7

<body topmargin=0 leftmargin=0 marginheight=0 marginwidth=0> <table cellpadding=0 cellspacing=0 border=0><tr> <td valign="top" height=90 BGCOLOR="#CC9900" TEXT="#080000" bgproperties="fixed" background="043005a0dwnjzk.gif"> <div> <A HREF="index.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="EDWARD WATSONS WEBWORLD"><U><B>home</B></U></A><B> | </B><FONT SIZE="5" COLOR="#FFCC66" FACE="Arial" ><B>EDWARD WATS</B><B>ON'S WEBWORLD</B></FONT></div> <div> <A HREF="id166.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="SECTION 7: INTRODUCTION"><U><B>SECTION 7: INTRODUCTION</B></U></A><B>   |   </B><A HREF="id169.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="1"><U><B>1</B></U></A><B>   |   </B><A HREF="id170.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="2"><U><B>2</B></U></A><B>   |   </B><A HREF="id171.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="3"><U><B>3</B></U></A><B>   |   </B><A HREF="id172.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="4"><U><B>4</B></U></A><B>   |   </B><A HREF="id173.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="5"><U><B>5</B></U></A><B>   |   </B><A HREF="id174.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="6"><U><B>6</B></U></A><B>   |   </B><B>7</B><B>   |   </B><A HREF="id176.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="8"><U><B>8</B></U></A><B>   |   </B><A HREF="id177.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="9"><U><B>9</B></U></A><B>   |   </B><A HREF="id178.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="10"><U><B>10</B></U></A><B>   |   </B><A HREF="id179.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="11"><U><B>11</B></U></A><B>   |   </B><A HREF="id180.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="12"><U><B>12</B></U></A><B>   |   </B><A HREF="id181.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="SECTION 7: CONCLUSION"><U><B>SECTION 7: CONCLUSION</B></U></A></div> <div> </div> </td> </tr><tr> <td valign="top" height=390 BGCOLOR="#FFFFFF" TEXT="#080000"> <div> <B>[MORMONISM. The Faith of the Twenty-first Century. Section 7. Edward K. Watson. (Liahona Publications. Copyright © 2002 Edward K. Watson.) pp 114-132. MORMONISM: Section 7, Chapter 7. All rights reserved.]</B></div> <bR> <div> <U>CHAPTER 7</U></div> <bR> <div> <B>Did the Bishop of Rome Call, Preside and Confirm the Earliest Ecumenical & General Councils?</B></div> <bR> <div>      Roman Catholic apologists will frequently claim that the bishop of Rome was the one who called, presided and confirmed the decisions of the earliest Ecumenical and General councils. By examining the documents that talk about the councils in question, and the role the bishop of Rome or his legates played in them, the conclusion is inescapable that the bishops of Rome <I>did not</I> call, preside or confirm any of the earliest Ecumenical and General councils.<FONT SIZE="1" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" >1</FONT>     An Ecumenical Council (Synod) means a council or synod whose decrees have been accepted by the church in all the world.<FONT SIZE="1" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" >2</FONT> The Roman Catholic defines an Ecumenical Council to be a council presided by the Pope of Rome whose decrees are accepted by the church throughout the world. This interpretation is untenable since such an understanding would cause certain councils always considered Ecumenical to lose that status since the Bishop of Rome did not preside over them or had anything to do with them (such as the Council of Constantinople [381]).<FONT SIZE="1" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" >3</FONT></div> <div>      In order for a council to be considered Ecumenical, it needed to be approved by the major Sees in the East (Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch and later Jerusalem) and West (Rome). A council was never considered Ecumenical if the West never ratified it,<FONT SIZE="1" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" >4</FONT> and neither was it Ecumenical if only the West validated it (like Sardica).</div> <div>      Rome received numerous advantages over every other church since it was the only apostolic church in the West; it was the capital of the Roman Empire, which caused it to be viewed by the masses with honor and respect; it was, and always will be “The Eternal City.” It was the largest, richest and most charitable church, and also received a double honor of having two of the greatest apostles martyred there. Because of all these factors, Rome was always placed at the top of all rankings. This top position was first in honor and didn't bestow a superior authority over the other major churches. To preside or act as a president of an Ecumenical Council didn't cause a superior authority to be given to one over the collective council.<FONT SIZE="1" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" >5</FONT> All the Bishops of the Major Sees or their representatives (unless they were condemned) acted as co-presidents over each Ecumenical Council,<FONT SIZE="1" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" >6</FONT> with the Bishop of Rome's representative holding the first rank among equals.</div> <bR> <div> <B>1) The Council of Arles (314 AD).</B></div> <bR> <div>      The Donatists appealed to the Roman Emperor to appoint judges to decide their case:</div> <bR> <div>   “We beseech thee, O Constantine! most excellent emperor, thou that comest from a righteous family, (for thy father was not a persecutor like his colleagues; and Gaul is free from this crime,) since between us bishops in Africa there are dissensions, we beseech thee let thy piety give us judges who are of Gaul!”<FONT SIZE="1" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" >7</FONT></div> <bR> <div>      As a result of this appeal, Constantine appointed 3 bishops (Maternus of Cologne, Rheticus of Autum, and Marinus of Arles) to be the judges. He also wrote to Miltiades, bishop of Rome and Marcus and told them to participate as judges together with the other three at a council that was to be held in Rome.<FONT SIZE="1" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" >8</FONT></div> <div>      The Donatists refused to accept the decision of the council in Rome and protested the Gallican bishops were too few in number to judge the case fairly. Constantine called for another council to be created in Arles.<FONT SIZE="1" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" >9</FONT></div> <div>      This council was convoked by Emperor Constantine in Arles to re-examine the case of the Donatists and was presided not by the bishop of Rome, (who was represented by two priests and two deacons)<FONT SIZE="1" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" >10</FONT> but by Marinus, bishop of Arles.<FONT SIZE="1" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" >11</FONT> </div> <div>      What does all of this tell us? It shows that the Donatists didn't appeal to the bishop of Rome for his decision but to the Emperor. They did not recognize the bishop of Rome as their ultimate leader. The Donatists asked for bishops from Gaul to judge their case instead of the bishop of Rome. </div> <div>      The facts surrounding this council shows Emperor Constantine didn't recognize the bishop of Rome as one possessing a superior authority since the bishop of Rome was only one of the appointed judges in the Roman council and the decision he and his fellow-judges arrived at wasn't final.<FONT SIZE="1" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" >12</FONT></div> <div>      Roman Catholic apologists will quote a portion of a letter Marinus and his fellow judges wrote to Sylvester, the bishop of Rome (who succeeded Miltiades) after the sentence against the Donatists was made which says, “... you (Sylvester) who has the greatest authority.” They will argue that this council recognized the bishop of Rome as possessing the greatest authority in the church, or of him possessing supremacy over the church.</div> <div>      The facts of the Council of Arles disprove such an assumption. The mere existence of this council shows the decision of the bishop of Rome wasn't viewed as final and the bishop of Rome was only one of the bishops appointed by the emperor.</div> <div>      The bishop of Rome did not call the Council of Arles. He did not preside over it, either in person, or by his legates. Neither did he personally participate in the Council's decision or confirmed that decision. He was only appraised by the Council of their decision and was asked to broadcast the sentence of this council to the rest of the church due to him being the only Apostolic See in the area.</div> <div>      In addition, the Council didn't actually say Sylvester possessed the greatest authority, they said “... you (Sylvester) who have the greatest dioceses” (<I>qui maiores dioceses tenes</I>). This has reference to the fact that the actual jurisdiction of Rome during this time was comprised of <I>Suburbicaria</I> (the dioceses of Central and Southern Italy, Corsica, Sardinia and Sicily) which gave Rome the largest number of members by far, over any other Apostolic See.<FONT SIZE="1" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" >13</FONT> The Council's statement doesn't mean they viewed Sylvester as possessing superior authority over the collective council and the rest of the church. </div> <div>      Neither did Emperor Constantine view the decision of the Council of Arles as final despite the broadcasting of its decision by the bishop of Rome, since he decided to go to Africa and settle the Donatist problem on his own authority.<FONT SIZE="1" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" >14</FONT></div> <bR> <div> <B>2) The Council of Nicea (325 AD) or the First Ecumenical Council.</B></div> <bR> <div>      The Roman Emperor Constantine was the one who called the bishops together for a council, probably at the urging of his advisor, Hosius.<FONT SIZE="1" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" >15</FONT></div> <bR> <div>   “He (Constantine) convoked a general council ... As soon then as <I>the imperial injunction</I> was generally made known, all with the utmost willingness hastened thither.”<FONT SIZE="1" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" >16</FONT></div> <bR> <div>      Constantine addressed the gathered assembly, </div> <bR> <div>   “As soon as I heard that intelligence which I had least expected to receive, I mean the news of your dissension, <I>I judged</I> it to be of no secondary importance, but with the earnest desire that a remedy for this evil also might be found through my means<I>, I immediately sent to require your presence</I>.”<FONT SIZE="1" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" >17</FONT></div> <bR> <div>      Sure, the Sixth Ecumenical Council (680 A.D.) said Emperor Constantine and Pope Sylvester called the Nicene Council, at the urging of the representatives of the bishop of Rome. However, this council made this statement 345 years after the event took place. They wouldn't have any documents on hand that would readily disprove such a claim so they went along with it to placate the Roman delegates. Why the absence of any contemporary or eyewitness documents that mention Pope Sylvester as having anything to do with the Council of Nicea? Would anyone readily remember the influence Leibnitz has on Isaac Newton's <I>Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy</I> if today was an age of a scarcity of books even among Mathematicians? Why then expect a statement by the Sixth Ecumenical Council to accurately describe an incident 345 years before when no fourth century documents support such a claim,<FONT SIZE="1" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" >18</FONT> especially since this was done at the insistence of the Roman delegates?</div> <bR> <div>      Emperor Constantine also presided over the Council of Nicea,</div> <bR> <div>   “<I>The Emperor gave patient audience to all alike, and received every proposition with steadfast attention</I>, and by occasionally assisting the argument of each party in turn,<I> he gradually disposed even the most vehement disputants to a reconciliation.</I> At the same time, by the affability of his address to all, and his use of the Greek language, with which he was not altogether unacquainted, he appeared in a truly attractive and amiable light, persuading some, convincing others by his reasonings, praising those who spoke well, and urging all to unity of sentiment, until at last<I> he succeeded in bringing them to one mind and judgment respecting every disputed question</I>.”<FONT SIZE="1" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" >19</FONT></div> <bR> <div>      Constantine also promulgated, confirmed and sanctioned “the decrees of the Council on this subject.”</div> <bR> <div>   “He (Constantine) confirmed and sanctioned the decrees of the council, and called on them to strive earnestly for concord, and not to distract and rend the Church, but to keep before them the thought of God's judgment. And these injunctions the emperor sent by a letter written with his own hand.”<FONT SIZE="1" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" >20</FONT></div> <bR> <div>      The layout of the council of Nicea had Emperor Constantine in the center with two groups of bishops on either side facing him. On his immediate left was Pope Alexander of Alexandria and on his immediate right was Hosius of Cordova, his personal religious advisor.<FONT SIZE="1" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" >21</FONT> There were numerous bishops presiding over the council under the emperor:</div> <bR> <div> “… he gave permission to those who presided in the council to give their opinions.”<FONT SIZE="1" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" >22</FONT></div> <bR> <div>      Constantine acted as the ruler of the church during his reign and was, so to speak, “the bishop of bishops.”<FONT SIZE="1" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" >23</FONT></div> <div>      RC apologists may say that the bishop of Rome presided through his representative, Hosius. They claim that the passage in Eusebius' account that states, “The bishop who occupied the chief place in the right division of the assembly then rose, and, addressing the Emperor, delivered a concise speech,”<FONT SIZE="1" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" >24</FONT> was about Hosius.</div> <div>      I personally believe it was Hosius despite the confusion among historians as who this personage was since Hosius of Cordova was the most prominent bishop during this time,<FONT SIZE="1" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" >25</FONT> and was the personal ecclesiastical advisor of Emperor Constantine.<FONT SIZE="1" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" >26</FONT> His reputation was clearly recognized by Eusebius, “Even from Spain itself, one who's fame was widely spread took his seat as an individual in the great assembly.”<FONT SIZE="1" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" >27</FONT></div> <div>      One thing is absolutely certain. Neither the bishop of Rome, nor his legates presided over the Council of Nicea. The earliest record that claimed he did was when Gelasius of Cyzicus in the fifth century wrote a fictional romance based upon the Council of Nicea.<FONT SIZE="1" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" >28</FONT> Gelasius said that Hosius of Cordova was the bishop of Rome's representative and he presided over the council. This is demonstrably false because Hosius wasn't even a delegate of the bishop of Rome. The only representatives of the bishop of Rome at the council were two priests, Vitus and Vincent, who were clearly described as the Roman delegates. Hosius is not mentioned as a legate of the bishop of Rome, neither in the Signatures of the Council nor anywhere else.</div> <div>      If Hosius was really a representative of Stephen, the bishop of Rome, why is it that in all four councils he presided in (Alexandria, Antioch, Nicea & Sardica), he never acted or was mentioned as a legate of the bishop of Rome? No contemporary or credible evidence exists that mentions him being one. In addition, why didn't Pope Felix III (483-492) know his own predecessor presided over the council? He thought the bishop of Antioch was the one who presided.<FONT SIZE="1" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" >29</FONT> Neither was there any discernable preference in ranking given to the bishop of Rome's representatives.<FONT SIZE="1" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" >30</FONT></div> <div>      Hosius most probably was the presiding bishop in the Council of Nicea as further evidenced by him being the first who signed the Creed,<FONT SIZE="1" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" >31</FONT> but there is simply no evidence he acted under orders from the bishop of Rome.</div> <div>      Finally, Emperor Constantine never deferred to Sylvester, the bishop of Rome.<FONT SIZE="1" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" >32</FONT> If anything, the “supremacy” of the Roman bishop was non-existent in his eyes as proven by his having his own court-bishops and by him abandoning Rome and moving the capital of the empire to the East,<FONT SIZE="1" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" >33</FONT> which weakened the prestige and power of the Roman church in favor of the “new Rome” Constantinople. In fact, history proves Constantine never used the bishop of Rome for anything after the council at Rome concerning the Donatists.<FONT SIZE="1" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" >34</FONT></div> <div>      It is not possible to claim the Council of Nicea functioned beneath the Pope of Rome during that time. The bishop of Rome did not call, preside or confirm this council. In fact, he had absolutely nothing to do with it, which makes it very important for people to take the time to examine this council when encountering the extravagant claims of modern Roman Catholic anti-Mormons.</div> <bR> <div> <B>3) The Council of Sardica (347 AD).</B></div> <bR> <div>      This council was convoked by Emperors Constans II and Constantius IV and was presided by Hosius, the bishop of Cordova, and not by the bishop of Rome.<FONT SIZE="1" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" >35</FONT></div> <div>      This council was created to decide whether the Eastern Arian bishops or the bishop of Rome and his council were correct in their respective positions concerning Athanasius and his fellow bishops.<FONT SIZE="1" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" >36</FONT></div> <div>      The existence of the Council of Sardica proves that the bishop of Rome at this time did not possess supreme authority over all of Christianity because the decision of Julius and the Roman Council were treated as subordinate to the decision of this council.<FONT SIZE="1" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" >37</FONT></div> <div>      Hosius of Cordova was not a representative of the bishop of Rome because Julius had three representatives in this council, two priests (Archidemus and Philoxenus) and a deacon (Leo).</div> <div>      This council is often referred to by certain Roman Catholic apologists because of its third, fourth and fifth Canons.<FONT SIZE="1" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" >38</FONT> One only has to read these canons in full to quickly realize that instead of the Council recognizing the bishop of Rome as possessing pre-existing supremacy; it instead granted Julius certain privileges that he never before possessed. Was this done because they recognized him as possessing superior authority over the council? No. This was done to “honor the memory of the apostle St. Peter.”</div> <div>      The third canon states, </div> <bR> <div>   “If perchance sentence be given against a bishop in any matter and he supposes his case to be not unsound but good, in order that the question may be reopened, let us, <I>if it seem good to your charity,</I> <I>honour the memory of Peter</I> the Apostle, and let those who gave judgement 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; but if it cannot be shown that his case is of such a sort as to need a new trial, let the judgement once given not be annuled, but stand good as before.”<FONT SIZE="1" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" >39</FONT></div> <bR> <div>      What an odd canon if these bishops believed the bishop of Rome possessed a pre-existing authority over them. It is obvious they didn't think the bishop of Rome possessed a Divine Right over them since this bestowal to the bishop of Rome to function as a “court of appeals” came from the bishops at this council (... <I>if it seems good to your charity...</I>). Did they do it because of a perceived natural right of supremacy of Rome? No, they did it to “honor the memory of Peter.” Was this given to the office of the bishop of Rome? No, it was given as a personal endowment to the current bishop of Rome, Julius. Even if we disregard the temporary aspect of this canon and accept the Roman Catholic argument that it was for the office of the bishop of Rome, this canon still can't support them believing the bishop of Rome was their superior by Divine Right. After all, the text is clear it was only a <I>charitable</I> endowment by the council.</div> <bR> <div>      The fourth Canon states, </div> <bR> <div>   “Bishop Gaudentius said: <I>if it seems good to you,</I> it is necessary to add to <I>this decision full of sincere charity which thou hast pronounced</I>, that if any bishop, be deposed by the sentence of these neighboring bishops and assert that he has fresh matter in defense, a new bishop be not settled in his see, unless the bishop of Rome judge and render a decision as to this.”<FONT SIZE="1" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" >40</FONT><FONT SIZE="3" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" > </FONT></div> <bR> <div>      Again, just as in the third Canon, this Canon re-emphasizes the decision that the bishop of Rome can act as a “court of appeals” that this council granted him was a decision “full of sincere charity.” There isn't a hint that they believed the bishop of Rome possessed a monarchical supremacy over them. </div> <bR> <div>  <I> Would these bishops explicitly state that this superior jurisdiction they gave Julius, the bishop of Rome, was a charitable gift from them if they believed he received such a right from God?</I></div> <bR> <div>      Of course not. What an insult and blasphemy to claim a certain prerogative one receives from God (if the bishop of Rome received such an authority from Christ) is actually not from God but from a charitable act by other men.</div> <bR> <div>      The fifth and ninth canons go over the “court of appeals” status already mentioned in Canons 2 and 3.</div> <div>      Why did this council, dominated by Westerners,<FONT SIZE="1" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" >41</FONT> grant such a jurisdiction to the bishop of Rome? Could this be a reaction against the embarrassment they must have felt when Julius claimed certain rights from the Canons of the Council of Nicea that were non-existent? Could this also be why the Sardican Canons were appended to the Nicene Canons in Rome's possession? Julius' claims bewildered the Easterners who correctly pointed out that never in the history of the church has there been a situation that their decisions could be usurped by the Western bishops and the bishop of Rome in particular. (See Chapter 6: # 10 Athanasius).</div> <div>      Could it also be, as some assert,<FONT SIZE="1" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" >42</FONT> that these canons were for a temporary period and weren't intended to become permanent law in the West since Julius is personally mentioned as the appeals could be sent to and no mention is given that this will continue through his successors?</div> <div>      The bishop of Rome did not confirm the decision of the Council of Sardica. <I>It was the council who confirmed the decision of the bishop of Rome and the Roman council</I>. It was also this council who granted Julius certain powers he never enjoyed before.<FONT SIZE="1" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" >43</FONT></div> <div>      RC apologists usually will quote a portion of one of the synodal letters from the Council of Sardica,<FONT SIZE="1" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" >44</FONT> that has the council addressing the bishop of Rome and declaring,</div> <bR> <div>   “It seemed best and most proper that the bishops from every <I>province</I> should refer to the <I>head</I>, that is to the see of the Apostle Peter.”<FONT SIZE="1" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" >45</FONT><FONT SIZE="3" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" > </FONT></div> <bR> <div>      The word that was translated as “head” is “<I>caput</I>” which can be translated to mean capital, chief, first in hierarchal order or head. Based upon the context and since “province” is in the same phrase and is contrasted with “<I>caput</I>,” it seems the correct English word for “<I>caput</I>” in this passage should be “capital.”<FONT SIZE="1" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" >46</FONT> </div> <div>      Even if “<I>caput”</I> should be translated to mean “head,” it still wouldn't prove this council recognized Rome as possessing supreme authority over them because Rome was already recognized as being the primary See, or possessing the first in honor among all other Sees. The bishop of Rome was recognized as being the first bishop, not as one who is superior to all the rest, but was simply the first in hierarchal order.</div> <div>      The official beginning of the Roman See being called the head or chief of the church was in 607 A.D. when Boniface III asked Emperor Phocas  (who murdered Emperor Maurice) to confer upon himself the same title Gregory the Great condemned as satanic. As a result of this petition, Emperor Phocas decreed that the Roman See would be known as the chief (caput) of all the churches because the See of Constantinople was the first of all the churches.<FONT SIZE="1" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" >47</FONT> </div> <div>      This title was given on occasion to the Roman bishop but was only for flattery and praise. The meaning of this term has evolved over time. It initially meant head, or the first. Because of the decree of Phocas, the term became to be known as “a sovereign prince.” Now it means an “absolute, infallible monarch, possessing superior authority over all others,” a term which would've been rejected with abhorrence by all other bishops including the bishops of Italy in pre-eighth century Catholicism.<FONT SIZE="1" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" >48</FONT></div> <div>      As with the previous Major Councils, the bishop of Rome did not call, preside, or confirm this council.</div> <bR> <div> <B>4). The Council of Constantinople (381 AD) or the Second Ecumenical Council.</B></div> <bR> <div>      Emperor Theodosius called the Second Ecumenical Council and had Meletius, the bishop of Antioch as the presiding bishop who wasn't in communion with the bishop of Rome but was later made a saint by the Roman church. This council is considered Ecumenical despite the absence of any bishop from the West because all its acts with the exception of the legitimacy of Flavianus as the bishop of Antioch,<FONT SIZE="1" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" >49</FONT> was accepted in the West. This council granted to Constantinople the second ranking in honor among the major Sees.</div> <div>      The third Canon states, </div> <bR> <div>   “The bishop of Constantinople, however, shall have the prerogative of honor after the bishop of Rome; because Constantinople is New Rome.”<FONT SIZE="1" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" >50</FONT></div> <bR> <div>      This canon was rejected by the bishop of Rome at that time, and Leo the Great seventy years later, renewed his opposition to the bestowal of the second rank to Constantinople and said it goes against the Council of Nicea, whose decrees were to last forever.<FONT SIZE="1" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" >51</FONT> Despite this, the church of Constantinople was granted the second rank by Pope Innocent III in 1204 and by the Fourth Lateran Council in 1215. It was again reaffirmed in 1439 at the Florentine Union in direct contradiction to Pope St. Leo the Great's prohibition.</div> <div>      Because of the absence of any Western representation, it's obvious that the bishop of Rome did not call, preside or confirm the Second Ecumenical Council.</div> <bR> <div> <B>5). The Council of Ephesus (431 AD) or the Third Ecumenical Council.</B></div> <bR> <div>      This council was called by Emperor Theodosius II,<FONT SIZE="1" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" >52</FONT> not the Pope of Rome, and was presided by Cyril of Alexandria. Cyril <I>was not</I> a legate of Celestine, the bishop of Rome since Celestine did not have any official representatives in the first session when Cyril opened the council. There were however, 2 Western bishops and a Roman priest present that could and did represent the West.</div> <div>      In accordance with the 3rd Canon of the Council of Constantinople, Cyril as bishop of Alexandria occupied the <I>third rank</I> in honor. Nestorius, who was to be condemned, occupied the <I>second rank</I> as bishop of Constantinople. This created a difficulty for Cyril because Nestorius could usurp him and dominate the proceedings, making it improbable for him to be condemned as a heretic. Cyril needed to use something, like a power of attorney, that would eliminate the possibility of that happening so he took the first rank that the bishop of Rome had and acted in the place of Celestine with Celestine's approval, which gave Cyril the power to act as possessing two sees. </div> <div>      This does not mean he became the legate of the bishop of Rome since Cyril signed the sentence against Nestorius, “Cyril, bishop of Alexandria, I have subscribed, judging with the council.” He did not sign as a representative of the bishop of Rome, which he should have done if he considered himself to be one when he took the primacy rank.</div> <div>      Celestine, previous to the convening of the council, condemned Nestorius, but despite his condemnation, the other bishops present in the council treated Nestorius as if he was in good standing and ignored Celestine's condemnation. They called Nestorius, “most pious, most religious bishop.” They condemned Nestorius only after they examined his teachings for themselves.<FONT SIZE="1" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" >53</FONT> It is enlightening to observe they didn't accept Celestine's condemnation of Nestorius just because Celestine was the bishop of Rome. Would any Roman Catholic council today be as dismissive of a similar condemnation of the Pope? The council, after it was over, wrote to Celestine and said,</div> <bR> <div>   “We deemed it right that the determinations of your holiness concerning them [the Nestorians] should stand strong and firm.”<FONT SIZE="1" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" >54</FONT><FONT SIZE="3" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" > </FONT></div> <bR> <div>      The council examined Nestorius' teachings for themselves. After doing so, they agreed with Celestine that his condemnation was correct because Nestorius really was a heretic. This manner of re-examining Nestorius is definitely an odd behavior if they thought the bishop of Rome was their Supreme Ruler.</div> <div>      Celestine sent legates (3 of them) in the next session, and he wrote a letter to the council, stating, </div> <bR> <div> <FONT SIZE="3" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" >  </FONT>“... this duty of preaching has been entrusted to all the Lord's priests <I>in common</I>, for by right of inheritance we are bound to undertake this solicitude... you, dear brethren, should observe that <I>we have received a general command</I>. For he wills that<I> all of us</I> should perform that office, which he thus entrusted <I>in common</I> to all the apostles.<I> We</I> must needs follow our predecessors. <I>Let us all,</I> then, undertake their labours, since <I>we are the successors </I>in their honour. And<I> we </I>shew forth our diligence in preaching the same doctrines that they taught ...<I> We must strive therefore in common</I> to keep the faith which has come down to us to-day, through the Apostolic Succession. For <I>we</I> are expected to walk according to the Apostle ... <I>Let us</I> now also do and study that which he then commanded him to do ...<I> Let us</I> be unanimous, thinking the same thing, for it is expedient: <I>Let us</I> do nothing out of contention, nothing out of vain-glory; <I>let us </I>be in all things of one mind, of one heart, when the faith, which is one, is attacked. Let the whole body grieve and mourn <I>in common with us</I>.”<FONT SIZE="1" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" >55</FONT></div> <bR> <div>      After Celestine's letter was read, the assembly cried out, </div> <bR> <div>   “To <I>Celestine, a new Paul! To Cyril, a new Paul</I>! To Celestine the guardian of the faith! <I>To Celestine of one mind with the Synod</I>! To Celestine the whole Synod offers its thanks!<I> One Celestine! One Cyril! One faith of the Synod!</I> One faith of the world!”<FONT SIZE="1" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" >56</FONT></div> <bR> <div>      Why were the council members so enthused after Celestine's letter was read? Because they realized that Celestine's view was exactly like theirs and because of it, <I>the faith of the council is one!</I> They compared Celestine <I>and Cyril </I>to Paul. An examination of Celestine's letter shows he believed all the bishops of the church were equal and that none were superior than the others.</div> <div>      This brings up another point, </div> <bR> <div>   Why was it necessary for Celestine to write such a letter on the issue of authority and why were they so relieved that he believed in the equality of all the bishops? This most likely is due to the claim of previous popes (beginning with Damascus), claiming to be superior to the other bishops because of an alleged inheritance of supremacy from Peter. This may also be why they compared Celestine to Paul instead of Peter.</div> <div>   It is also noticeable that this praise of Celestine was done only <I>after</I> his letter was shown to be in conformity with their faith. They used their faith and Cyril's to judge the faith of Celestine and not the other way around.</div> <bR> <div>      Another interesting part of this council was when it was over, the legates of pope Celestine examined the Acts of the Council and said it was canonical. Why? </div> <bR> <div>   “Since the bishops of the East and West have taken part in the council, in person or by proxy.”</div> <bR> <div>      They never mentioned, or even hinted that it was due to the bishop of Rome directing or confirming it.<FONT SIZE="1" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" >57</FONT> This view is identical with Eastern Orthodoxy but goes against modern Roman Catholicism.</div> <div>      The Third Ecumenical Council wasn't called, presided or confirmed by the bishop of Rome.</div> <bR> <div> <B>6) The Council of Chalcedon (451 AD) or the Fourth Ecumenical Council.</B></div> <bR> <div>      This council was convoked by Emperor Marcian and Emperor Valentinan.<FONT SIZE="1" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" >58</FONT> Pope Leo sent legates to the council and wrote a letter to the council in which he said among other things, “Let your brotherhood reckon that I am presiding at the synod [through his legates].”<FONT SIZE="1" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" >59</FONT></div> <div>      Does this mean he possessed supremacy <I>over</I> the council? No. By examining the Transactions of the Council we notice that the representatives of the Emperors possessed the first place and there was a group of presidents under them comprised of not only the legates of Leo, but also the bishops of Constantinople, Antioch and Jerusalem. These acted as “simultaneous ecclesiastical presidents.” Leo of Rome through his legates and Anatolius, the bishop of Constantinople presided over the council,<FONT SIZE="1" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" >60</FONT> and all the other bishops of the major Sees were included in this quorum of presidents.<FONT SIZE="1" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" >61</FONT> An examination of the sixteenth session clearly shows the “most glorious judges” weren't the legates of the Pope of Rome. They were the eighteen imperial officers appointed by the Emperor.<FONT SIZE="1" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" >62</FONT></div> <div>      Just as with the Third Ecumenical Council, the standard used was Cyril's. Everyone, including Leo (and his <I>Tome</I> or book), had to prove to be in agreement with Cyril. They didn't accept Leo's letter without examining its orthodoxy. Their action shows they didn't believe in a supremacy of the Pope of Rome or else Leo's <I>Tome </I>should've been the standard all the rest of the bishops adhered to.<FONT SIZE="1" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" >63</FONT></div> <div>      The bishops' exclamation, “Peter has spoken by Leo!” doesn't mean they recognized Leo as their Supreme Ruler since this exclamation only occurred after Leo's declaration of belief (his <I>Tome</I>) was examined and they realized his doctrine was identical with theirs and is orthodox. Notice Anatolius, the bishop of Constantinople's statement after reading Leo's <I>Tome</I>:</div> <bR> <div> “The letter of the most holy and religious archbishop Leo<I> agrees with</I> the Creed of our 318 fathers at Nice, and of the 150 who afterwards assembled at Constantinople, and confirmed the same faith, and with the proceedings at Ephesus under the most blessed Cyril, who is among the saints, by the Ecumenical and holy council, when it condemned Nestorius. I therefore agree to it, and willingly subscribe to it.”<FONT SIZE="1" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" >64</FONT><FONT SIZE="3" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" > </FONT></div> <bR> <div>      Anatolius' statement is one, not subscribing out of obedience, but of carefully reflecting,<FONT SIZE="1" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" >65</FONT> and using the creeds of previous Ecumenical councils as the standard to be measured against.</div> <div>      Their praise of Leo is identical with their earlier praises after the reading of the Creed of Nicea, the anathemas against the Arians, the Creed of Constantinople, and the letter of Cyril to Nestorius. Even the sixth session's praise of the Emperor is identical with their praise to Leo. The hailed the Emperor, “The new Paul, the new David, you are the peace of the world!” Obviously, these praises do not contain any doctrinal undertones, but were purely flowery oratory. </div> <div>      Maximus also clearly said in the seventh session that his see was also the See of Peter, consequently Rome didn't possess the title, “See of Peter” exclusively.<FONT SIZE="1" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" >66</FONT></div> <bR> <div>      This council's 28th canon states,</div> <bR> <div>   “Following in all things the decisions of the holy Fathers, and acknowledging the canon, which has been just read, of the One Hundred and Fifty bishops beloved-of-God (who assembled in the imperial city of Constantinople,<I> which is New Rome</I>, in the time of Theodosius of happy memory),<I> we also do enact and decree the same things concerning the privileges to the throne of old Rome, because it was the royal city. </I>And the One Hundred and Fifty most religious Bishops,<I> actuated by the same consideration, gave equal privileges to the most holy throne of New Rome, justly judging that the city which is honoured with the Sovereignty and the Senate, and enjoys equal privileges with the old imperial Rome, should in ecclesiastical matters also be magnified as she is, and rank next after her;</I> so that, in the Pontic, the Asian, and the Thracian dioceses, the metropolitans only and such bishops also of the Dioceses aforesaid as are among the barbarians, should be ordained by the aforesaid most holy throne of the most holy Church of Constantinople; every metropolitan of the aforesaid dioceses, together with the bishops of his province, ordaining his own provincial bishops, as had been declared by the divine canons; but that, as had been above said, the metropolitans of the aforesaid Dioceses should be ordained by the archbishop of Constantinople, after the proper elections have been held according to custom and have been reported to him.”<FONT SIZE="1" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" >67</FONT></div> <bR> <div>      This council's twenty-eighth Canon states Constantinople will be equal with Rome and will occupy the second rank of honor because it is New Rome. The primacy (<I>presbeia</I>) of Rome wasn't a primacy of jurisdiction (<I>pronomia</I>).<FONT SIZE="1" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" >68</FONT></div> <div>      This canon proves the bishops of the church at the Council of Chalcedon didn't believe in papal supremacy. Sure, Pope Leo never accepted this canon but his reasons for rejecting this ranking of Constantinople (because Constantinople wasn't an apostolic see and because this ranking overturned the [supposed] ranking laid down by the Nicene Council) were flawed. Rome wasn't granted the first rank because it was an apostolic see, it was due to Rome being the capital of the Roman Empire, and of having the Senate. </div> <div>      In addition, Leo never mentions anywhere, he was superior to the council or his primacy was a Divine Right (jure Divino). Leo's strongest statement against this canon was, “I declare it to be invalid and annul it by the authority of the holy apostle Peter.”<FONT SIZE="1" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" >69</FONT> This doesn't mean he was superior to the council, it means this canon of the Council of Chalcedon wouldn't be recognized as ecumenical or binding upon the whole church since the West (where the church of Rome was the only apostolic see) rejected it.</div> <div>      The sixteenth session witnessed the papal legates, (Paschasinus and Lucentius) protesting the 28th canon, and “the most glorious judges” ordered the canon reread. The legates of the Pope of Rome charged that the bishops were forced to sign this canon to which the bishops themselves said they weren't. The Pope's legates then charged this canon went against the Canons of the Nicene Council, and “the most glorious judges” ordered the papal legates to read their copy of the sixth Nicene Canon. It turns out that the Sixth Canon the Roman legates were using was defective. Constantine the secretary, read the correct version and also read the Third Canon of Constantinople. After this, “the most glorious judges” interviewed each bishop to find out if any of them were forced to sign the 28th Canon, and all the bishops said they signed it of their own free will.</div> <div>      After this, the most glorious judges said, </div> <bR> <div>   “From what has been done and brought forward on each side, we perceive that the primacy of all and the chief honour according to the canons, is to be kept for the most God-beloved archbishop of Old Rome, but that the most reverend archbishop of the royal city Constantinople, which is new Rome, is to enjoy the honour of the same primacy, and to have the power to ordain the metropolitans in the Asiatic, Pontic and Thracian dioceses ... Thus the matter appears to us to stand. Let the holy Synod vouchsafe to teach its view of the case.</div> <div>   The most reverend bishops cried out: This is a just sentence. So we all say. These things please us all. This is a just determination. Establish the proposed form of decree. This is a just vote. All has been decreed as should be. We beg you to let us go. By the safety of the Emperor let us go. We all will remain in this opinion, we all say the same things.”<FONT SIZE="1" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" >70</FONT></div> <bR> <div>      By this decision it is obvious that these Catholic bishops viewed the primacy granted to Rome as derived from tradition (which could be modified) and not from God (which couldn't). It isn't possible to envision these bishops viewing the primacy of Rome as a divinely appointed monarchical supremacy,<FONT SIZE="1" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" >71</FONT> by their actions which, if it occurred in the present Roman Catholic Church would be considered a mass apostasy by the majority of the church from the head of the church.</div> <div>      The council disregarded even Leo's declaration that Theodoret was orthodox and should have his see restored to him. It decided to examine him for themselves and after Theodoret anathematized Nestorius, then, and only then, did the council restore him to his church. The papal pronouncement was of no effect to the council members.</div> <div>      Again, just as the case with the first three Ecumenical Councils, neither did the bishop of Rome call, preside or confirm the Fourth Ecumenical Council.</div> <bR> <div> <B>7) The Council of Constantinople (553 AD) or the Fifth Ecumenical Council.</B></div> <bR> <div>      Emperor Justinian and Eutychius called this council and the patriarch of Constantinople presided.</div> <div>      Pope Vigilius was strongly opposed to the creation and position of this council, which even removed his name from the Diptychs<FONT SIZE="1" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" >72</FONT> of the church for his heresy.<FONT SIZE="1" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" >73</FONT><FONT SIZE="3" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Courier New" > </FONT>He eventually agreed with the decision of the council and wrote to Eutychius six months after the close of the council and admitted “he had sinned against charity in separating himself from his brethren.” He also said that after careful examination his initial defense was wrong and his opponents were right.</div> <div>      As with all the previous General and Ecumenical Councils, the bishop of Rome did not call, preside or confirm this council.</div> <bR> <div> <B>8) The Council of Constantinople (680 AD) or the Sixth Ecumenical Council.</B></div> <bR> <div>      Emperor Constantine IV called and presided over this council. He occupied the first place and the delegates from Rome and Jerusalem were on his left and the patriarchs of Constantinople and Antioch and the delegate from Alexandria were on his right. </div> <div>      A couple of really interesting things about this council can be found in its 13th and 16th session:</div> <div>      The 13th session states,</div> <bR> <div>   “The Holy council said: After we had reconsidered, according to our promise which we had made to your highness, the doctrinal letters of Sergius, at one time Patriarch of this royal God-protected city to Cyrus, who was then bishop of Phasis and to Honorius some time Pope of Old Rome, as well as the letter to the same Sergius, we find that these documents are quite foreign to the apostolic dogmas, to the declarations of the holy councils and to all the accepted Fathers, and that they follow the false teachings of the heretics; therefore we entirey reject them, and execrate them as hurtful to the soul.<I> But the names of those whose doctrines we must execrate must also be thrust forth from the holy church of God</I>, namely, that of Sergius some time bishop of this God-preserved royal city who was the first to write on this impious doctrine; also that of Cyrus of Alexandria, of Pyrrhus, Paul, and Peter, who died bishops of this God-preserved city, and were like-minded with them; and that of Theodore sometime bishop of Pharan, all of whom the most holy and thrice blessed<I> Agatho, Pope of Old Rome,</I> in his suggestion to our most pious and God-preserved lord and mighty Emperor, <I>rejected, because they were minded contrary to our orthodox faith, all of whom we define are to be subjected to anathema. And with these we define that there shall be expelled from the holy Church of God and anathematized Honorius who was sometime Pope of Old Rome, because of what we found written by him to Sergius, that in all respects he followed his view, and confirmed his impious doctrines</I>.”<FONT SIZE="1" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" >74</FONT></div> <bR> <div>      The 16th session states,</div> <bR> <div>   “To Theodore of Pharan, the heretic, anathema! To Sergius, the heretic, anathema! To Cyrus, the heretic, anathema!<I> To Honorius, the heretic, anathema!”</I><FONT SIZE="1" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" >75</FONT></div> <bR> <div>      This Ecumenical Council condemned the previous bishop of Rome as a heretic for his false teaching on the nature of Christ (he taught false doctrine) and was ratified by both the Eastern and Western bishops.</div> <div>      The 36th Trallan canon created a couple of years later after this council,<FONT SIZE="1" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" >76</FONT> (the Trallan canons are recognized as the canons of this council, which Pope Hadrian I accepted,)<FONT SIZE="1" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" >77</FONT> says,</div> <bR> <div> <FONT SIZE="3" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" >  </FONT>“Renewing the enactments by the one hundred and fifty Fathers assembled at the God-protected and imperial city, and those of the six hundred and thirty at Chalcedon; <I>we decree that the See of Constantinople shall have equal privileges with the See of Old Rome, and shall be highly regarded in ecclesiastical matters as that is, and shall be second after it. After Constantinople shall be ranked the See of Alexandria, then that of Antioch, and afterwards the See of Jerusalem.”</I><FONT SIZE="1" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" >78</FONT></div> <bR> <div>      The legates of the bishop of Rome signed the Acts of this Council. After the council, a group of bishops and delegates wrote to Pope Agatho and asked him to agree with the decision of this council and for him to refuse to side with the condemned that were exiled to Rome. Agatho died before receiving the exiles and the missive from the council members. His successor, Leo II received the letter and agreed with the decision of the Council. In his letter to Emperor Constantine IV dated May 7, 683, he writes,</div> <bR> <div>  <I> “We anathematize</I> the inventors of the new errour (sic), to wit, Theodore of Pharan, Cyrus of Alexandria, Sergius, Pyrrhus Paul and Peter of Constantinople, and also <I>Honorius, who, instead of purifying this Apostolic Church by the doctrine of the Apostles, has come near to overthrowing the faith by an impious treason.”</I></div> <bR> <div>      Modern Roman Catholic apologists dismiss the Honorius incident as a situation wherein he didn't teach infallibly. Aside from the absence of this doctrine among the early Church Fathers, Pope Leo II understood the mistake of Honorius quite differently than the portrayal it is given by the Roman Catholic Church today. Pope Leo II viewed the error of Pope Honorius to be so serious that he nearly destroyed the faith of the church in Rome.</div> <div>      Roman Catholic apologists also claim that when the council proclaimed, “Peter has spoken by Agatho,” this praise shows they recognized Agatho as being the sole representative of Peter and was in a position of superior authority.</div> <div>      This understanding is definitely wrong because the council members only gave this praise after they examined the letter from Pope Agatho and was shown to be identical with their own and with traditional Catholic doctrine.<FONT SIZE="1" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" >79</FONT> In addition, if they viewed the bishop of Rome as having greater authority than the council, why would they praise Agatho but condemn his predecessor, Honorius?<FONT SIZE="1" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" >80</FONT> This proves they viewed the council as possessing superior authority over any given bishop.</div> <div>      As with the case with the previous seven General Councils, the bishop of Rome did not call, preside or confirm this council.</div> <bR> <div> <B>Conclusion</B></div> <bR> <div>      The facts are very clear that the bishop of Rome did not call, preside or confirm any Ecumenical or General Council in the first eight centuries. An examination of the documents produced by these councils confirms this fact. Neither is the doctrine of papal supremacy found in these councils because such a concept wasn't recognized as apostolic. Council members in all councils viewed no single bishop was superior to others except in the case of priority. Neither did the councils view their decisions to be subordinate to the opinion of the bishop of Rome or of any other bishop. </div> <div>      In fact, the opposite is clearly visible. The Council of Arles treated the judgment of Pope Sylvester and the Roman council as inferior to its own by the simple fact that it re-examined the Donatist issue despite the Roman Council already condemning the Donatists. The Council of Sardica disregarded the decision of Pope Julius and the Roman Council; The Council of Constantinople (381) was headed by one who was excommunicated by the Roman Pope. The Council of Ephesus disregarded the pronouncement of Pope Celestine and decided to examine the Nestorian incident themselves. The Council of Constantinople (553) was created despite vigorous opposition of the Pope of Rome, which even condemned him for heresy. The Council of Constantinople (680) condemned a previous Pope of Rome as a heretic numerous times. </div> <bR> <div>   In every instance, whenever the Pope of Rome sent a letter to the assembled councils, the councils always examined his letter to see if his views were identical with theirs. They never accepted his letter as from a superior to a subordinate that would cause them to accept his letter without question.</div> <bR> <div>      The weakness of the claim of Papal Supremacy over the church councils causes the Roman Catholic apologists and scholars to use a later fact or interpretation to explain an earlier incident. For example, the earliest church councils, both General and Ecumenical acted as the Supreme Head of the Catholic Church, not the bishop of Rome, who did not call, preside or confirm these councils. The monarchical supremacy of the bishop of Rome didn't occur until the sixth century in the West. Consequently, the Roman Catholic apologist will use the claims and understandings of post-sixth century councils to explain the role of the bishop of Rome in earlier councils. Even bishop Hefele, the Roman Catholic bishop of Rottenburg, had to “examine” the Eighth Ecumenical Council (869) and work his way back to the First Ecumenical Council (325), using the statements and standards of mid-ninth century Catholicism to “clarify” the earliest councils, and the role the bishop of Rome performed in them.<FONT SIZE="1" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" >81</FONT> Hefele claims the primacy rank of the bishop of Rome means he possessed a monarchical jurisdiction over all others including the councils, when in reality, the bishop of Rome simply occupied the primacy of honor, not jurisdiction. Hefele, however, unintentionally slips from his official stance in many places and mentions many incidences, which disproves Papal Supremacy.</div> <div>      For a correct understanding of the role the bishop of Rome played in the church councils, it is necessary for one to take the time to examine the acts, sessions and canons of the councils since such an action disproves the wild claims of Roman Catholic apologists.</div> <bR> <div> <B>[ENDNOTES]:</B></div> <bR> <div> 1.I am not including the earlier councils such as the Councils of Elvira, Ancyra, Neocaesarea, Antioch, Carthage, etc. since they weren't general councils but were more provincial or local. Despite their absence in this study, an examination of the earliest councils of the church shows the absence of the bishop of Rome in calling, presiding or confirming any of these councils. (See HISTORY OF THE CHURCH COUNCILS [Hefele]. Vol 1.)</div> <div>      The Council of Antioch (April, 325 A.D.) was different in many respects than the earlier councils because it was presided by Emperor Constantine and had Hosius (or Ossius) of Cordova as the presiding bishop and was a precursor to the Council of Nicea. (See PAGANS AND CHRISTIANS [Fox]. pp.642-643,655,664.)</div> <bR> <div> 2.THE SEVEN ECUMENICAL COUNCILS. THE NICENE AND POST-NICENE FATHERS Second Series (Schaff & Wace). 14:XI.</div> <div> 3.Ibid. f.2.</div> <div> 4.THE SEVEN ECUMENICAL COUNCILS. THE NICENE AND POST-NICENE FATHERS Second Series (Schaff & Wace). 14:XIII.</div> <div> 5.Despite Hefele's erroneous implications - A HISTORY OF THE CHRISTIAN COUNCILS (Hefele). 1:27.</div> <div> 6.Even Hefele has to admit this indisputable fact but emphasizes the first rank of Rome, which no one denies. A HISTORY OF THE CHRISTIAN COUNCILS (Hefele). 1:29.</div> <div> 7.St. Optatus. <I>Against Parmenianus</I>, Book 1.</div> <div> 8.Eusebius, <I>Eccl. Hist</I>. Book 10, Chapter 5.</div> <div> 9.Eusebius, <I>Eccl. Hist</I>. Book 10, Chapter 5: See also Constantine's <I>Epistle to Aelafius</I> of Africa.</div> <div> 10.THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE PAPACY (Burn-Murdoch). p.149.</div> <div> 11.A HISTORY OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH (Hefele). 1:180-181.</div> <div> 12.Eusebius, <I>Eccl Hist</I>. Book 10, Chap 5.</div> <div> 13.THE SEE OF PETER (Shotwell & Loomis). pp.481, & f.82; f.92 on 486.</div> <div> 14.Optatus.<I> On the Donatist Shismatics</I>. App.7, pp.211-212. THE RISE OF CHRISTIANITY (Frend). p.491; A HISTORY OF THE CHRISTIAN COUNCILS (Hefele). 1:197-198. </div> <div>      Hefele's attempt to show the bishop of Rome possessed supremacy over the council and the emperor collapses with his own writings on Emperor Constantine's actions of disregarding the decision of the Roman Council (which had the bishop of Rome as a co-judge!) and creating the Council of Arles, and of him later on disregarding the Council of Arles' decision and acting superior to them by deciding to settle the Donatist issue once and for all. </div> <bR> <div> 15.A HISTORY OF THE CHRISTIAN COUNCILS (Hefele). 1:261.</div> <div> 16.Eusebius, <I>Life of Constantine</I>. Book 3, Chapter 6; NICENE AND POST-NICENE FATHERS OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH (Schaff and Wace). Vol 1. p.521; THE HOLY FIRE (Payne). pp.77-78.</div> <div> 17.Eusebius. <I>Life of Constantine</I>. Book 3, Chapter 12; THE NICENE AND POST-NICENE FATHERS OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH (Schaff and Wace). Vol 1. p.523.</div> <div> 18.See also THE SEE OF PETER (Shotwell & Loomis). p.470.</div> <div> 19.Eusebius, <I>Life of Constantine.</I> Book 3, Chapter 13.</div> <div> 20.Eusebius, <I>Life of Constantine</I>. Book 3, Chapter 23. See also Chapters 16,17,21.</div> <div> 21.THE HOLY FIRE (Payne). p.81.</div> <div> 22.Eusebius.<I> Life Of Constantine</I>. Book 3, Chapter 13; NICENE AND POST-NICENE FATHERS OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH (Schaffs and Wace). Vol 1. p.523.</div> <div> 23.Eusebius. <I>Life of Constantine.</I> Book 1, Chapter 44; Book 4, Chapter 24; THE SEE OF PETER (Shotwell & Loomis). pp.476-477,534.</div> <div> 24.Eusebius. <I>Life of Constantine</I>. Book 3, Chapter 11; THE NICENE AND POST-NICENE FATHERS OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH (Schaff and Wace). Vol 1. p.522.</div> <div> 25.Athanasius. <I>Apology for his Flight</I>. Chapter 5.</div> <div> 26.Socrates <I>Eccl. Hist.</I> Book 1, Chapter 7; ENCYCLOPEDIA BRITTANICA. 6:77.</div> <div> 27.Eusebius. <I>Life of Constantine</I>. Book 3, Chapter 7. NICENE AND POST-NICENE FATHERS OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH (Schaff and Wace). Vol 1. p.521.</div> <div> 28.Hefele, despite conceding that Gelasius, “admitted things which were improbable, and evidently false” (A HISTORY OF THE CHRISTIAN COUNCILS 1:265) tries his best to support Gelasius' statement that Hosius was the bishop of Rome's representative simply because it supports his church's position.</div> <div> 29.Felix III. <I>Epistles</I>. 5.<I> Ad. Imp. Zen</I>.; Theodoret. <I>Eccl. Hist.</I> Book 1. E.C. </div> <div> 30.At best Hefele furnishes a non sequitur, arguing a later fact of ranking for an earlier incident before any ranking of the major Sees were made. A HISTORY OF THE CHRISTIAN COUNCILS (Hefele). 1:39.</div> <div> 31.PAGANS AND CHRISTIANS (Fox). pp.656.</div> <div> 32.THE SEE OF PETER (Shotwell & Loomis). pp.215,464.</div> <div> 33.THE EARLY CHRISTIAN CHURCH (Davies). p.189.</div> <div> 34.THE SEE OF PETER (Shotwell & Loomis). pp. 454,463.</div> <div> 35.Athanasius, <I>Apology Against the Arians</I>. Chapters 49 & 50; <I>Signatures of the Council</I>, “Hosius of Spain, Julius of Rome by the priests Archidamus & Philoxenus,” etc. Hefele's assertion that, “On account of the absence of the Pope, Hosius took the presidency and was head of the synod” (A HISTORY OF THE CHRISTIAN COUNCILS 2:96) is another red herring since the legates of the bishop of Rome always acted in the place of the Pope as if he was present in every Ecumenical and General council. For example, Leo's legates to the Council of Chalcedon were in his place (Ibid. 3:280) and Leo's letter to the council explicitly mentions they are to be in his place.</div> <div> 36.Socrates, <I>Hist. Eccl</I>. Book 1, Chapter 30.</div> <div> 37.Hefele says, “(Its creation) implied that all judgments hitherto pronounced for [from Julius and the Roman Council] and against [from the Arians] Athanasius and his adherents including that of Antioch, should be considered as suspended.” A HISTORY OF THE CHRISTIAN COUNCILS 2:99. Thusly, a later church council supercedes a decision previously handed down by the Pope of Rome, which obviously causes the Pope to be inferior to a church council. See also the Council of Ephesus superceding a decision handed down by Celestine of Rome that shows this Ecumenical Council was superior to the Pope of Rome.</div> <div> 38.EVIDENCE FOR OUR FAITH (Cavanaugh). pp.144-145.</div> <div> 39.THE SEVEN ECUMENICAL COUNCILS. THE NICENE AND POST-NICENE FATHERS Second Series (Schaff & Wace). 14:417.</div> <div> 40.THE SEVEN ECUMENICAL COUNCILS. THE NICENE AND POST-NICENE FATHERS Second Series (Schaff & Wace). 14:418.</div> <div> 41.The Eastern bishops refused to participate in this council and even excommunicated Julius. Hilary <I>Fragments</I>. 6 Series A,4. <I>The Encyclical Letter of the Eastern Bishops at Sardica.</I></div> <div> 42.THE PAPACY (Guette). p. 126.</div> <div> 43.Athanasius, <I>Apology Against Arian</I>; The <I>Ecclesiastical Histories </I>of Socrates; Sozomen; and Theodoret; <I>Acts of the Councils</I> (Labbe's Collection).</div> <div> 44.Athanasius, <I>Apology Against Arian</I>; Hillary of Poitiers, <I>Fragments</I>; Theodoret,<I> Eccl. Hist.</I></div> <div> 45.EVIDENCE FOR OUR FAITH (Cavanaugh). p.144. Cited from <I>Ep. syn. Sard. ad Iul.</I></div> <div> 46.THE PAPACY. p.127.</div> <div> 47.Noel Alexandre.<I> Hist. Eccl</I>; Anastasius de Vit[the Librarian], <I>Roman Pontiff #67. Boniface III</I>; Paul the Deacon,<I> De Gestis Lngobard. Book 4,87</I>.</div> <div> 48.THE DECLINE AND FALL OF THE ROMAN EMPIRE (Gibbons). 1:423.</div> <div> 49.THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE PAPACY (Burn-Murdoch). pp.177-178.</div> <div> 50.THE SEVEN ECUMENICAL COUNCILS. THE NICENE AND POST-NICENE FATHERS Second Series (Schaff & Wace). 14:178.</div> <div> 51.St. Leo.<I> Epistles</I>. 106.</div> <div> 52.<I>The Works of St. Cyril of Alexandria.</I> Labbe's Collection of the Councils; Socrates, <I>Eccl. Hist.</I></div> <div> 53.THE SEVEN ECUMENICAL COUNCILS. THE NICENE AND POST-NICENE FATHERS Second Series (Schaff & Wace). 14:XIV, 193-195; THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE PAPACY (Burn-Murdoch). p.228.</div> <div> 54.<I>Letter of the Synod to Pope Celestine</I>. THE SEVEN ECUMENICAL COUNCILS. THE NICENE AND POST-NICENE FATHERS Second Series (Schaff & Wace). 14:239.</div> <div> 55.<I>Letter of Pope Celestine to the Synod of Ephesus</I>. THE SEVEN ECUMENICAL COUNCILS. THE NICENE AND POST-NICENE FATHERS Second Series (Schaff & Wace). 14:220-221.</div> <div> 56.THE SEVEN ECUMENICAL COUNCILS. THE NICENE AND POST-NICENE FATHERS Second Series (Schaff & Wace). 14:222.</div> <div> 57.THE PAPACY. p.114.</div> <div> 58.THE SEVEN ECUMENICAL COUNCILS. THE NICENE AND POST-NICENE FATHERS Second Series (Schaff & Wace). 14:262.</div> <div> 59.St. Leo.<I> Epistles.</I> 93 (to the Council of Chalcedon). June 26, 451.</div> <div> 60.Int. Act. Council of Chaccedon.</div> <div> 61.Photius, <I>The Synods</I>. Book 7; Cedrenus, <I>Compend. Hist;</I> Zonarius, <I>Annal</I>; Nilus of Rhodes, <I>de Synod</I>. (See The  Papacy. Footnote, p.118.</div> <div> 62.THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE PAPACY (Burn-Murdoch). pp.242-244.</div> <div> 63.THE RISE OF CHRISTIANITY (Frend). pp.770,790.</div> <div> 64.THE SEVEN ECUMENICAL COUNCILS. THE NICENE AND POST-NICENE FATHERS Second Series (Schaff & Wace). 14:244.</div> <div> 65.THE SEVEN ECUMENICAL COUNCILS. THE NICENE AND POST-NICENE FATHERS Second Series (Schaff & Wace). 14:244.</div> <div> 66.St. Leo. <I>Epistles</I>. 52.</div> <div> 67.THE SEVEN ECUMENICAL COUNCILS. THE NICENE AND POST-NICENE FATHERS Second Series (Schaff & Wace). 14:287.</div> <div> 68.THE RISE OF CHRISTIANITY (Frend). p.784., e.173.</div> <div> 69.St. Leo. <I>Epistles</I>. 105. To Pulchera.</div> <div> 70.THE SEVEN ECUMENICAL COUNCILS. THE NICENE AND POST-NICENE FATHERS Second Series (Schaff & Wace). 14:295; A HISTORY OF THE CHRISTIAN COUNCILS (Hefele). 3:426-428.</div> <div> 71.THE SEVEN ECUMENICAL COUNCILS. THE NICENE AND POST-NICENE FATHERS Second Series (Schaff & Wace). 14:295.</div> <div> 72.The Diptychs were hinged tablets with the names of orthodox leaders that were placed upon the altar and their names were read aloud at special events. THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE PAPACY (Burn-Murdoch). p.189.</div> <div> 73.Seventh Session. THE SEVEN ECUMENICAL COUNCILS. THE NICENE AND POST-NICENE FATHERS Second Series (Schaff & Wace). 14:305.</div> <div> 74.THE SEVEN ECUMENICAL COUNCILS. THE NICENE AND POST-NICENE FATHERS Second Series (Schaff & Wace). 14:342-343.</div> <div> 75.THE SEVEN ECUMENICAL COUNCILS. THE NICENE AND POST-NICENE FATHERS Second Series (Schaff & Wace). 14:343.</div> <div> 76.THE SEVEN ECUMENICAL COUNCILS. THE NICENE AND POST-NICENE FATHERS Second Series (Schaff & Wace). 14:358.</div> <div> 77.Hadrian's<I> Epistle to Tenasius </I>(note his reference to the 82nd Trallan Canon. THE SEVEN ECUMENICAL COUNCILS. THE NICENE AND POST-NICENE FATHERS OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH Second Series (Schaff & Wace). 14:357.</div> <div> 78.THE SEVEN ECUMENICAL COUNCILS. THE NICENE AND POST-NICENE FATHERS Second Series (Schaff & Wace). 14:382.</div> <div> 79.THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE PAPACY (Burn-Murdoch). p.291.</div> <div> 80.Also see<I> the Definition of Faith</I> in the 18th session and <I>the Report to the Emperor from the Council.</I> THE SEVEN ECUMENICAL COUNCILS. THE NICENE AND POST-NICENE FATHERS Second Series (Schaff & Wace). 14:344-352.</div> <div> 81.HISTORY OF THE CHURCH COUNCILS (Hefele). 1:23-42.</div> <bR> <div> <A HREF="mailto:ewatson@shaw.ca" TARGET="_top" TITLE="mailto:ewatson@shaw.ca"><U>e-mail me!</U></A></div> <bR> </td> </tr></table></body>