Roman Catholic apologists often appeal to alleged Eastern appeals to Rome or situations where they allegedly recognized Roman authority in order to support the claims of the papacy and the Roman Catholic Church.
One such example is in the formula of Pope Hormisdas. The document of Vatican I known as Pastor Aeternas appealed to it. So the appeals of Rome to this document are not new in any way shape or form. Papalists love this document as support for their claims.
Here is the text of the formula, with emphasis on the parts which Roman Catholic apologists put special attention on:
"The first condition of salvation is to keep the norm of the true faith and in no way to deviate from the established doctrine of the Fathers. For it is impossible that the words of our Lord Jesus Christ, who said, "Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church," [Matthew 16:18], should not be verified. And their truth has been proved by the course of history, for in the Apostolic See the Catholic religion has always been kept unsullied. From this hope and faith we by no means desire to be separated and, following the doctrine of the Fathers, we declare anathema all heresies, and, especially, the heretic Nestorius, former bishop of Constantinople, who was condemned by the Council of Ephesus, by Blessed Celestine, bishop of Rome, and by the venerable Cyril, bishop of Alexandria. We likewise condemn and declare to be anathema Eutyches and Dioscoros of Alexandria, who were condemned in the holy Council of Chalcedon, which we follow and endorse. This Council followed the holy Council of Nicaea and preached the apostolic faith. And we condemn the assassin Timothy, surnamed Aelurus ["the Cat"] and also Peter [Mongos] of Alexandria, his disciple and follower in everything. We also declare anathema their helper and follower, Acacius of Constantinople, a bishop once condemned by the Apostolic See, and all those who remain in contact and company with them. Because this Acacius joined himself to their communion, he deserved to receive a judgment of condemnation similar to theirs. Furthermore, we condemn Peter ["the Fuller""] of Antioch with all his followers together with the followers of all those mentioned above. Following, as we have said before, the Apostolic See in all things and proclaiming all its decisions, we endorse and approve all the letters which Pope St Leo wrote concerning the Christian religion. And so I hope I may deserve to be associated with you in the one communion which the Apostolic See proclaims, in which the whole, true, and perfect security of the Christian religion resides. I promise that from now on those who are separated from the communion of the Catholic Church, that is, who are not in agreement with the Apostolic See, will not have their names read during the sacred mysteries. But if I attempt even the least deviation from my profession, I admit that, according to my own declaration, I am an accomplice to those whom I have condemned. I have signed this, my profession, with my own hand, and I have directed it to you, Hormisdas, the holy and venerable pope of Rome." (taken from different sources: [1] [2] [3])
The Reply of John II of Constantinople
The famous response of both EO and Protestants to the Roman Catholic appeal to this formula of Hormisdas (and the Eastern bishops' signing of it) is to point out what John II, the patriarch of Constantinople, said in response to Pope Hormisdas:
": ‘Know therefore, most holy one, that according as I have written to you, agreeing in the truth with thee, I, too, loving peace, renounce all the heretics repudiated by thee: for I hold that the most holy churches of God, that is yours of Elder Rome and this of New Rome, are one; I define the See of the Apostle Peter and this of the Imperial city to be one See.’...I assent to all the acts of the four General Councils— Nicaea, Constantinople, Ephesus, and Chalcedon—touching the confirmation of the faith and the constitution of the Church, and I suffer no disturbance of their wise decisions, for I know that such as attempt to interfere with a single tittle of their decrees have fallen away from the Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church of God.’" (PL 63:443-445)
There are two main things to notice here:
1) John II views Rome and Constantinople as "one See" (Latin: unam esse)
2) He says that he affirms the acts of the four ecumenical councils, including Chalcedon, which would obviously include canon 28 which gives Constantinople similar authority that the church of rome has.
The scholar and historian Karl F. Morrison says the following in his book Tradition and Authority in the Western Church:
"The reconciliation which Hormisdas and Justin effected did not, however, lead to a general conversion of eastern clergy to Roman ecclesiology. Even the letters of John of Constantinople showed how far acceptance of Roman ecclesiology was from being an integral part of the reunion. John professed to hold the doctrine of the most holy Apostles according to the tradition of the holy Fathers, and, in token of that, to restore the name of Leo to the diptychs and add Hormisdas's name. But in the very letter in which he subscribed to the anathematization of Nestorius and Acacius, each referred to as "once bishop of the city of Constantinople," and affirmed that he followed in all things the Apostolic See and preached what was decreed by it, he placed a severe qualification on his oath by one sentence: "I accept," he wrote, "the most holy churches of God—that is your elder and this new Rome —and I judge the see of the Apostle Peter and of this august city to be one." John might well rejoice at the reunion, "understanding that both churches, that of the elder and that of the new Rome, are one, and judging that there is rightly one see between them both." A synod of Constantinople under Epiphanius, John's successor, could likewise without scruple take satisfaction in the peace restored between the two Romes. For no point had been sacrificed of the ecclesiology which Acacius gave practical meaning, the doctrine which asserted that Constantinople was the peer of Rome. Epiphanius could write to Hormisdas in good conscience that he wished to be united with the pope, since nothing was more precious than the divine teachings which had been handed down from the disciples and Apostles of God, especially to the See of St. Peter, the chief of the Apostles; for to his mind the reconciliation had not changed the proper hierarchic order of the Church. Neither John nor Epiphanius were of one mind with Hormisdas in understanding Christ's commission to St. Peter. They understood the critical verse of St. Matthew in the general fashion implicit in a letter of Syriac and Palestinian clergy to Justinian, the fashion long before grown conventional among eastern exegetes. For them, St. Peter was the representative and the first spokesman of the Church's true confession, not the first bishop of one particular see, and, in claiming that Constantinople and Rome were one see, John of Constantinople gave an important hierarchic cast to this thought. He undercut Hormisdas's ecclesiology with the premise that his see and Rome were, not equal, but identical." (Karl F. Morrison, Tradition and Authority in the Western Church: 300-1140, pgs. 115-116)
The high position of the patriarch of Constantinople is further recognized by a few other facts:
1) A synod at Constantinople in 518 gave the Constantinopolitan patriarch the title of Ecumenical patriarch (Mansi, 8.645)
2) "The Bishops of Syria Secunda, in a Synod held under the presidency of Bishop Cyrus of Mariamna, in reply to the Synodal letter of the Council just mentioned, addressed him as their ‘most holy Lord’ and ‘Father of Fathers and Ecumenical Patriarch.’" (Edward Denny, Papalism, pg. 308). The original source is Mansi 8.1093.
3) A similar high title was given to the Patriarch of Constantinople by a patriarch named Mennas in a letter from a Constantinopolitan Synod in AD 536, summoning Anthimus to the synod (Mansi 8.960).
4) Justinian at one point even refers to Constantinople as "the head of all churches" (Corpus Juris Civilis Romani, vol. 2, pg. 36) the same way as he does to Rome (Corpus Juris Civilis Romani, vol. 2, pg. 30). He also sanctioned the 28th canon of Chalcedon elsewhere (Corpus Juris Civilis Romani, vol. 2, pg. 622)
No comments:
Post a Comment