 6, paragraph 74).
All of this information was included in the dossier that had been forwarded to Sardica for review, for it was part of the whole case that the Eusebians had made against Athanasius. Even though Ischyras’ claims to the presbytery were false, Hosius still believed that Ischyras had been entitled to an appeal, and further that the bishop who had originally removed him from office was expected patiently to let the wheels of justice turn as that appeal was conducted—so highly did Hosius esteem the rights of the accused and the integrity of the appellate process.
Canon 14 therefore speaks directly to a matter that was before the court: Athanasius’ alleged treatment of an alleged presbyter. Notice in the canon that Hosius speaks to the actions of Athanasius and his accuser while carefully avoiding the matter of whether Ischyras was actually a presbyter, lest Hosius be seen to stand in judgment of his own ruling at Alexandria:
“If a bishop be found quick to anger (which ought not to sway such a man), and he, suddenly moved against a presbyter or deacon, be minded to cast him out of the Church, provision must be made that such a one be not condemned too hastily and deprived of communion. … Let him that is cast out be authorized to take refuge with the bishop of the metropolis of the same province. And if the bishop of the metropolis is absent, let him hasten to the bishop that is nearest, and ask to have his case carefully examined. For a hearing ought not to be denied those who ask it.” (Sardica, Canon 14)
That this is related to Ischyras is evidenced plainly by the rest of Hosius’ argument. Note that Hosius applies the same rules to Ischyras as were being applied to Athanasius and the Eusebians, namely, Constantine’s dictum that “It is not permitted to supplicate while a case is pending.” Ischryas was to wait patiently while his appeal was heard rather than demanding an immediate reversal of the sentence:
“But, until all the particulars have been examined with care and fidelity, he who is excluded from communion ought not to demand communion in advance of the decision of his case.” (Sardica, Canon 14)
Hosius then goes on to decree how Athanasius and Ischyras should have behaved toward one another, as well as how the presbyters at Mareotis should have behaved toward the accused:
“And if any of the clergy who have met clearly discern arrogance and pretentiousness in him, inasmuch as it is not fitting to suffer insolence or unjust censure, they ought to correct such an one with somewhat harsh and grievous language, that men may submit to and obey commands that are proper and right. For as the bishop ought to manifest sincere love and regard to his subordinates, so those who are subject to him ought in like manner to perform the duties of their ministry in sincerity towards their bishops.” (Sardica, Canon 14)
The rest of the canon instructs that the bishop who deposed him “ought not to take it ill that examination of the case be made” (Sardica, Canon 14), or in Latin, “ut vel probetur sententia ejus a plurimis vel emendetur” (see Hefele, 149). The literal rendering is, “that his sentence may either be approved or amended by many.”
The significance to our understanding of Sardica is important, because it shows in stark relief that it was the primacy of the appellate process, not the primacy of Rome that was in view. The only universal rule being applied at Sardica is that both he whose sententiam is being reviewed, and he who is appealing the sententiam, are expected to wait patiently while the sententiam is either approved, amended, or revoked by the higher court. This was apparently true whether the sententiam originated from the Mareotis, Tyre, or Rome. We hasten to point out the fact that this canon was approved in the presence of the delegates of “pope” Julius, whose own sententiam was currently being reexamined and amended by a higher court. Yet no objection was raised to this canon that essentially subordinated, Mareotis’ decision to Alexandria, Tyre’s decision to Rome, and Rome’s decision to Sardica, and of course Sardica’s to the Emperor.
Canon 15, Canon 18, and Canon 19 deal with the matter of men who took the title of bishop and conducted invalid ordinations, which was also included in the dossier forwarded to Hosius. For example, in the letter from the clergy of the Mareotis, the matter is reported of an invalidly ordained bishop, Colluthus, who had then ordained Ischyras to the presbytery:
“Ischyras, whom they brought with them, and who says that he is a Presbyter, although he is not—for he was ordained by the Presbyter Colluthus who pretended to the Episcopate, and was afterwards ordered by a whole Council, by Hosius and the Bishops that were with him, to take the place of a Presbyter, as he was before.” (Athanasius, Apologia contra Arianos, Part II, chapter 6, paragraph 74)
Thus, Sardica was compelled by the contents of the dossier to address the matter of invalid ordinations and what was to be done with those officers who had received them, for the issue was of some significance to the accusations against Athanasius. The rest of the canons deal largely with the Eusebians’ illicit use of consultatio ante sententiam, as well as the matter of potentiores taking up residence, or staying too long, in another bishop’s province, as we noted last week. In sum, Sardica reviewed the written evidence that had been forwarded, and after some analysis ruled in favor of the accused:
“[W]e have therefore pronounced our dearly beloved brethren and fellow-ministers Athanasius, Marcellus, and Asclepas, and those who minister to the Lord with them, to be innocent and clear of offense” (Athanasius, Apologia Contra Arianos, Part I, chapter 3, Encyclical Letter of the Council of Sardica, paragraph 49)
The matter before the court in Sardica was the matter of Athanasius and his accusers, and the relevant data that had been compiled through the appellate process. The Council of Sardica reviewed that data and ruled on it.
In the light of this history and context, we can say that Sardica performed its function of reviewing the judgment of a lower court, and the resulting canons generally required the church to comply with Constantine’s judicial reforms. In the fulfillment of that compliance there was, in the main, an orderly progression from local bishop, to provincial bishop, to metropolitan bishop, to the Imperial Court. Different situations, of course, allowed for different methods of appeal, as in the case when “bishops should have friends at the Court and should wish to make requests of them” (Sardica, Canon 9). Again, the flexibility and liberty of the Church to adjust to the particular circumstances of the appeal essentially mirrors and conforms to the judicial changes instituted under Constantine. Dillon summarizes for us the hierarchical flexibility of the Constantinian appeals process in terms that closely parallel the process that we see unfolding in the ecclesiastical domain leading up to the Council of Sardica:
“The inclusion of vicars among the newly created judges … suggests a hierarchical chain of appeal from governor, to vicar, to praetorian prefect or emperor, but no such hierarchy was strictly maintained. Appellants frequently appealed from their governor directly to a praetorian prefect or to the emperor himself. It was forbidden to appeal to a lower judge, but otherwise the choice of appellate judge appears to have been left to the discretion of the appellant.” (Dillon, 216)
Since the matter before Sardica was that of Athanasius’ appeal to Rome, a choice made at his discretion, some of the canons address Athanasius’ particular appeal to Rome. Other venues were available via other metropolitans, but Athanasius had chosen Rome, and that is what Sardica considered in its review. As we have said above, the canons of Sardica are therefore not evidence of Roman primacy, but of Roman metropolitanism. Any metropolitan in any province could preside in an appeal, and if Rome was the chosen venue, the metropolitan bishop there should preside, and that bishop was Julius.
Different circumstances called for adjustments to the approach, and this flexibility was in the hands of the appellant and the metropolitans of the provinces. Thus, when Hosius says “let those who gave judgment write to Julius” that they may “honour the memory of Peter the Apostle” (Sardica, Canon 3), it is only in the case of those who “take refuge” in the city of Rome (Sardica, Canon 5) or those “who come to Rome” (Sardica, Canon 9), and then only if the appellant has so decreed it. There is nothing in this that requires all cases to be decided in Rome or that even gives Rome the final say. Hosius’ decrees are simply related to the matter that is before the court, and the matter before the court is whether the actions of the litigants were right or wrong.
The reason this matter is so significant to us is that the canons of the Council of Sardica, like the semantics we related above, have also typically been analyzed in clinical isolation from their native context. For this reason the fact is typically overlooked that Hosius is reviewing and ruling on the contents of a court dossier that has been forwarded to him. Canon 14 provides a striking example of this. The canon clearly relates to the accusation against Athanasius by Ischyrus, and how Athanasius and Ischyrus responded to each other. Likewise, Canons 1 and 2 deal with the behavior of Athanasius’ accusers, and Canons 3, 4 and 5 deal with Athanasius’ rights of appeal, and Rome as his venue of choice rather than as an ecclesiastical or apostolical necessity. Take the canons out of their native context, and it looks like Sardica thought Rome was the final court of appeals, presbyters should not move around so much, bishops ought not to be angry, and presbyters ought not to be pretentious.
Put them back into their context, and the whole council is about implementing and complying with Constantine’s judicial reforms—reforms in which Rome’s sententiam is just as open to appeal as Tyre’s and Mareotis’. Read them in their proper context, and it is the Eusebians, rather than Athanasius, who are acting like potentiores as they translate from small cities to larger dioceses for the purposes of influencing the appeals process. Put the canons back into their native context and we see Julius obediently submitting his sententiam to a higher court by official courier, Sardica standing in judgment of and modifying Rome’s sententiam and requiring Rome to submit its findings to a higher court, and Julius’ legates listening as the church agrees that nobody—neither Athanasius, nor Ischyrus, nor Eusebius, nor Julius—is allowed to demand the implementation of a sententiam or its reversal, until the appeals process has done its work.
When seen in this light, it becomes clear how audacious are the claims of the Catholic Encyclopedia when it asserts that Sardica confirmed “Rome as a court of last appeal in disciplinary causes” (Catholic Encyclopedia, Apiarius of Sicca). This is what the Catholic Encyclopedia gleans from a Council that allowed other metropolitan bishops to make their appeals to the Imperial Court apart from Rome (Canon 9), required Rome to submit its sententiam to the Imperial Court in a disciplinary issue (Canon 9), subjected Rome’s sententiam to a judicial review, and had the “pope’s” representatives sit by as a Roman court’s decision was being amended by a Spaniard in Illyricum so that the Emperor in Constantinople could make a final decision in a dispute between Antioch and Alexandria!
Aside from that, Sardica can be construed to affirm Rome as a “court of last appeal in disciplinary causes” <wink, wink>.
That is what happens when evidence is interpreted in clinical isolation from its historical and literary context so that it conforms to Rome’s predisposition to find Roman Primacy under every rock, and behind every bush in the Early Church.
There is much more to be said of Hosius and the conformity of his work to the appellate reforms of Constantine. It is remarkable that Hosius, at the end of his career, was applying Constantinian language that the Emperor had been using at the beginning of his reign. In view of the very high esteem in which Hosius was held by Constantine, and in view of Hosius’ renown as an accomplished and competent jurist, we suppose that Hosius himself may well have been the architect of the judicial reforms, and that Constantine implemented them on his advice, just as Jethro had advised Moses when the appeals process had overwhelmed him:
“The thing that thou doest is not good. … provide out of all the people able men … And let them judge the people at all seasons: and it shall be, that every great matter they shall bring unto thee, but every small matter they shall judge: so shall it be easier for thyself, and they shall bear the burden with thee.” (Exodus 18:22).
Constantine’s reforms appear very much to be of the same form as those advised to Moses by Jethro. But that analysis is for another day.
Next week as we conclude the series, we will examine how the Latin contingent at the Council of Chalcedon extracted the canons of Sardica from their historical and literary context in precisely the way that the Catholic Encyclopedia does, and then appended them to the canons of Nicæa in an attempt invest them with Nicæan authority, and then claimed that it was Nicæa that had canonized Rome as the “final” court of appeals.
Tim wrote:
“What will become clear in the analysis is that under no circumstances did the Council of Sardica have any intent to canonize Roman or papal primacy, and that the bishops merely affirmed the propriety or impropriety of the actions of the plaintiffs and defendants as reflected in the dossier that had been provided to them. This was done using language that subordinated Rome to Sardica, and Sardica to the Imperial Court.”
I guess I cannot wait to read this, but more so wait to see the typical wild and outlandish diatribe coming from Bob soon after he cuts and paste text’s desperately hoping to make a Pope – Vicar of Christ out of thin air to support Roman Catholics. After reading his comments from last week, and the incredible way he ignore facts and context of history, I am really starting to see how a true Roman Catholic apologist produces spin….yet, they don’t see spin at all. They only live solidly in their own presupposition as to what they have been taught as a child, or learned as an adult from the Romish claims, and they hold to them no matter what evidence proves.
This is precisely why the Reformation is so critical to learn and understand as a Catholic. It is the counter argument, like being a juror in a court watching both sides, and coming to a neutral conclusion. Rome focuses nearly 100% on claiming all their authority comes from the Early Church Fathers and early history. Very few commentators (except for Tim) dare to take on Rome in this early history as it is so complex, detailed and Rome has deceived the masses for so long it is her history so she constantly appeals back to the early church for “proof”.
When I grew up a Roman Catholics I was taught about the horrors and wickedness of the reformation period, and never to look at it. I was taught that everything I ever needed to know was foundational in the Bible, the early church and the Pope himself. The reformation in the eyes of the young Catholic boy was like walking into a landmine of danger.
I guess this is why when I grew older, and I thought there must be more to the story. There is always two sides to every story, and if Rome hated the reformation so much something must be buried in that history worth reading and studying. Thankfully I traveled to London as often as I could to visit those old bookstores and read what then was unpublished, and now is being republished for all to see the differences.
Tim is taking us through “both sides” of the story, and giving us evidence and proof and facts and source documents. I’m trying to get my head around this period as the “Roman Church and Christian State” rise together. I’m trying to understand what powers did the civil magistracy have and what powers did the church have, and how did the reformers see this period of history from biblical eyes. When I see form of church government and civil magistracy growing up after the fourth century, what is in store next that gave Rome, the Vatican and the Pope the incredible global power she has today. How did some Pope’s reach the conclusion that they were in fact Jesus Christ himself in their own body?
It is really mind blowing to listen to Bob weekly try everything in desperation to prove the Pope is the Vicar of Christ on earth and the Romish system is founded in not only early history but in Scripture itself….and ignore all the evidence being presented so any neutral person can see for themselves!
Tim,
So the two main “Popes” during this time frame:
“31. St Eusebius. b. Greece; elected 18 April, 309; d. 17 Aug, 309. He baptized Constantine in Nicodemia. Widespread clamor in the church between those who thought the renegades who had appeased Diocletian should be forgiven, and the Donatists–hardline followers of Donatus, fanatical bishop of Carthage, who was unforgiving of the Christians who abjured the church during the persecutions and demanded they not be readmitted. Emperor Maxentius exiled the pope and various trouble-makers to Sicily where Eusebius died.”
“35. St Julius I. b. Rome; elected 6 Feb, 337; d. 12 April, 352. Elected only a few months before Constantine died attended by Christian clergy, Julius was an astute politician who attempted to mediate many internal church disputes, successfully maintaining that Rome was the final arbiter of such. Julius ordered all official acts be preserved in the Archives of the Holy See, and fixed the number of Roman cardinals at 28, divided between the four patriarchal churches. Seeking to co-opt pagan celebrations, he decreed December 25 to be Jesus’ birthday.
A council held at Sardica (today’s Sofia) to heal the rift between Eastern and Western bishops, succeeded only in widening it. Julius defended St Athanasius (“a man of epic stamina and courage but undiplomatic to the point of truculence”-S&S) against heretical mainly Eastern followers of the Alexandrian priest Arius (d. 336) who had claimed that Jesus was not divine, eternal or equal to the Father. Arianism was among the earliest of what proved to be many different interpetations of the central truth of Christianity, the Incarnation. Depicted in 12th c. mosaic in S. Maria in Trastevere which he founded.”
I cannot wait to see you touch on who were these “anti-popes” as referenced below.
“36. St Liberius. b. Rome; elected 17 May, 352; d. 24 Sept, 366. Arianism, the doctrine denying the equality of the three persons in the Trinity, which had been condemned at the Council of Nicaea in 325, was for long a persistent factor, supported by successive emperors. “My will is the canon law in this matter”, the pope was told by Constantius. “Because (Liberius) would not consent to the heresy of the Arians he was sent into exile…and there abode three years” (GL) where “tormented by the grievousness of his exile submitted him unto the evil heresy”.
When Constantius died, Liberius took over from Felix, an archdeacon who had been imposed as pope over the Roman deacons by the emperor, and again denounced Arianism as well as other hereetical beliefs which he likened to “that old serpent… ….ceaselessly endeavouring to overthrow the faithless with his deadly poisons”. LPrecords that once Liberius returned to the Lateran palace, Felix operated from a church he built on the Via Aurelia with the clergy and people divided between them. D&F, however, says Romans rose up and killed Felix.
13th c. mosaic in S. Maria Maggiore; fresco in Naples’ Capodimonte Museum.
anti-pope Felix II (355-365)
37. St Damasus. b. Rome; elected 1 Oct, 366; d. 11 Dec, 384, aged about 80. Son of a Spanish priest who had supported Felix. Although contested, he was elected–according to LP–“because he was the stronger and had the greater number of supporters”. He earned the nickname matronarum auriscalpus (“the ladies’ ear-tickler”) according to S&S and was accused of adultery (“unlikely” comments Duschene in LP), but was acquitted after the intervention of the emperor Gratian who adopted Christianity as the state religion in 380. The 381 General Council called by the eastern emperor Theodosius to ratify his contention that the bishop of Constantinople ranked second to Rome, was rejected by Damasus. Those who had previously opposed Felix, now appointed as their pope Ursinus who was exiled after Damasus supporters killed a group of Ursinians, the remainder being banned from the Rome area. After anathematizing Appolinarius for misinterpreting church doctrine, the pope appealed to Christians not “to listen to vain reasonings and idle speculation. For we have once for all furnished a pattern and he knows himself a Christian may keep it”.
The 381 General Council confirmed and extended the Nicene Creed which had condemned Arianism. The contention by the eastern emperor Theodorius that the authority of the bishop of Constantinople should be enhanced, was rejected by the pope. Damasus documented Christian folklore, restored cemeteries and catacombs and commissioned his secretary St Jerome (who called him “an incomparable man”) to correct and revise what came to be known as the Vulgate Bible. Choosing to be buried in a small church he had built on the Via Ardentine, he placed an inscription in the crypt of St Callistus saying he wished to be buried there (B) “but I feared to offend the ashes of these holy ones”.
Portrait by Botticini in National Gallery, London
anti-pope Ursinus (366-367)
38. St Siricius. b. Rome; elected 15 Dec, 384; d. 26 Nov, 399. He had been a deacon under his two predecessors, and was the first after St Peter to assume the title Pope. Siricius’ insistence that priests be celibate was countered by the monk Jovian who argued that celibacy was unnatural as well as unspiritual, declaring that Mary was “not ever” virgin. Siricius .sent Ninian to Scotland to evangelise tribes north of the Roman wall. He began the body of church law with precedents established by means of decretals (decretum=it has been decided) in his replies to problems submitted to Rome. In one dated 11 Feb 385, he declared that “no priest of the Lord is free to be ignorant of the statutes of the apostolic See”. He recommended leniency for repentant adherents of the executed heretic Priscillian. During his pontificate, the emperor Theodosius, an avowed Christian, issued edicts outlawing Arianism and forbidding pagan ceremonies.”
http://www.ojaiorange.com/popes/ad_300-400.php
Tim,
Since you celebrate Christmas, maybe touch on this point:
“Seeking to co-opt pagan celebrations, he decreed December 25 to be Jesus’ birthday.”
It might help us to determine if Christmas is biblical worship, or Roman worship!
Tim, Bob likes to quote Wikipedia and Roman Catholic dictionaries as his primary source document. Don’t you see the reference on Wikipedia that Julius has confirmed that Roman Primacy was in fact evidence by his letter? Why did you go through so much time to refute Roman Primacy was confirmed by “Pope Julius” when Wikipedia is obvious here:
“On this second banishment from Alexandria, Athanasius came to Rome, and was recognised as a regular bishop by the synod presided over by Julius in 342. Julius sent a letter to the Eastern bishops that is an early instance of the claims of primacy for the bishop of Rome. Even if Athanasius and his companions were somewhat to blame, the letter runs, the Alexandrian Church should first have written to the pope. “Can you be ignorant,” writes Julius, “that this is the custom, that we should be written to first, so that from here what is just may be defined” (Epistle of Julius to Antioch, c. xxii).[1]
It was through the influence of Julius that, at a later date, the council of Sardica in Illyria was held, which was attended only by seventy-six Eastern bishops, who speedily withdrew to Philippopolis and deposed Julius at the council of Philippopolis, along with Athanasius and others. The three hundred Western bishops who remained, confirmed the previous decisions of the Roman synod; and by its 3rd, 4th, and 5th decrees relating to the rights of revision claimed by Julius, the council of Sardica perceptibly helped forward the claims of the Bishop of Rome. Julius died on 12 April 352 and was succeeded by Liberius.[1]”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_Julius_I
It really is fascinating in reading Wikipedia after reading your articles on this subject, with just overwhelming evidence, how incredibly mislead people are like Bob who use Wikipedia and Catholic Dictionaries to argue their case against you.
You are really doing incredible work.
Tim,
You are leading us up to the Edict of Gratian, Valentinian II, and Theodusius I on Establishment of The Catholic Religion, 380″
“This famous edict (Cunctos populos), addressed to Constantinopolitans and published by Theodoius the Great soon after his baptism, in ancient Christian history stands second only to the Edict of Milan, for, while the latter recognizes Christianity, the former makes Catholic Christianity the religion of the State. By this constitution (repeated in CI I.I.I, where it significantly starts Justinian’s Code, and given also by Cassiodorus, HE 9.7. 2-5, and summarized by Sozomen, HE 7.4 ad fin.) the Church in the Empire legally became the Church of the Empire.
Another of this edict’s effects also became evident as time elapsed. Henceforth revolt against the Church, which regulates the relation between God and man, caused heretics and schismatics to be considered both as a menace to the Empire and as rebels against the State. Subsequently such sectaries saw themselves increasingly subject to civil disabilities in respect to status and rights of property, of testation, of assembly and liable to fines and exile and even death.
The motive to such action against heretical and schismatical sects and their propaganda should be sought not so much in the emperors’ efforts to conserve a Catholic Christian conscience in their subjects as in the sovereigns’ profession that their sovereignty depends for divine protection upon their close connection with a divinely constituted Church and that therefore revolt from “the household of faith” (Gal.6:10) should be regarded and must be handled as a form of rebellion against the State. Thus the Church became a beneficiary of the Empire, when the equation of ecclesiastical allegiance and imperial citizenship was established by this epoch-making edict.
On the other hand, it may be held that Theodosius’ interest in theological uniformity may have been inspired merely by his imperial passion for political unity. For the East, whence this, edict was issued and whither it was intended, was “carried about with every wind of doctrine” (Eph.1:14) into far more disunion than was the West, into which heresies might enter from elsewhere, even as “long ago the Syrian Orontes flowed into the Tiber” (Juvenal, Sat.I.3.62) but from which heresies hardly, if ever, emanated. What simpler solution could the emperor have sought them to discover in St. Damasus — the episcopal successor of St. Peter, to whom the Saviour had said “But I have prayed for thee, that they fail fail not: and when thou are converted, strengthen thy brethren” (Luke 22:32; cf. John 21:15-17), and commonly considered the most eminent exponent of “the faith which was once delivered unto the saints” (Jude 3)—the contemporary centre wherein Christians could compose their differences of doctrine and thus should perfect their Savior’s prayer “that they may be one” (John 17:20-2, cf 10:11-16)?
Two centuries of precedent may have persuaded Theodosius, for it was two hundred years previously that, perhaps for the first time, St. Irenaeus, an Asiatic bishop of a Gallie see, had insisted that “with this church because of its more powerful authority it is necessary for the entire Church, that is, those who are the faithful everywhere, to agree; wherein that tradition, which is from the apostles, has been preserved always by these [faithful persons] who are everywhere” (Adv. Haer. 3.3.2 ad fin.). Adherence to the truth as attested by “the church of God sojourning in Rome” (Clement, 1 Cor. pr.) was the most practicable test to avoid the twin pitfalls of heresy and schism and the most hopeful sign for peace in an empire still divided by ecclesiastical disputes.”
Tim,
Have you referenced this work in your writings? I may have just forgotten the name of the author in your references.
https://ia700509.us.archive.org/22/items/DocumentsIllustratingPapalAuthorityAd96-454Giles/Documents_Illustrating_Papal_Authority_AD_96-454.pdf
http://chiesa.espresso.repubblica.it/articolo/1341814?eng=y
Tim,
I quote the following above:
“37. St Damasus. b. Rome; elected 1 Oct, 366; d. 11 Dec, 384, aged about 80. Son of a Spanish priest who had supported Felix. Although contested, he was elected–according to LP–“because he was the stronger and had the greater number of supporters”. He earned the nickname matronarum auriscalpus (“the ladies’ ear-tickler”) according to S&S and was accused of adultery (“unlikely” comments Duschene in LP), but was acquitted after the intervention of the emperor Gratian who adopted Christianity as the state religion in 380.”
And:
“The contention by the eastern emperor Theodorius that the authority of the bishop of Constantinople should be enhanced, was rejected by the pope. Damasus documented Christian folklore, restored cemeteries and catacombs and commissioned his secretary St Jerome (who called him “an incomparable man”) to correct and revise what came to be known as the Vulgate Bible.”
In a previous blog post, did you not say that Jerome had some bad feelings against women or something like that…I cannot remember exactly?
Did you know Jerome was the “secretary” of “Pope Damasus”?
Is it the case then that once Emperor Gratian adopted Roman Catholic religion as the religion of the Roman Empire, and Demasus was released of the charges of Adultery, that his Secretary Jerome started a translation of the Bible?
Is it not strange that once the Emperor adopts the Roman Catholic religion that the Pope of the Roman Catholic religion is released of charges of Adultery by the Emperor? I wonder if there was behind the scenes deal on a quid pro quo to make a deal so that both men were “made whole” for their evil?
Politics and religion are strange bed fellows in most cases!
Thanks, Walt,
I don’t know of any evidence for a plea bargain, but yes, Jerome and Damasus were close friends and confidants. Jerome’s views on virginity and marriage were ridiculous, but they carried the day. You can read more about them in Against Jovinianus, but one interesting citation is that the marriage bed and fertilization are the dominion of Satan:
His views against sex in marriage were diabolical and unscriptural, but he carried the day, and Jovinianus was excommunicated by Siricius based on Jerome’s works against him (see Letter of Pope Siricius to the Church of Milan, 389 A.D.)
Regarding Damasus and his relationship to Jerome, it is interesting that Damaus wrote to Jerome asking for him to explain the meaning of certain biblical passages. He who had been allegedly commissioned by Christ to “feed my sheep” and “strengthen thy brethren,” did not understand the meaning of Hosanna in the scriptures, and did not understand the meanings of several passages in Genesis, Romans and Acts, so he wrote to Jerome to ask for his help (Jerome, Letters 19 (383 A.D.) and 35 (384 A.D.)).
I have no doubt that if someone had written to Damasus asking the same questions, it would be taken as proof of papal primacy. But since it is the reverse, it is minimized as just one guy asking another guy a question.
Thanks,
Tim
TIM–
“I have no doubt that if someone had written to Damasus asking the same questions, it would be taken as proof of papal primacy. But since it is the reverse, it is minimized as just one guy asking another guy a question.”
So is that what you think that’s what it takes to have primacy, that one must know all there is to know about ecclesiastical matters? That’s just incredible. The pre-requisite for being the pope is to be the all knowing master of Christianity! Who needs the magisterium when you can just go to the Pope for all the answers?
No wonder you think the way you do about the pope.
Bob,
Thank you for making my point for me. Let us consider Rome’s argument:
Clement responds to the Corinthian church, in regard “to the points respecting which you consulted us” (Clement, To the Corinthians, 1)
Rome interprets it thusly:
It is not I who have such a low threshold for primacy. It is Rome. And an inconsistent threshold at that.
As I said, “pope” Damasus writes to Jerome asking questions about something he does not understand from the Scriptures, and it’s no big deal. The Corinthians write to Clement, and it’s proof of Roman primacy. Ignatius writes to the Ephesians with a different tone, and it’s collegiality. He writes to Rome with a different tone, and it’s proof of primacy. Rome receives a letter from Cyprian and adopts his opinion at a council, and it’s proof of collegiality. Chalcedon receives a letter from Leo and adopts it at a council and it’s proof of Roman primacy. Yes, that’s just incredible.
The irony of your question is that it gets to the fatal flaw of the argument for papal primacy. You asked, rhetorically,
But that’s just it. Ask Roman Catholic whether he knows which papal statements are ex cathedra, and in despair he’ll acknowledge that he cannot know, but in the case of a dispute about what he has taught, we can just call a council. And who needs a pope if you can just go to the magisterium for all the answers?
But ask a Roman Catholic what we do if there is a dispute about the councils, and he’ll just as quickly say we can always go to the pope for an answer. Unable to know which councils really matter (Roman Catholics disagree on whether Vatican II actually mattered), and unable to know which statements of the councils really matter (Roman Catholics disagree with the 20th of Nicæa), and unable know which papal statements really matter, we are advised to go to Denzinger for our answers, and who needs a magisterium and pope if you’ve got Denzinger?
Well this guy can’t figure out Denzinger:
To whom, therefore, shall we go? We answer with Peter,
Thanks,
Tim
TIM–
You said: “To whom, therefore, shall we go? We answer with Peter,
“Then Simon Peter answered him, Lord, to whom shall we go? thou hast the words of eternal life.” (John 6:68)
So what is your definition of the Chair of Peter? Obviously it existed to the early church. Who is seated in the Chair of Peter?
Tim wrote:
“Once the correspondence of Julius, Athanasius, the Eusebians and the Emperors are placed back into the historical and literary context of Constantine’s recently completed appellate reforms, it also becomes clear that Hosius’ canons at Sardica were the higher court’s judicial review of, and amendments to, the sententiam that was forwarded to him from the lower court—which is also entirely inconsistent with Roman Catholic claims of early Roman primacy.”
Here is the Roman position:
http://www.catholic.com/encyclopedia/hosius-of-cordova
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/13473a.htm
WALT–
You said: “I guess I cannot wait to read this, but more so wait to see the typical wild and outlandish diatribe coming from Bob soon after he cuts and paste text’s desperately hoping to make a Pope – Vicar of Christ out of thin air to support Roman Catholics….It is really mind blowing to listen to Bob weekly try everything in desperation to prove the Pope is the Vicar of Christ on earth and the Romish system is founded in not only early history but in Scripture itself….and ignore all the evidence being presented so any neutral person can see for themselves!”
I am so thrilled to see that you are awaiting my responses with bated breath. I really enjoy your responses as well. All of this is so entertaining! The outlandishness of this sight is what brought me here. All others pale in comparison. (Actually that’s not entirely accurate. I followed Kevin over here. I’m glad I did.)
To whom, therefore, shall we go? We answer with Peter,
“Then Simon Peter answered him, Lord, to whom shall we go? thou hast the words of eternal life.” (John 6:68)
Me – those that followed Moses while he was alive would have said something similar to what Peter said. After Moses died though the Jews were to follow whoever sat on the Chair of Moses.
“The scribes and the Pharisees have taken their seat on the chair of Moses. Therefore, do and observe all things whatsoever they tell you, but do not follow their example. For they preach but they do not practice. (Matthew 23:2-3 NABRE)
After Jesus ascended into heaven we are to do what the person who sits on the Chair of Peter tells us.
CK!
What’s a nice Catholic boy like you doing on a blog like this?
Just living the dream Jim!
Dang! CK has outed me!
Okay Tim, give it up. Why isn’t a certain fellow, I won’t say his name but his initials are KF, living here anymore?
( Actually, I have sneaky suspicion he is going undercover as “Junior” over on C2C, )
CK,
You wrote,
But surely you don’t actually believe or practice this. Lots of popes have said things that you personally disagree with, and therefore you do not obey them. In order to comply with this as you have written it, you would have to know which papal statements were the infallible ones, from the Chair, and which ones were not. So, since we are allegedly to obey the “from the chair” statements of the person who sits in Peter’s Chair, which ones are they?
Do you know?
Thanks,
Tim
TIM–
So what is your definition of the Chair of Peter? Obviously it existed to the early church. Who is seated in the Chair of Peter?
TIM–
You said: “Put it all back into its native context and Julius becomes the judge of a lower court, collecting evidence from the litigants, preparing a dossier of—all of which is entirely inconsistent with formal correspondence and a sententiam to be sent to the a higher court by official courier for a judicial review and ratification, in accordance with the edict of an Emperor who presided over the entire judicial systemRoman Catholic claims of early Roman primacy.”
What I see is this:
Julius becomes the judge of a lower court under the Imperial Court, which makes him the highest ecclesiastical court.
Formal correspondence and a sententiam to be sent to the a higher court by official courier for a judicial review and ratification, in accordance with the edict of an Emperor who presided over the entire judicial system–the highest court (which is the Imperial Court)– is outside the Church</strong. Rome is still the highest court in the Church's jurisdiction. To go any higher is going outside the Church's jurisdiction into the secular jurisdiction. Ecclesiastically, that is Roman primacy. But obviously in the Roman Empire, Caesar trumps the Church. The "legalization" of Christianity only stopped the persecution, it didn't change who was boss. The power of capital punishment still lay in the hands of the secular government, the Church never had that power.
Bob,
Doesn’t that, by your reasoning, make Sardica a secular court?
Thanks,
Tim
It’s a hybrid. Who called the council? Conastantius.
Who composed the council? Church bishops called by Constantius. The real question here is:
Why was it a failure and who declared it as such?
I had to close before I finished my train of thought.
In those days, because of the pain of persecution, naturally the Empire had the final say so in ALL matters. Church or no, if one was contrary to Caesar, exile or worse was in store.
However, since Christianity became the “state religion”, heresy was now considered a “state problem”. The possibility of eternal damnation was a concern for unrest. And unrest was a threat to Pax Romana and needed to be nipped in the bud before it got out of hand. The ecclesiastic remedy for heresy was excommunication. The Imperial remedy for heretics was capital punishment.
One must keep this in mind when trying to understand why the Church was compelled to follow the rules of Constantine. Remember, the Kingdom of Christ is not of this world, but it still has to exist in it. If Peter was still sitting in the Chair of Peter, would you question his authority? Would Constantine?
TIM–
You asked: “Doesn’t that, by your reasoning, make Sardica a secular court?”
You responded before I could post my finished thought.
I believe that Sardica would not have happened if the Roman Primacy had not been usurped by Constantius trying to placate the Arians. Because, you see, when “Church problems became state problems” the pain of being excommunicated became greater with secular consequences. The Arians needed to have the Imperial Court on their side to keep that from happening. They felt that Caesar held more weight than the Chair of Peter. Go figger.
Bob,
Did Constantine usurp Rome by calling Nicæa? If Sardica was usurpation because it was called by the Imperial Court, why were there no objections to the council (except from the Arians). Hosius certainly made no objections (to our knowledge). If Roman Primacy is usurped by requiring a Roman Court to submit to an Imperial Court, why did Sardica require Rome to submit its findings to the Imperial Court for ratification on an ecclesiastical matter? Canon 9 requires the “pope” to send his decision to the Imperial Court. The rest of the canons forbid frequenting the Imperial Court and bothering the Emperor on trivial matters, but continues to be fine with people eventually getting the Imperial Court on ecclesiastical matters, including appeals that were heard by the Roman bishops. Do you believe the 300 or so bishops in Sardica were there against their own wills and against their better judgment? Do you believe they were in error to require Rome to submit its finding to the Imperial Court? Of the Canons of Sardica, which ones do you think were wrong? If Sardica was a usurpation of Roman primacy, why did the subsequent popes use Sardica’s canon’s to “prove” Roman Primacy? Were they in error to do so?
Thanks,
Tim
TIM–
I believe that any jurisdiction outside the jurisdiction of the Church that makes decisions concerning church matters is a usurpation of Church authority plain and simple–unless the authorities of the church ratify it.
Now before we get into Nicaea, let me ask you this: Do you believe that Constantine, who held no office in the Church, had the genuine authority to call an ecumenical council on Church matters? Up until the time of Nicaea, did the early church let secular governments call the shots on church business? If not, then what changed?
TIM–
You asked: “Do you believe the 300 or so bishops in Sardica were there against their own wills and against their better judgment?”
Against their will? No. I believe it was prudent to go with the Emperors flow and not provoke his ire. Example: Hosius. Was it against their better judgement? Maybe. I think it was a can of worms that should not have been opened. But the Church did what Paul taught:
1Th 5:21 Examine everything carefully; hold fast to that which is good.
It did finally work out in favour of orthodoxy.
Bob,
What do you mean by “unless the authorities of the church ratify it”? What does that look like… for church authorities to ratify decisions on church matters?
Thanks,
Tim
Bob,
You wrote on May 26, “Constantine’s judicial system of appellate courts applied to Church matters usurps Church authority.”
A review of the relevant councils:
If I understand your thinking, this was not a usurpation of Roman Primacy because a Roman Bishop presided even though it was summoned by the emperor. In fact it needed no ratification by the church because the bishop of Rome presided, and that is sufficient for establishing that it represented the mind of the church in its decrees.
If I understand your thinking, this is a usurpation of Roman primacy because it was summoned by the emperor instead of the Church. But to the degree that it agreed with Rome’s decision, it is not usurpation, but an affirmation of Roman primacy.
If I understand your thinking, this is a hybrid because it was summoned by the Emperor and ratified by the whole church, and though it was summoned by an Emperor in Constantinople, and convened in Nicæa, and Bishop Hosius of Cordoba presided, or possibly Eusebius of Nicomedia.
If I understand your thinking, this was an exercise of Roman Primacy.
If I understand your thinking, this was a usurpation of Roman Primacy because it was summoned by an emperor to judge a decision of a Roman bishop.
If I understand your thinking, the only truly authentic Church council was that of Rome in 342 A.D., because it is the only one summoned by a Roman Bishop. All the others were either hybrids or usurpations.
By my reading of your several posts on the matter, the only common thread in your reasoning is the presumption of Roman Primacy—the very thing that is in dispute. In reality, you have no consistent framework from which Roman Primacy can either be alleged or defended, except that all evidence is presumed to point to it, and all countervailing evidence is to be ignored as an aberration, or a hybrid or a usurpation.
There is, of course, one matter that pertains and which, historically, has been overlooked: Constantine’s judicial reforms that were completed after Rome (313), Arles (314) and Nicæa (325), but before Rome (342) and Sardica (343). Prior to Constantine, the judiciary was centralized, and appellants frequented the Imperial Court. Constantine distributed the judiciary so that appeals could take place in the provinces, and only the most significant or difficult matters made it to his court. That not only explains why the above councils prior to 331 A.D. were summoned by the emperor, and the one in 342 A.D. was summoned by Julius—not because of Roman Primacy, but because of the Primacy of Constantine’s judicial reforms that empowered the provincials—but also explains the subsequent events and why there was no ecclesiastical objection to them. When the matter was finally elevated to the Imperial Court by Julius, the Emperor became president in the highest appellate court and remanded the issue to Sardica under Hosius. By your standard, Julius was right to summon the court, but wrong to send the matter to the Emperor for ratification since it was none of the emperor’s business.
The problem with your theory of Roman Primacy is that it cannot explain Julius sending the sententiam of the Italian Bishops to the Imperial Court by official courier in the first place, for it gives the appearance that the president of the only legitimate Church Council, of those listed above, in a galactic moment of forgetfulness ceased to be aware of his own primacy and forwarded the dossier of an Ecclesiastical Council to the secular Imperial Court for its approval; and then in an even larger violation of ecclesiastical canon, Constans rejected the incomplete sententiam from Rome and called another council the following year in Sardica, and asked a Spanish Bishop to preside at it, and that Spanish bishop, in a galactic moment of forgetfulness, agreed to take the case, and 300 more galactically forgetful bishops attended to review the matter that was already formally, officially, canonically and ecclesiastically settled, including two galactically forgetful Roman presbyters who—apparently by their thunderous silence—objected to the invalid usurpation of Roman Primacy, and then to register their vehement, but silent, objection with Hancockian flair, signed the synodical letter right under Hosius’ signature.
In short, nobody appears to have been aware of the significance of the improprieties being committed by all parties—Julius for sending his sententiam to Constans, Constans for not bowing in obeisance before it, Hosius for accepting the office of president at a council that usurped Roman Primacy, and 300 bishops for convening to judge a decision by the highest court in the land knowing full well that it was unlawful to do so, but presumably unaware of the Petrine dictum that it is better to obey God than man. That only applied, apparently, when it was not a life-and-death matter, in which case it is better to obey the emperor than Rome.
What is missing in the above recitation of the Bobbian hypothesis of Roman Primacy is any indigenous perception of Roman Primacy in any of the parties to the dispute. What is missing from your attempts to construct a Roman Primacy out of the proceedings leading up to Sardica is that none of the parties appear to be aware of the Roman Primacy that you believe was central to the cohesion of the Church. All the data is simply interpreted as if Roman Primacy was an established fact. The very attempt to recast all violations of Roman Primacy as usurpations demonstrates the futility of trying to find it. You cannot simultaneously claim that Rome had the primacy, and that primacy was universally usurped, and that Hosius, 300 bishops, and the Roman primate himself were all complicit in the usurpation. At some point it all collapses in upon itself as the ridiculous farce that it is. Either Rome had the primacy or it did not. It is quite clear from history that Rome did not.
In any case, the best case you can make for post-Nicene Roman primacy prior to 380 A.D. requires that the most pressing and relevant contemporary judicial matter—Constantine’s appellate reforms—be ignored. That is why I like to say, “To be deep in history is to cease to be Roman Catholic.” (hat tip: Newman).
As to your question about the Chair of St. Peter, I don’t know where the construct occurs in Scripture. Can you show me? Whatever it is, and whoever sits in it, I’m sure that in your mind it is sufficiently authoritative and Roman Catholic to discredit this blog, but not sufficiently authoritative and Roman Catholic for you to submit to it/him and cast aside your rebellious methodism and fly to seat of Roman Primacy that you so inconsistently defend.
The term “chair,” “throne” or “cathedra/æ” in the Early church had a geographic element to it as well as an apostolic element. Thus the cathedræ of the apostles could be distributed everywhere, but the chair of Peter could be said to have been in Rome. But in Antioch, too, since Ignatius was the first actual successor to Peter (Chrysostom). The fact that John’s apostolic chair in Asia was sufficient grounds upon which Peter’s geographic one could be rejected is clear from Polycrate’s (and Irenæus’) rejection of Victor’s excommunication of the Asian bishops. Cyprian saw himself to be in the chair of St. Peter, and he saw Carthage as derivative, but not subordinate, to Rome since the Carthaginian church was a mission of the Roman Church. Thus, the error of Felicissimus in Carthage was considered an attack on the Chair of St. Peter, because it was an attack on Cyprian’s bishopric, and Cyprian meanwhile had no problem instructing, admonishing and correcting the Church of Rome from St. Peter’s chair in Carthage. That’s the apostolic element. Aphrahat echoed this the next century when he said that all bishops were successors of St. Peter. That’s a Petrine primacy so geographically distributed that there is simply no primal Roman element to be found in it. As I have pointed out in my series on the invisibly shepherded church, Cyprian and Firmilian believed that they could be in unity with the Chair of St. Peter even if they were out of union with Stephen, and that the bishop of Rome himself could be outside of the Petrine unity of the Church. Thus, it is clear that the Early Church did not assign primacy to Rome, or assign the Petrine cathedra, in a strictly apostolic sense, to the bishop there, even if geographically the “chair” can be said to have been in Rome.
I know that may be too nuanced for you, since it is based on history and not on Rome’s fanciful revisionism, but if you are looking for a cathedral, Roman, Petrine primacy in the early church, you simply will not find it. It was a late 4th century novelty.
Thanks,
Tim
TIM–
So many words, so little understanding. Does it not give you pause that the Emperors broke their own rules by conceding to call a council instead of sending the troublemakers back to appeal their case properly? That’s why it’s called FUBAR. The Emperors had to stick their noses where they didn’t belong and consequently the Arian heresy lasted much longer than it should have.
Or do you think everything went just like it should have? No Seat of Peter to hold things together so the Church had to just hope the Empire knew what was best for them, right?
Are you going to answer my questions or what?
Bob, it is true that I am a man of little understanding. There is much that I do not know or understand. For one, I do not understand your conciliar ecclesiology. If I understand you correctly, Rome (313 A.D.) was a hybrid council, called by the emperor, and not purely ecclesial. Only 18 bishops, so it does not count as being ecumencial or purely ecclesial. Arles (314 A.D.) was also a hybrid, and it ratified Rome (313) but what does it mean if a hybrid ratifies a hybrid? Nicæa (325 A.D.) was a hybrid, and it was ratified by subsequent ecumenical councils but Rome did not preside. So that can’t count for Roman Primacy. Rome presided at Rome (342 A.D.), and even though it was not a hybrid, it made the mistake of acting like one, and submitted its decision to the emperor for ratification—apparently even the Pope was unaware that he was being complicit in his own usurpation. Then there is Sardica (343 A.D.), almost as big as Nicæa, and it pulled in a trifecta—called by an emperor, presided over by a Spaniard who presumed to usurp Rome’s authority by standing in judgment of her decision, after which the Spaniard sent his analysis of Rome’s decision to the Emperor for ratification. After which Athanasius’ acquittal was finally official. So it sounds like the only “authentic” Church Council in the period was actually self-discrediting because it submitted its “final” decision to the Emperor for approval, and when it was ratified, it was ratified by a usurping hybrid council. And the chaos that resulted is simultaneously evidence of actual primacy (that should have prevented the chaos) and the need for primacy (that would have prevented the chaos).
As I said above, universal usurpation of primacy is not evidence of primacy. It is evidence that there was no primacy.
But for some reason you are satisfied with the parallel and conflicting defenses of early Roman primacy: that the constant usurpations of primacy prove that there was primacy to be usurped, and the disorder caused by the continual usurpation of Roman primacy showed the necessity of a strong central episcopate that later emerged in Rome. You and I actually agree that the strong central episcopacy made its appearance some time after the council of Sardica, not before. You’re a little sketchy on the details of how that primacy manifested before 380 A.D., though. As I recall, what started this conversation was my analysis of Rome’s sketchy details of early Roman primacy, and unable to produce any, you ask whether Constantine’s office authorized him to call councils, or what St. Peter’s Chair might mean, and whether Constantine would have submitted to Peter if he was alive and still sitting in it. You may not be aware of the belief in Petrine Succession, but Rome’s claims of Papal Primacy are based on the idea that Peter IS currently sitting in his chair in the person of the current pope. Your question of whether Constantine would have submitted to St. Peter if St. Peter was still sitting in St. Peter’s Chair is unnecessary if there was truly something like papal primacy at the time of Constantine. The fact that Constantine didn’t is evidence that the alleged primacy did not exist at the time—which is the point of this conversation and this series.
You asked,
I don’t know what you mean. Perhaps you can tell me which rule was broken and when they broke it.
You continued,
Do you mean that the Emperor should not have summoned the council of Nicæa? Do you mean to suggest that because Nicæa was a hybrid, it made the Arian heresy last longer than it should have? Perhaps you mean that Rome should have taken the lead instead of letting the emperor do it. And somehow Rome’s abdication of its primacy will be offered as evidence that there was primacy to abdicate. The problem is that there was no history upon which the bishops of Rome could build such a case for primacy. Just ask Anicetus, Eleutherius, Victor, Zephyrinus, Callistus, Stephen and Melchiades.
You continued,
You must not have read my series on the Invisibly Shepherded Church. The Early Church was not looking for Rome to hold things together for them.
I’ve been down this path before, Bob. Many times. You may have noticed that the theme of this series has been to refute Rome’s claims of early Roman Primacy based on actual data. The purpose is not to hypothesize about whether there should have been Roman Primacy, or the hypothetical benefits of a primacy had it emerged earlier than it did, or to speculate on how much worse it would have been had the imperceptible Roman Primacy not been universally, usurped, abdicated and rejected. The purpose is to evaluate the data and determine whether Rome’s case of early Roman primacy is valid. After the apostolic era, Rome begins its case with Clement of Rome giving advice to Corinth. Even you, Rome’s most vocal advocate here, know that hardly suffices as proof of primacy. Bryan Cross says Ignatius’ “tone” in his letter to Rome betrays an early primacy. Then there’s Irenæus, and Rome’s entire case is based on a mistranslation of a barbaric Latin translation of a Greek original in which Irenæus is recounting the times the surrounding bishops have had to come to Rome to correct the heresy being tolerated and sometimes underwritten by her bishop. Then we get to Cyprian, and Rome is reduced to making a case for the primacy of the Petrine Chair from a bishop who insisted that the Petrine unity of the Church sometimes required that the Church separate from the Bishop of Rome. Then we get to Sardica, and Rome’s case for primacy comes from a Roman Council that obediently submitted its decision to the Emperor who rejected it and summoned another council that stood in judgment of and modified the decision of a Roman Council, forwarded that decision to the Emperor and who then ratified it and acquitted Athanasius.
That is not a strong case for Early Roman primacy, Bob. If you have countervailing evidence, please provide it.
Because you do not have countervailing evidence, you are reduced to speculation on alternate universes and alternate histories about whether Constantine would have and should have submitted to St. Peter if he had still been alive in Rome sitting in his “chair.” That is a typical Roman Catholic tactic. The lack of evidence requires that you substantiate your position hypothetically.
My opinion on what authority Constantine had to call councils, or my view on what a hypothetical “Chair of St. Peter” might signify, or who might hypothetically sit on it, is a diversion. We are talking about early Roman primacy, and you have no evidence for it.
Thanks,
Tim
Tim,
Is this some sort of ambush? Is the guy just pretending to be gone? Is he going to jump out from behind the curtains and yell, “smuggler!” any minute now?
I don’t know what you two are up to but something smells mighty fishy.
I’m gettin’ outa’ here. Something ain’t right. I am going back to lurking where it is safe. Maybe I will head over to C2C and smoke Kelvin out from behind his “Junior” mask. ( He thinks by shaving his mustache, putting on a clean shirt and clicking on his spell-check he can fool me. No way. I know him like the back of my hand ).
I thought for sure he would have come slinking back here. So, what have you done with him, Tim?
Tim, CK, Bob,
Kelvin found me.
https://apologeticsandagape.wordpress.com/2015/05/25/purgatory-refuted/#comment-1602
JIM–
Ken’s FUNNY! Falloniuos Trolloniuos, is that Latin, too?
Bob,
I just made it up. I considered Balonious Fallonious too.
What happened? Tim and the troll didn’t have a falling out, did they?
Tim,
I started to read one of your articles but couldn’t get into it. Your articles are a cross between The Da Vinci Code and Trail of Blood with a sprinkling of Dave Hunt, Jack Chick and Hyslop for color.
You have just enough real history, dates and real characters to hook the gullible. In order to refute whatever you said, I would have to take the time to wade through it. I just don’t think I can get into it. Too much work.
TIM–
You ask: “What does that look like… for church authorities to ratify decisions on church matters?”
To define them as doctrine or dogma to be binding on the whole Church–holding fast to that which is good.
I am answering your questions, now answer mine.
1) So what is your definition of the Chair of Peter? Obviously it existed to the early church. Who is seated in the Chair of Peter?
2) If Peter was still sitting in the Chair of Peter, would you question his authority? Do you think Constantine would have?
3) Do you believe that Constantine, who held no office in the Church, had the genuine authority to call an ecumenical council on Church matters? Up until the time of Nicaea, did the early church let secular governments call the shots on church business? If not, then what changed?
4) Concerning Sardica, why was it a failure and who declared it as such?
Jim,
Well, thanks for trying. 🙂
Tim
Tim,
Nice to see you have taken your blog back and are doing your own dirty work.
But the 64 dollar question is, WHY? I thought you two were like Abbot and Costello, Roy Rogers and Gabby Hayes, Jerry Lewis and Dean Martin, Sgt Preston and Yukon King or even Timmy and Lassie.
Maybe more like the windmill tilting Don Quixote and Sancho Panza. OOPS! They were Catholic. So were Cisco and Pancho.
That leaves just the Sorcerer and his Apprentice.
Wild Bill Hickock and Jingle Bells? Corky and Jumbo? Starsky and Hutch?
DOCTOR FRANKENSTEIN AND IGOR!
C’mon Tim, what happened?
Tim,
Never mind. Kevin has told all. You caved in to pressure from Romanists. But he still likes you and promotes your blog.
You know, don’t you, that Kevin single handedly shut down CCC? All the mackeral snappers in the world were no match for one indefatiguable Falloni. He took over and couldn’t be pried out. Like a pit bull, he hung on until all Jason could do was put his blog down like a sick animal.
Now he has moved on to another blog and set up camp. He is there to stay and has hung out his shingle. Like the parasite he is, he has found another host to infest.
Jim,
I’m not privy to the inner workings of Creed Code Cult. Thanks for stopping by.
Tim
TIM–
You said: “My opinion on what authority Constantine had to call councils, or my view on what a hypothetical “Chair of St. Peter” might signify, or who might hypothetically sit on it, is a diversion. We are talking about early Roman primacy, and you have no evidence for it.”
I knew it! I knew you wouldn’t answer my questions and your diversion is claiming they are a diversion. You are so wrapped up in the details of your agenda that it has blinded you from the big picture. Rome was the Apostolic See from when Peter established his Chair. What hasn’t been recorded in the writings of the Fathers speaks volumes.
If Rome was just another see as the others, why all the ado about Rome?
If Rome was such the troublemaker that you say the writings actually say, then why did the rest of the Church let it happen?
There was no Roman Bishop excommunicated for heresy.
There was no Roman Bishop deposed and replaced by another.
The ones who did unofficially claim the position were deemed anti-popes and eventually deposed.
There are no writings that suggest the Apostolic See of Peter was ever removed from Rome. Constantinople was deemed second to Rome in primacy. It wasn’t Carthage. It wasn’t Alexandria. It wasn’t Jerusalem, Ephesus, or Antioch. It was Rome established as the Apostolic See of the Chair of Peter.
Sure, they all shared in the Apostolic See. That’s what it means to be in communion with the Pope. And to this day, the Eastern Church acknowledges that Rome is the Apostolic See of Peter.
Only us Protestants don’t see it that way. Yet not one Protestant denomination can claim the Chair of Peter. We act like it doesn’t exist anymore. We have Holy Scripture and that is enough. We are “biblical”! Yes, we are so biblical, that it is enough to divide us into 20,000 plus denominations– divided on baptism, divided on communion, divided on contraception and abortion, divided on divorce and homosexuality, divided on whether or not to have musical instruments in worship service, etc,etc. And in spite of all that, what we can say we have in common is that “at least we are not Roman Catholic!”
You say the Roman Church is nothing like the Early Church. Well, go figger– by reading the writings of the Anti-Nicene Fathers, neither is the Reformed Church.
Thanks, Bob,
You wrote,
If you say so.
If my “agenda” is to read history in its native context, you are right. I am “wrapped up in the details.” There are many details that Rome likes to suppress in order to convince people like you that she has primacy, continuity and apostolicity. She has none of these.
Here you assert as fact that which is your duty to prove. What is your evidence of this? You are backloading 1,700 years of Roman propaganda into the definition of the term. As I have already showed you, Firmilian and Cyprian believed that it was sometimes necessary to separate from Rome in order to maintain the Petrine Unity of the Church. I have also showed you that Aphrahat believed that all bishops were successors of St. Peter, and he was writing to the Eastern Bishops. I have already showed you that Tertullian believed that the cathedræ apostolorum were “still pre-eminent in their places, in which their own authentic writings are read, uttering the voice and representing the face of each of them severally” (Tertullian, Prescription Against Heretics, chapter 32). How can you say that there was pre-eminence in Rome if all the chairs were pre-eminent in their places? Your assertion is simply a restatement of your hypothesis as fact. You need to prove such things, not merely assert them.
Yes, that is true. Rome’s case for Roman Primacy from the Early Church Fathers is based on evidence not contained in their writings. You continued,
Because “the mystery of iniquity doth already work…” (2 Thessalonians 2:7)
You continued,
Because that is what the apostles and prophets told us would happen:
You wrote,
Again, you are affirming as fact what it is your duty to prove. They all shared apostolicity. That is what it means to be in communion with each other, collegially, fraternally and universally. The whole primacy thing is an anachronism against which the collected data of the early church writings militate strongly—not with silence, but with actual words:
Here are just two examples:
There are many more besides these.
But aside from that, these guys were totally on board with cathedral Roman papal primacy.. I can understand why you, and all of Rome with you, must make your case from what the Early Church Fathers didn’t say.
Thanks,
Tim
TIM–
You said, “Here you assert as fact that which is your duty to prove. What is your evidence of this? You are backloading 1,700 years of Roman propaganda into the definition of the term. As I have already showed you, Firmilian and Cyprian believed that it was sometimes necessary to separate from Rome in order to maintain the Petrine Unity of the Church.”
See? That is what I am saying. You are so wrapped up in disproving the Petrine Seat in Rome that you read right over what is evidence to prove it. Why would Firmilian and Cyprian think it was sometimes necessary to separate from Rome if Rome didn’t have it in the first place?!!! Why did Cyprian acknowledge the seat of Peter in the Roman See at all if it didn’t have it?!!!
The way you see it, Cyprian would not have separated himself from Rome, but instead separated Steven and the Roman See from the Seat of Peter in Carthage by excommunication. That didn’t happen because he had no singular authority to do so.
You also asked: “How can you say that there was pre-eminence in Rome if all the chairs were pre-eminent in their places?
Chairs of who? Peter? Where did you read that? Tertullian is talking about the other apostles. Why is it that no one seems to list names of successive bishops from Andrew? Or the lines of succession from:
James the son of Zebedee, and John his brother;
Philip and Bartholomew;
Thomas and Matthew the tax collector;
James the son of Alphaeus, and Thaddaeus;
Simon the Zealot, and of course Matthias who took Judas Iscariat’s place?
And why is it that no one seems to say anything about the Seat of Paul? Surely with his strength of apostleship someone would claim a succession of bishops from Paul. Half of the New Testament was written by Paul. That should give him the credentials for a line of bishops in succession from the Seat of Paul at the Basilica of Saint Paul Outside the Walls in Rome , wouldn’t you say?
But it didn’t happen that way. You are making your assertions on history by your interpretations of what you read in the letters and calling it authentic history. That is like reading “The Authentic Life of Billy the Kid” by Pat Garrett with no regard for poetic license and asserting it as the “authentic” history.
And you said: “Yes, that is true. Rome’s case for Roman Primacy from the Early Church Fathers is based on evidence not contained in their writings. You continued,
“If Rome was just another see as the others, why all the ado about Rome?”
Because “the mystery of iniquity doth already work…” (2 Thessalonians 2:7)
See? That was simply and assertion on your part with no basis in history whatsoever, just a bible quote that you applied to your view of history–sauce for the goose.
And you said after quoting Hippolytus and Cyprian, who were in error when Rome was not: “But aside from that, these guys were totally on board with cathedral Roman papal primacy. . I can understand why you, and all of Rome with you, must make your case from what the Early Church Fathers didn’t say.”
Of course, Hippolytus and Cyprian thought they were right and Rome was wrong when they wrote those things. But they were not. They were in error. The Seat of Peter does not belong to those who are in error when it comes to defining matters of faith and morals. That does not exonerate Steven for his shortness of temper, but his behaviour does not remove him from the Seat of Peter.
So I shall add a bible verse too–
Mat 23:2 ff The teachers of religious law and the Pharisees are the official interpreters of the law of Moses. So practice and obey whatever they tell you, but don’t follow their example. For they don’t practice what they teach.”
Steven may have aggravated Cyprian, but he did not teach anyone error.
Bob, you wrote,
What would it look like if a bishop had the singular authority to do so?
You continued, quoting me:
You asked me why there was so much ado about Rome, as if the “ado” about Rome somehow supported her claims for primacy. That is the fatal flaw of your assessment of history. I simply answered your question. You evaluate history, and make a judgment based on your analysis of history. Rome sure seemed like it was at the center of things (so you say), and that must prove that Rome was important, and therefore central, and therefore the pre-eminent, and therefore the strong central episcopate that governed the early church, resulting in such chaos and disorder that Rome eventually had to step in and take the reins that she had presumably been holding the whole time.
But if you start with Scripture, and the warning from Scripture of the rise of the Church’s nemesis from within the Church, you notice that Rome tries over and over and over to exert primacy, only to get swatted back down. Until one day, she exerts her primacy, and it’s almost as if an obstacle had been removed — suddenly Rome’s claims for primacy are no longer the laughingstock on three continents, but she is actually taken seriously in her carnal ambitions. Just as the Scripture foretold:
You may think that is just sauce for the goose, but you have to admit—the Scripture does warn of an antagonist rising from the fragments of the Roman Empire, and that those fragments were to occur sequentially right after the apostolic era, and this fact from Scriptures was not lost on the early church that was quite convinced that the rise of Antichrist must be soon upon them (see What the Fathers Feared Most), and many of them had no conception that Nero was that Antichrist of scripture’s warning. You have to start from the Scriptures and assess history through that lens. You are stumbling into the common error of reading Scripture through the lens of history and interpreting Scripture accordingly. It goes like this: “My view of history requires that Roman Catholicism be accepted as the Church Christ founded. Let us now turn to the Scriptures and find out which church we are to submit to—ah, there it is! Roman Catholicism!” That is just bait for the trap that awaits you in Rome.
You ought rather to have a history that is read through the lens of Scripture, and it goes like this: “Many years have now gone since the last apostles wrote to us, and their consistent warning was to watch out for the rise of Antichrist that cannot be far away. Daniel said it would take place when the Iron empire began to be fragmented and here the Iron Empire is now upon us (so the Fathers wrote), and Paul warned that the mystery of iniquity was already at work, and that eventually the thing that was preventing his emergence would be removed, and when it was removed the Man of Sin would be revealed, and sure enough, there was something at work preventing Rome from realizing her claims of primacy, but eventually she emerged in primal splendour—sure some churches resisted at first, but eventually everyone capitulated. Rome struggled and struggled and struggled for primacy and pre-eminence and finally emerged with her claim of primacy, and even though some churches insisted for a time that they rule along with her, they all eventually gave in.”
By your reading of history, that must make Rome the strong central episcopate of the Church, and that is why I say that your approach is just bait for the trap. Take that approach, and you walk right into the arms of Antichrist. Start with Scripture, and suddenly Paul’s warnings in 2 Thessalonians make a lot more sense, and so does John’s: “And the ten horns which thou sawest are ten kings, which have received no kingdom as yet; but receive power as kings one hour with the beast. These have one mind, and shall give their power and strength unto the beast.” (Revelation 17:12-13).
In any case, your objection seems inappropriate to me—as you seem to object on the grounds that I decided that Rome was Antichrist and read Scripture accordingly. That is not true. I did not believe Rome was Antichrist until someone showed me the truth from the Scriptures. But you, by your own acknowledgment, have decided by your interpretation of History that Rome must be that one church, and you consistently go the Scriptures to support the claim. In other words, you are doing what you accuse me of doing, and I am not doing that of which you accuse me.
In any case, you asked, “Why all the ado about Rome?” as if that exonerated Rome. You asked, “Why did all the churches cast their lot in with Rome?” as if that exonerated Rome. You asked, “Why did Rome eventually emerge pre-eminent?” as if that exonerated Rome. To the contrary, it shows that Rome can do no other than what she has been foreordained to do. She is to be pitied, not admired.
You continued,
Don’t forget, Polycrates, Polycarp, Irenæus, Firmilian, Tertullian and Eusebius. You don’t suppose they were on to something, do you?
You continued,
That’s terrific. On what occasions has the bishop of Rome spoken from the Seat of Peter? The bishop of Rome’s role of “defining matters of faith and morals” is so important to the Church that nobody can list the times that he has done so? That’s one special seat, Bob.
Thanks,
Tim
TIM–
You said: “But if you start with Scripture, and the warning from Scripture of the rise of the Church’s nemesis from within the Church, you notice that Rome tries over and over and over to exert primacy, only to get swatted back down.”
But that is not what you are doing. You are starting with the assumption that the pope is the anti-Christ and then applying Scripture to that end. If you do that, then there are many things in history that fit. Many before you have done it. Just ask the preterists or the premillennial dispensationalists. As the old saying goes, “if you torture the data long enough, you can make it confess to anything”. And Scripture itself is not immune to that either. Just ask 20,000+ different Protestant denominations what Scripture says or even just the definition of Sola Scriptura.
Well my goodness, Mr. Copernicus! This may very well be the beginnings of the Kauffmanist movement. If you get enough followers, your writings can go down in the annals of Church history. Kauffmanism!
Whaddayaknow ’bout that. I could tell my great grandkids “Heck yeah, I was there!”
TIM–
You asked: “On what occasions has the bishop of Rome spoken from the Seat of Peter? The bishop of Rome’s role of “defining matters of faith and morals” is so important to the Church that nobody can list the times that he has done so? That’s one special seat, Bob.”
The Bishop of Rome has spoken from the Chair of Peter hundreds if not thousands of times. People just cannot agree which of those statements fall under the doctrine of papal infallibility.
Tim, you confessed that you believe in apostolic succession. So did the Early Church Fathers.
They also believed in the Chair of Peter and the apostolic succession of that position.
If not the Bishop of Rome, then who do you believe is seated in that position now?
Bob,
You wrote,
Bob, in Rome, all statements from the chair are “infallible.” The problem is not that Catholics don’t know which ex cathedra (from the chair) statements are infallible. The problem is that they don’t know which statements are ex cathedra.
You seem to believe that all statements of the pope are ex cathedra, which is a misrepresentation of Roman Catholicism. See When Does the Pope Speak Infallibly? at Canon Law Made Easy for more information. They say the pope has only spoken from the chair twice. Why should I accept your position (hundreds or thousands of times) instead of theirs (two), or instead of all the other private interpretations about how many times the pope has spoken from the chair?
In any case, you asked,
You’re asking this as if the Early Church Fathers defined the Chair of St. Peter the way you do or the way Rome does today. If Cyprian of Carthage thought he was sitting in it, and Aphrahat thought all bishops were sitting in it collegially and fraternally, it’s a sure sign they didn’t define it the way you do. You have simply restated your assumption in the form of a question: “the Early Church Fathers believed about the chair of St. Peter the way Roman Catholicism currently does.” But you have not proven that they did.
Thanks,
Tim
Bob,
An interesting aside is the case of the Bolsheviks wiping out the Czar’s family.
Moscow was the 3rd and final Rome. When Constantinople, the 2nd Rome, fell, the scepter passed to the Russian Church.
The Czar was head of that Church and was the only one who could call a council. When the Commies liquidate his family, they knew they were putting an end to the Russian Orthodox Church as no more councils can ever again be called for that Church.
JIM–
You said: “When Constantinople, the 2nd Rome, fell, the scepter passed to the Russian Church.”
But that was only the secular sceptre, and it was disputed by the Holy Roman Empire. The Greek Orthodox Church remained in Constantinople, although they did not call any ecumenical councils, only local ones. The Roman Catholic Church seems to be the only one that calls ecumenical councils–13 recognized after the original 7. And yet they are only recognized by Catholics and nobody else.
It was interesting looking into the fall of Constantinople and the rise of the “Third Rome.” Thanks for that little tid-bit of history. However, I am prone to believe history from the encyclopaedia and not some unaccepted alternative history from some obscure source. Example: I tend to believe the Warren Commission’s report over Oliver Stone’s JFK.