Roman Catholic Erick Ybarra is well known for his work defending the papacy in church history. He has many debates on the subject. In 2019, on the Reason and Theology YouTube channel, Erick Ybarra was in a Google video meeting with the host, Michael Lofton. This was in the same video where he had the big/famous discussion with Orthodox apologist Jay Dyer. Earlier in the livestream though, Mr. Ybarra commented that Pope Felix's excommunication of Acacius was a clear example in church history of the authority of the bishop of Rome. In this article, I will demonstrate otherwise.
Background: This is takes place in the 5th century AD. This is during the reign of Emperor Zeno, a key figure in this historical situation. Zeno issued a document known as the Henoticon, which tried to reconcile the Monophysites and the orthodox in the church. Acacius, the current patriarch of Constantinople, entered into communion with Peter Mongus, the monophysite bishop of Alexandria (some sources he later put Mongus' name in the diptychs). Rome, on the other hand opposed the Henoticon, especially since John Talaia had appealed to Rome on the issues as well. Eventually, Pope Felix III excommunicated Acacius, who responded by removing Felix's name from the diptychs. All of this led to what is known as the Acacian schism between East and West, which lasted for thirty-five years. Even after Acacius had died, the East still continued to resist against Rome. In order for communion between the two churches to be restored, Rome wanted the East to agree with them in condemning Acacius, specifically by removing his name from their diptychs. The East's continual resistance to Rome is especially evident in the actions of Euphemius, the successor of Flavitas (who was the immediate successor of Acacius). Euphemius held a synod at Constantinople, confirming the decrees of Chalcedon. He also got rid of Felix's name in the diptychs. Eventually, the Acacian schism ended by political interference, along with getting rid of several names from the diptychs.
RC apologists' basic claim from this situation is that it proves the universal jurisdiction of the bishop of Rome. More specifically, that Rome's universal jurisdiction is from antiquity. However, we see the exact opposite when we look at the amount of opposition made by the East against Rome after Acacius had been deposed by Felix.
The historian Thomas Greenwood, said the following:
"But up to this point of time the bishops of Rome had not ventured upon any such startling- exercise and of the arbitrary jurisdiction claimed under that authority as that assumed by Pope Felix III. in the case before us. Though his predecessors had frequently secluded refractor bishops of other dioceses from their own communion and that of the churches properly subject to their own domestic jurisdiction ; yet up to this point of time we do not know of any instance in which, by their own mere authority independent of episcopal or canonical assent, they had ventured to cast out the meanest individual from the bosom of the Church catholic, much less to degrade a brother patriarch from all spiritual rank and function without so much as a locus poenitentiee.'* In all the more important acts done by them in the exercise of their presumed visitatorial powers, we have been accustomed to see the provincial and diocesan synods established by the " holiest of councils" treated with some degree of respect. No bishop of Rome had hitherto ventured to substitute his own despotic fiat, attested only by the signatures of a packed committee of his Italian dependents, for those deliberative and responsible bodies to which the public law of the Church had consigned the trial of spiritual offenders." (Thomas Greenwood, Cathedra Petri: A Political History of the Great Latin Patriarchate - Books III, IV, & V, pgs. 33-34, source)
However, I think the most interesting thing which disproves the Roman Catholic argument is a letter written by Felix's successor, Gelasius I (talking about the Acacian schism):
"But as for Euphemius, who says that Acacius could not have been condemned by one person, I am surprised if he does not realise his own ignorance himself. Yes, does he not realise that Acacius was condemned according to the formula of the synod of Chalcedon? Does he not know, or is he pretending not to know? By that formula particularly it is agreed that the instigators of Acacius' error were condemned by a majority vote of bishops just as a clear consideration of events shows to have been done and is being done in the case of every single heresy from the beginning of the Christian religion, and that my predecessor was appointed executor of the old ordinance, not the instigator of a new regulation. It is permissible not only for an apostolic leader but for every pontiff to separate from catholic communion whomsoever they like and whatever place they like, according to the rule of the very heresy that has previously been condemned. Indeed, Acacius was not the inventor of a new or personal error, such that new decrees should be uttered against him, but got himself implicated in another's crime by communicating with him." (Pope Gelasius, Letter 10, from B. Neil, P. Allen, The Letters of Gelasius I (492-496) [Brepols 2014])
No comments:
Post a Comment