Cyprian Was Wrong on Rebaptism

[Evfimy]

I already answerd, in part, the Honorius question.

You need to go back and read the statements I gave from Saints Theodore and Maximus. The primacy is by divine establishment.

As for the Novations, I could not find the post you were referring to. But this is from one of my first posts:

"During the pontificate of Innocent I [401-417], Pope Innocent stated that Individuals returning from the Novations and Montanists, were be received by the imposition of hands only, because they had been baptized in Christ's name, "albeit by heretics." [PL 20:475].

[Evfimy]

Saint Peter in Rome:

Eusebius states that Peter "presided" at the see of Rome until his death. [Chronicle, 44 A.D. PG 19:539].

Eusebius also says that the title of "Peter and Paul" which was given to the cemeteries in Rome, confirmed the tradition about the martyrdom of the great apostles in Rome. Eusebius also speaks of a priest named Caius who defended the Churches tradition in these words:

"But I can point out the trophies of the Apostles, for if you go to the Vatican or to the Ostian Way you will find the trophies of those who founded this Church." [HE II, 25].

Eusebius also recorded the words of Dionysius, bishop of Corinth, who wrote to Soter, bishop of Rome, about 170 A.D.:

"By so great an admonition you bound together the foundations of the Romans and Corinthians by Peter and Paul, for both of them taught together in our Corinth and were our founders, and together also taught in Italy in the same place and were martyred at the same time." [HE II, 25].

Saint John Chrysostom, bishop of Constantinople [c.400], had been a priest of Antioch. In one homily he states Peter left Antioch and went to Rome. [De Inscr. Act. II, PG 51:86].

Greek liturgical offices commemorate St. Peter's episcopate in Rome. Texts for the feast of St. Peter's chains, on January 16, proclaim:

"...And you became the first bishop of Rome, Foundation and pillar of the most orthodox of cities....". [Ed. J.B. Pitra. Hymnographie de I Eglise Grecque. Rome 1867, LVII].

The priest Cauis mentioned the Vatican with reference to the place of Peter's burial. Later on a basilica rose in that area, and on its walls a mosaic bore this inscription: SUMMA PETRI SEDES, "The Supreme See of Peter." [SVNC 5:38].

The ancient "Poem Against Marcian" describes the succession at Rome:

"In the chair, located in the mighty Rome, Peter first commanded Linus, who was great, chosen and approved by the people, to sit where he himself had sat..."[PL 2: 1077-8].

Rufinus, a Latin historian [c. 400] says that after Peter's death, St. Clement received the "chair of teaching." [Preface to the Clementine Recognitions. PG. 1:1207-8].

St. Epiphanius discussed the apostolic succession at Rome and left this account:

"The succession of the bishops in Rome has this order: Peter and Paul, Linus, Cletus....."[. Haer. 27. PG 41:373].

Nicephorus Callistus Xanthopoulos was a Greek historian [c. 1330]. He remarks that St. Peter, having entrusted "the Keys of the Church of the Romans first to Linus, afterwards to Anacletus...."[HE II, 35. PG 145:845-6].

The Armenian Synaxarion of Patriarch Gregory VII of Anawarza [c. 1300]] commemorates St. Linus of 26 Sahmi [November 4], with this notice:

"St. Linus became bishop of Rome and "the most wise disciple and successor of the holy apostles" on November 25. [PG 117:177].

[Suaidan]

You write:

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

Lazy, or... dare I say, just following the program?

"I don't know if he answered it."

He didn't.

"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."

Are you now answering for him? I don't think so. But feel free to look for an answer.

"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."

Sure. It should help our case, not worsen it. Follow my italics, please.

"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 all 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]."

WHAT you are neglecting to note, Evfimy, or whoever you are, is that in fact, John therefore had included the very doctrine of Canon 28 which St Leo rejected! He wasn't avoiding the Chalcedonian definition that St Hormisdas was trying to ignore-- he was reinforcing it.

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

In fact, this is a historical opinion. They were not "vicars" in the normal Roman sense of vicars, and your teachers know that well.

"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]. "

Perhaps it would help to read up on the life of Dorotheus of Thessalonica. Dorotheus NEVER accepted the document and openly broke communion with Rome. He was threatened with deposition by the Emperor, which caused a riot, and finally, in frustration, Hormisdas, realizing he was getting nowhere, remanded the case to Constantinople.

"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].

...and?

"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."

The source was the same for both citations. You should have checked. Oh wait, you can't-- because you're only parroting someone else.

However, you are actually helping my point again. You see, both St Leo and St Hormisdas understood the Apostolic see as a triune see; not simply as Rome, but as Rome with Antioch and Alexandria. Or were you not aware of that?

"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."

You should also concede it was done under duress. You should also concede the final text was modified including Constantinople's new rights-- and accepted by Rome regardless. That's the reality.

"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.]."

Ahem... which council is that? Is it the one that was rejected ten years later? I know it's called the "Eighth ecumenical council" now by Rome, even though that's also what they called the Council of Florence. For that matter, your oh-so-important council, at which less than 20 Bishops were present at one session, and which, ten years later, was given the name "latrocinium" (or robber council) at Rome and the East, was never even considered "ecumenical" until TRENT.

[Suaidan]

I already answerd, in part, the Honorius question.

You answered the fact, in confirming the Sixth Council, that Pope St Leo II himself anathematized Honorius, referring to him as profana proditione immaculatem fidem subvertare conatus est (roughly, "one who 'by betrayal has tried to overthrow the immaculate faith'") and that in doing so, he was expanding on his predecessor, Pope St Agatho's anathema of the same?

I didn't read anything about that.

[Jean-Serge]

Let's come back to the question of baptising heretics. I said that it was abiding by canons 46 and 47 of the Apostles and said that theses canons were validated by the council in Trullo. Then Evfimy told me the West did not recognize such council in Trullo. Actually, he is wrong. A bishop of Ravenna acted there as a legate of the Pope. Moreover, the Popes recognised this council in Trullo.

They [The canons of Trullo] are further confirmed by three Popes, namely, Adrian I, Gregory II, and Innocent III, by Gratian, by the legates of the Pope who were present at the Seventh Ec. C., by the so-called First-and-Second Council, which mentions its c. XXXI in its own c. XII. They are also confirmed or attested by Cedrenus, by John of Damacus (or John Damascene), who says, "consult the definitions of the Sixth Council and you will find there the proof." They were also confirmed or attested by the interpreters of the Canons, by Photius, by the personal signatures both of the Emperor and of the legates of the Pope of Rome, as well as those of the Patriarchs and of the Fathers who attended it. Thus, summarily speaking, it may be said to have been attested and confirmed by the whole catholic Church, notwithstanding that the modern Latins calumiously traduce them because they censure and controvert their innovations. Adrian I in his letter to Tarasius has left us this admirable testimony concerning these Canons in the following words: "I accept the decisions made by the same holy Sixth Council, together with all the Canons it has duly and divinely uttered, wherein they are expressed."

[Evfimy]

Suaiden Stated:

However, you are actually helping my point again. You see, both St Leo and St Hormisdas understood the Apostolic see as a triune see; not simply as Rome, but as Rome with Antioch and Alexandria. Or were you not aware of that?

My Response:

Can you show me a refernece and source showing that the apostolic see was three-headed?

I can show you multiple sources showing Rome as "the Apostolic See, if you are interested. I have never read anything that says or even implies the "apostolic See" was comprised of Rome, Antioch and Alexandria. The see Apostolic See [singular] was Rome alone.

And if Alexandria and Antioch were subservient to Rome, and vice versa, then logically the former two have been invalid and non-functional since the schism of 1054. By the way, Justinian himself signed the Hormisdas' Libellus.

But this is really off the topic. And nothing I said helps your case. You helped mine.

Let's come back to the question of baptising heretics. I said that it was abiding by canons 46 and 47 of the Apostles and said that theses canons were validated by the council in Trullo.

The west never accepted all 85 apostolic canons.

Then Evfimy told me the West did not recognize such council in Trullo. Actually, he is wrong. A bishop of Ravenna acted there as a legate of the Pope. Moreover, the Popes recognised this council in Trullo.

First I want to point out that Canon 2 of Trullo accepted the canons of Sardica, which had confirmed the rights of bishops to appeal to Rome. [Mansi XI, 940]. What is the east doing appealing to Rome, if the latter did not have a primacy of jurisdiction?

Justinian tried to get the pope to sign for Trullo, but the latter rejected. Justinian even used intimidation, but he failed. The west never accepted Trullo.

They [The canons of Trullo] are further confirmed by three Popes, namely, Adrian I, Gregory II, and Innocent III, by Gratian, by the legates of the Pope who were present at the Seventh Ec. C., by the so-called First-and-Second Council, which mentions its c. XXXI in its own c. XII. They are also confirmed or attested by Cedrenus, by John of Damacus (or John Damascene), who says, "consult the definitions of the Sixth Council and you will find there the proof." They were also confirmed or attested by the interpreters of the Canons, by Photius, by the personal signatures both of the Emperor and of the legates of the Pope of Rome, as well as those of the Patriarchs and of the Fathers who attended it. Thus, summarily speaking, it may be said to have been attested and confirmed by the whole catholic Church, notwithstanding that the modern Latins calumiously traduce them because they censure and controvert their innovations. Adrian I in his letter to Tarasius has left us this admirable testimony concerning these Canons in the following words: "I accept the decisions made by the same holy Sixth Council, together with all the Canons it has duly and divinely uttered, wherein they are expressed."

Can you produce a source showing popes Adrian, Gregory and Innocent accepted Trullo?

[Jean-Serge]

You should look for this letter to Adraian to Tarasius... which is quoted... ""I accept the decisions made by the same holy Sixth Council, together with all the Canons it has duly and divinely uttered, wherein they are expressed."But the big question is who published this letter? Which house? Which book? Is it still available in a language I know? But we should seek in this direction... to check this.

Could you give me the sources proving that the West never accepted Trullo, and when?