Cyprian Was Wrong on Rebaptism

[Evfimy]

Pope Leo the Great, who rejected rebaptism, is commemorated by Orthodox on Feburary 18. Source ==> Menaion, Athens 1966-1980, Feburary, 100-102].

[Jean-Serge]

So what? Even the saints make mistakes...

[Evfimy]

So what? Even the saints make mistakes...

That's right. And Saint Cyprian made a mistake. My whole point is that the popes have authority over African bishops. The see of Rome has the primacy of authority. Saint Cyprian had no authority.

[Evfimy]

Since you are doing so good asking Gerry Daffer's old questions from 2002, maybe you'd like a turn answering them:

I repeated one question he made because I was too lazy to type it out that night.

like the one he IGNORED on the Libellus of Hormisdas. First asked 2002. NEVER ANSWERED, during or after the debate.

I don't know if he answered it. I would have to check the debate. But maybe he hasn't answered it because he felt he already did in his debate. Maybe he hasn't answered since then because you haven't asked him since then. There are multiple possibilities.

Why did the Patriarch John II object to the Pope’s letter-- and only agreed to sign it after a council with the Papal legates present, by re-writing the letter with a preface stating:

Know therefore, most holy one, that, according to what I have written, agreeing in the truth with thee, I too, loving peace, renounce all the heretics repudiated by thee for I hold the most holy churches of the elder and of the new Rome to be one; I define that see of the apostle Peter and this of the imperial city to be one see,

You only quoted about 1/3 of the preface. Here is the full text. I put brakets to show where your quote starts and ends.

"To my Lord, in all things my most holy and blessed brother and fellow-minister Hormisdas, John bishop, health in the Lord...I have received the letter of Your Holiness, beloved brother in Christ, by the illustrius Count Gratus, the most reverened bishops Germanus and John, the most holy deacons Felix and Dioscorus and the priest Blandus. I rejoiced at the spiritual charity of Your Holiness in that you seek the unity of the most holy churches of God in accordance with the tradition of the ancient fathers, and that your heart is set on driving away sll those who are tearing apart Christ's spiritual flock. [Here is where Suaiden begins his quote]. Be certain then, most holy (brother), that as I have written to you, in sincere accord with you and loving peace, I too reject all the heretics that you reject. For I take the most holy churches of God, that of your old Rome and that of this new Rome to be one. I define that that see of Peter the apostle and of this royal city are one. [Suaiden's quote ends here]. I adhere to all the acts of the four holy councils of Nicea, Constantinople, Ephesus and Chalcedon about the confirmation of the faith and the state of the Church, and I do not suffer anything that has been well judged to be undermined: on the contrary, I know that those who strive to alter just one point have fallen from the holy, Catholic and apostolic Church of God; and making clear use of your well spoken words, by these present letters I say the following..." [CSEL 35:607-8].

The letter continues with the words of the libellus, or profession of faith, which the pope had sent into the east, including these phrases at the end:

"Now if in any respect I attempt to deviate from my [present] profession [of faith], by my own sentence I profess that I am in the company of those whom I have condemned. This profession I have signed with my own hand, and sent it in writing to you, Hormisdas, holy and , most blessed brother and Pope of great Rome, by the above-mentioned venerable bishops Germanus and John, and the deacons Felix and Dioscorus, and the priest Blandus.

I John, by God's mercy bishop of Constantinople, New Rome, adhering to everything said above by this my profession [of faith]. have signed enjoying full liberty in the Lord. Given on March 27, in the twelth indiction, with the consent of the Lord Emperor Justinus Augustus, in the consulate of the glorius Eutharic. [CSEL 35:607-10].

and at the same time, why did Dorotheus of Thessalonica (you allege Thessalonica was once the vicariate of Rome itself) rip the document in half?

No one is alleging anything. It is an historical fact that Thessalonica was the home for the papal vicars of the east.

I have no data showing he ripped the document in half. But I do know Pope Hormisdas stated in reference to Dorotheus:

"let him receive doctrine from the Apostolic See, and whatever he considers doubtful, let him learn from us, by coming here to examine us now." [CSEL 35:690-92].

Both John II and the Byzantine rulers were delighted at the restoration of communion with Rome, and desired that this unity last forever, so that, as Juliana of Anica wrote to Pope Hormisdas:

"with all remains of the past error excluded, the unity strenghtened by Your Beatitude's efforts may be led to perpetual effect." [CSEL 35:605].

It should also be noted that the legates accepted Patriarch John’s revision, and that despite the protest of St Hormisdas, Dorotheus was tried and freed in Constantinople after writing Hormisdas a letter affirming Chalcedon (Inter Epp. Hormisd. Ixii.lxiii. lxxii. Lxxiii).

Thank you for a source this time. The libellus required that the bishops accept the letters of Pope Leo, a condition the pope laid down back in 515, when he had sent the legates in the east. In his letters, he had expressely rejected canon 28 and defended the traditional order of sees, naming Antioch the third see and denying that Constantinople was a major see at all.

Putting my statement in such a context, I think calling it a "sorry affair" makes sense. But you say otherwise.

If it was a "sorry affair," why did 2500 priests under Emperor Justin sign it? [Roman Deacon Rusticus (c. 5500, PL 67, 1251-2].

The ancient Collectio Avellana, compiled about 550, calls it a libellus or profession of faith "which Pope Hormisdas laid down, to be given by all the bishops of Greece!" [CSEL 35:800].

It's possible the figure may have been inflated. I free concede that.

(CITATION in response to Jerry's accusation: The preface of John II is a protest that Hormisdas accepted, not a concession as my opponent claims. Nor did the Libellus end the schism, but Hormisdas’ support of military action by Emperor Justin. Source: DICTIONARY OF EARLY CHRISTIAN BIOGRAPHY, Wace / Piercy, quoted in the Roman Catholic Patrology of Dr Bardenhewer at Munich, English translation by Dr. T.J. Shahan, Catholic University of America, 1908. I refer to entry: Hormisdas ( 8 ), par. 3-5.)

It had not fully ended. That's why Photius, at the Fourth Council of Constantinople [869-870], where about a hundred bishops of the east participated, the Roman Legates made the bishops sign an expanded and adapted version of the formula of Pope Hormisdas. [Mansi 16:27 sq.].

[Evfimy]

God made a divine promise to the people of Israel but since thay did not fulfill their obligations, he withdrew it... So everything that is divine does ot necessarily last for eternity if the person who is the object of the contract does not respect it.

Other example : people who are baptized sometimes quit the faith; however the baptism is divine...

Those are good examples. But the primacy of Rome seems to be perpetual and by divine right. If any see was going to fall into apostasy, it would not have been Rome. Rome is the rock and head of the whole Church. The foundation, ediface and rock upon which the whole Church is built.

[Evfimy]

For those who are not familiar with the actual contents of the furmula of Hormisdas which the east signed, I will post the entire formula tomorrow.

[Jean-Serge]

What non sense. Saying this you simply states that the popes are not free to do what they want, even to go in heresy because God prevents this... It is contrary to the principle of Christian freedom. Moreover, the question of the rock has been interpreted in such way : all the apostles are the rock. By the way, Saint Peter was never bishop of Rome and his first town was Antioch!