www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West Things Worse Or Better Under Pope Francis?

I think the old Catholic Encyclopedia mentions that many Catholic historians have interpreted the forgery as being created by secular interests in France. It seems plausible, given Charlemagne's pretensions to power, especially as the Donation (as mentioned) claims that it was the SECULAR power which granted to the papacy its prerogatives.

It only proved useful to establish the papacy's temporal prerogatives in the WESTERN territories against the SECULAR powers. It had no bearing on the theological prerogatives of the papacy in relation to his brother bishops and/or fellow Patriarchs.

Blessings,
Marduk

'Khristos af-don'f!
Unlike some, I avoid no issue.

(Re?)read the letter of that single Pope Leo IX who used the Donation in a theological manner against "Michael and Leo, bishops of Constantinople and Ohrid," members of the episcopacy. to whom your supreme pontiff addressed the letter. He wrote one to the Emperor Constantine IX Monomachos (who gave Hungary its "Apostolic Crown," and Kiev and all the Rus' the Monomachos Cap), but IIRC didn't mention a thing about the "Donation" of his predecessor the first Constantine.

As the citation from "the Catholic Encyclopedia"-which I have already provided you-shows, it was used:"Æneas, Bishop of Paris, refers to it in defence of the Roman primacy [it means supremacy](Adversus Græcos [i.e. the Orthodox], c. ccix, op. cit., CXXI, 758)"; "St. Peter Damian also relied on it in his writings against the antipope [i.e., the bishop of Rome] Cadalous of Parma (Disceptatio synodalis, in Libelli de lite, I, 88)."; etc.

As for this wall of separation you wish to erect between encroachment of the secular powers into church affairs and ecclesiastical encroachment into secular power, read Unam Sanctam. Of course, a rather strange struggle once they let the secular Emperor change the Creed at Rome in 1014.

Two Supreme Pontiffs [catholicnews.com] and they're laughing.

Three Popes were in Vatican City today. That's got to be a first and a great trivia question!

So where are your primary source quotes for your claim that Pope Leo IX forced men who were married PRIOR to ordination to divorce their wives?

Bold claim from someone who admits he has never read a translation of Pope Leo's letter. The Donation was mentioned by Pope Leo IX for no theological purpose. In fact, my memory has become clearer since thinking about this. I now distinctly recall the exact context of his mention of the Donation. Pope Leo IX initially does insist on the primacy of the Roman See based on Christ's promise to Peter. He then points out rather matter-of-factly that even secular rulers have honored the Apostolic See for this reason. It is at this point that he mentions the Donation, simply to evince how a past emperor had given the Roman See many honors. However, after this reference to the Donation, he refers to these honors as something like worthless baubles or window dressing (I forget the exact words, but the gist was that these temporal honors did nothing to increase the honor that was granted to the Apostolic See by Christ). So light years from the idea that he used the forged Donation to support the claims of the papacy, he explicitly asserted the exact opposite - that the Donation was of no real worth as far as supporting those claims.

And that's the only purpose that the Donation served in his letter to the two bishops.

Since you have admitted that you have never read a translation of Pope Leo IX's letter, it might be prudent to admit that you really do not know the context in which the Donation was used by that Pope. The only thing you can say for certain is that Pope Leo IX mentioned it in his letter to the Patriarch, but there is absolutely no basis for any of your other claims.

Not sure about the relevance of this.

It states that the Bishop of Paris only "refers" to it. You're reading waaay to much into it to support your theory (as you've done with other texts). That St. Peter Damian "relied" on it - well, that's something worth considering. But in what way did he use it? The fact that it was used against a rival claimant to the Roman See seems to indicate that its merit for St. Peter Damian's arguments could not have been theological.

I do vigorously contest the old Catholic Encyclopedia's claim that Pope Leo IX relied on the Donatio to demonstrate an earthly and heavenly imperium. As mentioned, far from doing that, he actually stated that the Donatio was of no real relevance to the prerogatives of the papacy.

Not sure what your point is here. Where have you gotten this idea of a "wall of separation?"

Blessings,
Marduk

Marduk, I think you have fallen into a bit of an irrelevant red herring here. Isa wrote that he's never seen the letter in translation, because the only translation into English of which he is aware is a partial translation up on OC.net which was produced by the efforts of a poster there who goes by the handle "Cyrillic" and also partially by his own efforts (at least if I recall correctly). Isa has demonstrated before that he is rather proficient in Latin, and I think it is somewhat fallacious therefore to imply that since he has not read the letter in translation, he must be ignorant of its contents. It seems very reasonable that he be asked to substantiate his claims with quotations from the original document, but to demand that he admit that he is ignorant of the letter's content because he has never seen an English translation of it, is rather unreasonable, given the proficiency which he has in the past demonstrated with Latin.

Furthermore, the sword you try to wield here cuts both ways. Have you read the letter in translation? If not, are you proficient enough with Latin in order to understand the letter in Latin? Surely it is only fair that you divulge whence you have come to your knowledge of the letter, since you essentially ask for Isa to do the same.

Dear Cavaradossi,

A fair comment, except that I did not say he was ignorant of the contents -- only that he is ignorant of the context in which the Donatio was used. He obviously has not read the whole thing in Latin or in translation.

I'm OK in Latin, but I've never seen Pope Leo's letter in Latin -- only the English translation that I've mentioned. In fact, I had read it during a debate on the relevance of the Donatio in Catholic history (it might have been at CAF or OrthodoxChristianity.net). When I debated the matter several years ago, the non-Catholic was claiming that the Donatio was used to support the papal claim of universal "jurisdiction," and that Pope Leo IX used it in that way. After reading the English translation of the letter, I discovered that Pope Leo IX did no such thing.

Blessings,
Marduk

‘Khristos af-don’f!
Even bolder claims from someone who claims he has.

Right now, I'll add nothing to Cavaradossi's words on behalf of myself-and truth (thanks. Btw, you're in TX? God's country, though I understand Houston can be humid). I'm still fighting a cold, but I thought I'd address one issue you raise now.


So you continually assert, and yet can never substantiate.

Aeneas' reference follows: I have not translated the entire chapter, as I am not in the mood, but you can dispute my synopsis if you like-
http://books.google.com/books?id=5AGNF5w0mOEC&pg=RA1-PA757&dq=%22Cap.+CCIX.+Grcgoriiis+Joanni,+episcopo+Syraensano%22&hl=en&sa=X&ei=NXOOUdOgMIfP2QXC6ICYCg&ved=0CC0Q6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=%22Cap.%20CCIX.%20Grcgoriiis%20Joanni%2C%20episcopo%20Syraensano%22&f=false
It starts with a debate over Roman, Constantinopolitan (and Jerusalemite) liturgics invoking Pope St. Gregory's letter to Bp. John of Syracuse, whose pro-Roman flock were dismayed at seeing Old Rome imitating the usages of New Rome and were complaining ("murmurarent" a term with overtones of the Jews in the wilderness) that "how can he (Pope St. Gregoy) keep the Constantinopolitan Church in check, who follows all its [i.e. Constantinople] customs?." Althogh Pope St. Gregory goes on to claim that he isn't imitating "the Greeks", it seems Bp. Aeneas brings this up for the passage "Nam de Conslantinopolitana Ecclesia quod dicunt, quis eam dubitet sedi apostolica; esse subjectam? Quod et piissimus domnus imperator, et frater noster ejusdem civitatis episcopus assidue profitetur." "As for what they say of the Constantinopolitan Church, who doubt that it is subject to the apostolic see? Such also the Most Pius Lord Emperor, and our brother the bishop of the same city, constantly profess," after which Pope St. Gregory concludes that he is willing to imitate his "inferiors" while "forbiding them the illicit."
Bp. Aeneas then goes on:
He then goes on to rant about Constantinople being a secular upstart, referring to the altercation between Pope St. Gregory of Old Rome and EP St. John of New Rome over the title “Ecumencial Patriarch,” and then the intrusion of Old Rome into New Rome in the controversy between EP St. Ignatius and EP St. Photius the Great and the Fourth Council of Constantinople (879).
Glancing through the 5 chapters before and the concluding chapters after, Bp. Aeneas quotes exegesis on Scripture, Acts of the Ecumenical Councils and letters of Popes of Old Rome to bishops of New Rome. But nothing to the SECULAR (capitalization in deference to your fondness for it) rulers (although a letter to the Emperor Marcian is cited a little earlier, on c. 28 of the Ecumenical Council of Chalcedon giving New Rome equal status to Old Rome), nor on the TEMPORAL (again, in deference to your fondness) alleged prerogatives of the papacy.

Rather than merely “only ‘refer[ing] to it’” in a way you could dismiss, Bp. Aeneas relies on it as intrinsic to prove or show the grounds of his preceding assertion "on the privilege of the supremacy of the Apostolic See," to explain his preceding assertion that "all the Councils of the Holy Fathers unanimously seem to agree, nor are discerned anywhere to err" on this “supremacy,” as corroboration. “Postquam enim…” In that way he did use it.

Just the citation of the CE should have shown you were reading waaay too little of it: a “defence of the Roman primacy”-i.e. “to make the theological claim of universal jurisdiction” “Adversus Graecos”-on its face has nothing to do with either “authority in the West” (as Patriarch of the West, that was a given, and didn’t concern “the Greeks” against whom Bp. Aeneas was writing) nor “the papacy's battle against the SECULAR power” (the “Byzantine Papacy” had ended over a century before Bp. Aeneas was born, and hence the Emperor “of the Greeks” he was writing “adversus” had no power in Rome). No Emperor of the Romans in Old Rome, Bp. Aeneas could not, in a work addressed “Against the Greeks”-i.e. the Romans of New Rome and “Romania” (as it was called)-appeal to the “Donation” to defend “the TEMPORAL prerogatives of the papacy against the encroachments of the SECULAR power into Church affairs,” as the Emperor of the Romans had no encroachments in Old Rome, and the Pope of Old Rome-being outside of the Empire of the Romans, had no TEMPORAL prerogatives among the “Greeks.” Bp. Aeneas “refers to it in defence of the Roman primacy,” that “he maintain the supremacy the Roman pope over every Church of which [they are] pontiffs perpetually just as if by kingly right,” to wit, “asserted that the Donation in any way established the idea of universal jurisdiction for the papacy.”

“[M]aintain the supremacy the Roman pope over every Church of which [they are] pontiffs perpetually.” That’s a primary source that “appealed to the Donation to establish the THEOLOGICAL prerogatives of the papacy,” “the theological prerogatives of the papacy in relation to his brother bishops and/or fellow Patriarchs,” that is “used to make the theological claim of universal jurisdiction,” “as some sort of theological pretense to try to strip bishops of their natural divine rights,” i.e. their autocephaly in the case of the other patriarchs. IOW “the Donation was used in the papacy's battle [not] against the SECULAR power, [but] against the episcopacy.”

“Every Church.” That’s not a SECULAR concern. Hence your attempt to dismiss Constantine as a SECULAR authority-and therefore ipso facto beneath the bishop of Paris (or of Rome) to appeal to-fails: In fact, in none of the other authorities that Bp. Aeneas cites does he even suggest that their words and actions are “by the inspiring Mercy of God,” as he does on the basis of the “Donation.” Nor does Constantine’s “sacred laws in the diverse orders and services [or cults-the meaning is clear in the Latin that the Divine Offices are meant]” encroach “on “the TEMPORAL prerogatives of the papacy”-they dictate the spiritual regulations of worship. The coupling “therefore by splendid dress embellished the ecclesiastical vestments in innumerable temples” creates a parallel with the immediately preceding (and succeeding) reference to Pope St. Gregory, as these are exactly the matters that the Pope of Old Rome is accused of imitating the Church of New Rome. Not a “struggle against the encroachment of the SECULAR powers into Church affairs, but” and embrace of the “Donation” “in a struggle against the episcopacy” of New Rome, exemplified by EP St. Photius, whose encyclicals caused Bp. Aeneas to put pen to paper to vent his spleen in his Liber Adversus Graecos.

‘Khristos af’don’f!
I’m having trouble sleeping, and watching a movie, so I’ll knock off another point.
Oh? Why is that?

Peter Damian fails you here (he will fail you even more when we get to the issue of the wives of priests).

In what way did he use it? In his Disceptatio Synodalis, this way: the “Defender of the Roman Church,” the opponent of the “Royal Advocate” confronts this representative of the SECULAR power in their dispute over the interpretation of the Election Decree so-
If you are interested in the Latin:
Tell me, later on in the same work, is Peter Damian making a theological argument here?
[quote]Thus, as these two, the empire and the priesthood, by divine dispensation are united in the one mediator between God and men, so may these two exalted persons be joined together in such harmony that, by a certain bond of mutual love, we may behold the emperor in the Roman pontiff and the Roman pontiff in the emperor reserving to the pope, however the dignity no other may posses. Likewise,...the pope should be able to use civil law to control offenders, and the emperor with his bishops should be permitted to adjudicate matters where the welfare of souls is involved...The former, as a father, should always enjoy paramount dignity by reason of his paternal rights; the latter, as his only and special son, should rest security in his loving embrace.

Here, as in Liber Adversus Graecos-and the “Donation” itself-the emphasis on the imperial origins of the Lateran should interest you, as there the Popes of Old Rome were enthroned.

I have lost the point of this thread. Can someone summarize where this is at?

Mardukm claims that Vatican I adopted what he calls the "High Petrine" view, and rejected what he calls the "Absolute Petrine" view.

Lumen Gentium shows that as a distinction without a difference, demanding that even if the supreme pontiff is wrong, everyone is to act as if he cannot be.

If you contest the translation I read (and my relation of it), translate it yourself for all to see (since you seem to have access to the Latin).

You're the one initially making claims that have yet to be substantiated. All I'm doing is challenging your claims. Your own sources are usually enough to refute your own claims.

Thanks for the effort, sincerely. I do challenge your understanding of the text from Aeneas.

Can you please cite exactly where this is in the text? I could not find it.

Your reading of the text is rather different from mine. Your translation of principatus as "supremacy" immediately threw up a red flag ("supremacy" is not a common rendering of principatus). From what I understand, Aeneas is not arguing for a papal Roman "supremacy." Far from it. What he is doing is simply explaining something about the government (a more common understanding of principatus) of the Apostolic See. He explains that Constantine gave (or tried to give) the Pope SECULAR control of the WESTERN lands (that should have been obvious from your own translation as it does not say that Constantine gave him ALL the lands, but simply the "greater part of the various provinces"). Nothing here about universal jurisdiction. Aeneas goes on to point out that the Pope contradicted Constantine's attempt to give him these temporal honors (the Donatio actually "records" that Pope Sylvester refused the golden crown that Constantine tried to give him as a sign of temporal dominion). Because of this sign of humility ("therefore/for this reason" relates Aeneas), Constantine honored the Pope even more. Hence, the singular testament that was broadcast to the whole world, as can be found in the archives of the Gallican Church.

Aeneas thereafter immediately proceeds to contrast the humility of the Roman Pontiff with the haughtiness of the Patriarch of Constantinople who had taken to himself the title of "universal patriarch" (or at least that's how the his Roman opponents understood the claim).

No problem. That doesn't have to be the case in order to refute the claim that the Donatio was being used by Aeneas to promote papal universal control.

Read it again. It's mainly about the TEMPORAL dominion that Constantine tried to grant the Pope, which the Pope refused.

No he didn't. Indeed, he writes that the privilege of the governing authority of the Papacy is already evident in the canons and councils. But his purpose for relating the story of the Donation was not to give increase to the concept of papal universal control, but rather to demonstrate the humility of the Roman See in contrast to the pretension of the Constantinopolitan See.

More likely, the reason that the old CE stated that Aeneas only "referred" to it was exactly because he did not use the Donatio in the way it might have been expected to be used.

Yes, he only "refers" to it, because he did not actually use it to bolster claims to Roman primacy, but for an altogether different reason.

Note well that Aeneas states Constantine did this only after the Pope refused the temporal honors Constantine tried to give him. The humility deserved a proper response. The humility was Aeneas purpose for bringing up the Donatio, not to bolster claims of papal universal control.

In short, it is simply beyond belief that the Donatio, which pretends that it was Constantine who first granted the papacy its theological prerogative of primacy, would be utilized by any Catholic apologist for the purpose of upholding said primacy.

Blessings,
Marduk

khen oumethmi af'donf!
I'm impressed that you can multitask. I watch movies on the I-net, which often takes my time away from debating online (probably for the best).

There wouldn't be any point trying to prove papal primacy to someone who claimed it already.

Whatever the Saint's pov is on the matter has no relevance to our debate about whether Pope Leo IX forced priests who were married before their ordination to divorce their wives.

St. Peter Damian's argument here is not theological, but purely according to what a secular authority (of that time) would find relevant - the canons (or, in this case, "supposed" canon).

I think this is a theological argument, but at this point, the rationale has nothing to do with the Donatio, but rather with the divine dispensation.

The donation of the Lateran by Constantine is a historical fact, IIRC. My interest would be purely academic.

Blessings,
Marduk