What to make of this?

[Colabomb]

"Wherefore the most holy and blessed Leo, archbishop of the great and elder Rome, through us, and through this present most holy synod together with the thrice blessed and all-glorious Peter the Apostle, who is the rock and foundation of the Catholic Church, and the foundation of the orthodox faith..."
Ecumenical Council of Chalcedon,Session III (A.D. 451)

This is someone's Sig.

QUite before the Great Schism, what do you make of it?

[xristos.anesti]

It comes from ACTS OF THE COUNCIL, it is a document that records proceedings. It is not binding document (end result) of the Council, just as stenograph is not binding document of the Court.

Canons (Council) and Verdict (Court) are.

This statement is just what representatives of the Rome (Papal Legates) said when they came to Chalcedon.

It is not binding. If it was, one could pick up any statement that heretic Arius made during Holy Council in Nicea (AD 325) and make them "canonical".

The signature (and use of it as well as use of those words by RC apologists) show total ignorance in Canon Law and Dogmatics, and history of the Church.

[Colabomb]

It comes from ACTS OF THE COUNCIL, it is a document that records proceedings. It is not binding document (end result) of the Council, just as stenograph is not binding document of the Court.

Canons (Council) and Verdict (Court) are.

This statement is just what representatives of the Rome (Papal Legates) said when they came to Chalcedon.

It is not binding. If it was, one could pick up any statement that heretic Arius made during Holy Council in Nicea (AD 325) and make them "canonical".

The signature (and use of it as well as use of those words by RC apologists) show total ignorance in Canon Law and Dogmatics, and history of the Church.
Oh, thanks. :)

(I just knew the Orthodox would have an answer!)

[xristos.anesti]

You see, the problem is that people do not know, do not want to know about the truth of the Ecumenical Councils.

Some will use these words from a minor document (like the acts) to show primacy of the bishop of Rome and at the same time disregard the canon of the same Council.

Canon XXVIII.

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, which is New Rome, in the time of the Emperor Theodosius of happy memory), we also do enact and decree the same things concerning the privileges of the most holy Church of Constantinople, which is New Rome. For the Fathers rightly granted privileges to the throne of old Rome, because it was the royal city. And the One Hundred and Fifty most religious Bishops, 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; 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 has been declared by the divine canons; but that, as has 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.




Ancient Epitome of Canon XXVIII.

The bishop of New Rome shall enjoy the same honour as the bishop of Old Rome, on account of the removal of the Empire. For this reason the [metropolitans] of Pontus, of Asia, and of Thrace, as well as the Barbarian bishops shall be ordained by the bishop of Constantinople.



Many years.

[MORTANIUS]

Words have two meanings. Sometimes people adopt only half of the meaning without ever knowing there is another. Therefore, such signatures are used with only on meaning.

On the other hand, its just a signature.

[xristos.anesti]

Very true, Mortanius. I was not really commenting the signature, rather, the principle of the matter on which many do tend to base their views.

Many years.

[Knowledge3]

"Wherefore the most holy and blessed Leo, archbishop of the great and elder Rome, through us, and through this present most holy synod together with the thrice blessed and all-glorious Peter the Apostle, who is the rock and foundation of the Catholic Church, and the foundation of the orthodox faith..."
Ecumenical Council of Chalcedon,Session III (A.D. 451)

This is someone's Sig.

QUite before the Great Schism, what do you make of it?

I'm pretty well versed in scripture.

1 Peter 2:6

A newer translation:

1 Peter 2.6
For in scripture it
says:

"See, I lay a stone in Zion,
a chosen and precious cornerstone
and one who trusts in him
will never be put to shame."





The problem with some of these, is that they seem to have a unhealthy interest in the authority of men, people to put thier faith in in church procedure and men, instead of Christ. I myself, have often studied Peter, and I can really understand that style of scripture.

But it seems that Jesus is referring to himself in this chapter:

Matthew 21:42