www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West Orthodox Steps to Reunion

I think that some Orthodox would rather go with the Council of Carthage in 418 and Canon 17. :-)

http://www.seanmultimedia.com/Pie_Council_Of_Carthage_May_1_418.html

What is interesting is that two Ecumenical Councils and two Popes ratified these canons of Carthage.

1. The Ecumenical Council of Ephesus which was ratified by Pope Saint Celestine I
2. The Ecumenical Council of Nicea II which was ratified by Pope Hadrian.

Dearest Father Ambrose,

You miss and confuse the obvious and the implied relevance of the circumstances of Sardica and the Canons of Carthage.
Sardican recognized the bishop of Rome's prerogative to be last court of appeal for bishops.
Carthage did not contradict Sardica. Carthage only forbade priests from appealing to Rome.
Further, the action of the Council of Carthage indicates that before that time, it was normative for any cleric (bishop or priest) to be able to appeal to the bishop of Rome as court of final appeal.

For the sake of good order, Carthage wanted to limit this natural, God-given prerogative of the bishop of Rome, so evident since the days of Pope St. Clement of Rome. And Carthage did not do this on its own. In accord with Apostolic Canon 34/35, it was the head and body acting together in agreement.

Humbly,
Marduk

That's not quite right. The Church of Rome was the ecclesiastical court of final appeal. Not just bishops, but any cleric had the right to appeal upward--the decision of the diocesan bishop could be appealed to the metropolitan synod; the decision of the metropolitan synod could be appealed to the patriarchal synod; and finally, the decision of the patriarchal synod could be appealed to the Bishop of Rome. And this was done, throughout the history of the undivided Church.

The purpose of canons of Carthage was to prevent presbyters from appealing directly to Rome as court of original jurisdiction; i.e., appeals had to go up the ladder, as they do in the civil appellate process tody.

You will find that Carthage 424 addresses the matter of bishops appealing to Rome (the case of Bishop Apiarius) and forbids it, as well as appeals from lesser clergy.

"For though this seems to be there forbidden in respect of the inferior clergy or the laity [they have in mind the 418 Council we have discussed which took place 6 years earlier], how much more did it will this to be observed in the case of bishops, lest those who had been suspended from communion in their own province might seem to be restored to communion hastily or unfitly by your Holiness."

Dear brother Stuart,

I'm not quite sure what you perceive is the difference between "last court of appeal for bishops" and "court of final appeal."

Blessings

Dearest Father Ambrose,

You seem to have misinterpreted that quotation from Carthage 424. When it stated, "how much more did it will this to be observed," it's not talking about not permitting bishops to appeal to Rome. It's talking about the requirement for an appellant to the bishop of Rome to produce commendatory letters from the original court of jurisdiction. It's rather obvious from your excerpt that the "this" in the first and second clauses of your excerpt refer to the same thing, and that thing is not referring to a restriction on appeals to Rome, but points to some other topic beyond the immediate excerpt you provided. That topic is the requirement mentioned above. Without such commendatory letters, a bishops should not be able to go to Rome, and Rome should not agree to hear the cause of such bishops so easily or hastily.

Btw, Apiarius was not a bishop.

Humbly,
Marduk

I note in passing that when Maximos the Confessor appealed to Rome, he was not a bishop. In fact, he wasn't even an ordained minister.

Saint Maximus was a little naive in placing his trust in the Pope since the previous one, Honorius, was a heretic, a monothelite. Perhaps Saint Maximus was not aware of that at the time?

Saint Maximus was in a tight spot. Three Catholic Patriarchs of the East (Constantinople, Antioch, Alexandria) had fallen in with the monothelite heresy. Saint Maximus was so upset that he went and made his residence in Rome. He pinned all his hope on Rome upholding and restoring orthodoxy. But even the Pope of Rome, Pope Honorius, had succumbed to the monothelite heresy. So there was a time when four of the five Patriarchs (excluding Jerusalem) were heretical (Catholics shudder to hear that Honorius was a heretic but even the staunchly pro-papal Catholic Encyclopedia says,

"It is clear that no Catholic has the right to defend Pope Honorius. He was a heretic, not in intention, but in fact..."

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07452b.htm

But read on:


And prior to this:And:
And:
All of which contradict the assertion:

Oh, I think we can all acknowledge that Honorius I was a heretic, and that all attempts to defend him are special pleading in defense of Pastor aeternus. But whether or not he was a heretic is irrelevant to the privilege extended to the Church of Rome by the Council of Serdica, and acknowledged through the period of the undivided Church, to be the ecclesiastical court of final appeal.

In the 17th session of the 6th Ecumenical Council, the Council Fathers proclaimed:

........................"Anathema to the heretic Sergius, to the heretic Cyrus, to the heretic Honorius,..."

........................The above clinches it, unless we want to argue that an Ecumenical Council and the Popes who ratified it may err but in that case the burden of proof is on the person who opposes the Council and the papal ratification.

There is actually quite a lot more evidence of both conciliar and papal condemnation but I don't want to present it here because it will be found offensive.

Father Ambrose has the right of this one. For centuries, the Synodikon read by the Bishops of Rome included the condemnation of Honorius as a heretic, not as some naif who got snookered into publishing an ambiguous tract.

The offense here is for you to give a source and quote it in a way that misinterprets, misrepresents and misleads. But that is your way. This is clearly shown in my previous post by simply reading in full the given source and the totality of what it is asserting.

Super extra special pleading. Face it, Popes occasionally promoted doctrinal error, and poor Honorius was not alone--there's Vigilius and Liberius, and probably a couple of others, if I looked around. Take comfort in the fact that, as compared to the other ancient Churches, Rome's track record was pretty good, overall.

Those who desire to examine the Church's condemnation of Pope Honorius and begin to study it further could look at

Message 71

at
http://tinyurl.com/22kr6td