Much has been made here of the statement accepted by the 7th Ecumenical Council, Nicaea II in 787, that council cannot be considered Ecumenical without the approval of Rome. I have been searching for a scholarly account of the statement of John the Deacon on why the iconoclastic Council of Hiereia (754) was not an Ecumenical Council because it was not approved by Rome. I finally found one in Shatzs PAPAL PRIMACY. However, the standards outlined at Nicaea II was as I thought it was. To be an Ecumenical Council, the council must be accepted not just by Rome, but also by the other 4 patriarchs. John the Deacon said: because either the Roman pope nor the bishops around him cooperated in it, either through delegates or letter, which is the law of councils. But even the patriarchs of the East, from Alexandria, Antioch, and the Holy City [Jerusalem] did not approve it. p. 57 Writing about this Shatz (PAPAL PRIMACY) stated, One should note the graduations here: On he one hand, as regards Rome, but also the other patriarchs. But Rome is also singled out. It must cooperate and the other patriarchs approve. p. 57. Thus properly understood, the statement of John the Deacon at Nicaea II is not that the pope alone can declare a council Ecumenical, but all 5 patriarchs must agree with Rome that a council is Ecumenical. Thus Rome had a primacy, but could not act alone on deciding the status of a council, but must also secure agreement of the other 4 ancient patriarchs that a council is an Ecumenical Council. Fr. John.
Posted on: Fri, 21 Nov 2014 18:35:08 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015