How the “Robber Council” Establishes the Papacy

At least three groups of Christians – Eastern Orthodox, traditional Protestants, and liberal Catholics – assail the papacy by arguing that the Church Councils should be our highest authority, an idea called “concilarism.”  It’s a good argument – after all, Councils can be infallible, they’re part of the Magisterium, and so forth, so don’t Catholics go too far in declaring that only those Councils accepted by the pope are Magisterial?  Doesn’t that eliminate the entire rationale behind a Council?  On Friday night, a Calvinist raised this argument to one of my friends, who responded with one of the best arguments I’ve ever heard on the subject.

He pointed to the existence of the so-called “Robber Council,” the Second Council of Ephesus, to show that this is what the Church (both East and West) historically understood. The Eastern Orthodox, along with many traditional Protestants, accept the so-called Seven Ecumenical Councils:

  1. First Council of Nicaea, 325 A.D. 
  2. First Council of Constantinople, 381 A.D.
  3. Council of Ephesus, 431 A.D.
  4. Council of Chalcedon, 451 A.D.
  5. Second Council of Constantinople, 553 A.D. 
  6. Third Council of Constantinople, 680-81 A.D.
  7. Second Council of Nicaea, 787 A.D.

But in between # 3 and # 4, in 449 A.D., was the Second Council of Ephesus.  It’s remarkable, in that it attempted to declare the Monophysite heresy to be the truth, on behalf of the Church.  In the original Council of Ephesus, a Monophysite priest named Eutyches was condemned for refusing to acknowledge the dual natures of Christ.  But in the Second Council of Ephesus, the Robber Council declared that Eutyches was the orthodox one, condemning his opponents, and declaring that Christ only has one nature.  Now, if both the Council of Ephesus and the Second Council of Ephesus are valid Councils, we’d have a serious problem: the Church would have just proclaimed heresy, contradicting both Herself and Scripture.

But that’s not the case: we know the Second Council of Ephesus is invalid, and have known it from the start.  As the council was closing, the papal legate (the pope’s representative to the Council), Hilarius, expressed the judgment of Rome: “Contradicitur!”  With a single word, he declared the Council invalid in the name of the pope. Leo himself confirmed this, and it’s from him that we have the name “Robber Council.”

There are a few things remarkable about this:

First, it’s only on the basis of the papacy that we can reject the Second Council as an invalid Robber Council.  That is, it’s on this basis alone that we can coherently say why  this isn’t a Council at all.  After all, the Robber Council was attended by about 130 Bishops, just a little less than the First Council of Constantinople, which is considered an Ecumenical Council.  And the Robber Council was drawn from a wider swath of Christendom than First Constantinople. So by all appearances, it was an Ecumenical Council.  And you can’t say it wasn’t an Ecumenical Council just because it was heretical, or later condemned.  That’s circular logic — a Council isn’t a Council if you happen to think it’s right.  So the only reason we can say that the Robber Council wasn’t a true Council, rather than a true Council that decreed error, is by recognizing that the Council.

Second, the Eastern Orthodox accepted the Pope’s authority in declaring the Second Council of Ephesus to be invalid.  They also deny the Second Council of Ephesus, and refer to it in Pope Leo’s terms: as the Robber Council.  Historically, the reason the Eastern Orthodox rejected it as a Council wasn’t that it was wrong, but because it had been condemned by the papal legate, and then the pope.

Third, those condemned by the Council looked to the Pope to find out the Council’s Validity.  Bishop Theodoret of Cyprus, one of the men condemned by the Robber Council, appealed to the Pope, and said, “I await your sentence, and if you command me to abide by my condemnation, I will abide by it.”  This is an Eastern Bishop acknowledging that the Pope, and not an unapproved Council, has the final say.


So in the end, concilarism is certainly false. If Councils don’t need papal approval to be valid, then we have to recognize and accept all the Councils.  And that’s impossible, since the Robber Council explicitly contradicts the Council of Ephesus, and it was explicitly condemned by the Council of Chalcedon.  You’d have to declare the Holy Spirit contradictory to cling to this notion.

Instead, the truth is that the pope has the ability to declare which Councils are and are not valid, and led by the Holy Spirit, just as he can declares which Books are and are not Scripture.  To simply declare that anything purporting to be a Council is one is as absurd as believing anything which purports to be Scripture.

Post-Script: The Councils of Chalcedon and Quinisext

Two subsequent Councils make these points even clearer. First, the Council of Chalcedon was convened precisely to establish that Christ has two natures.  This Council is recognized by the Catholic Church, the Eastern Orthodox, and many Protestants; and all orthodox Christians would say its Christology is correct.  After reading into the record St. Leo’s “tome,” his defense of the dual natures of Christ, the bishops cried out, “Peter has spoken thus through Leo. So taught the Apostles.”  It’s an affirmation of the Petrine ministry, and the headship of the pope, and it was recorded in the proceedings of the Council.  And Pope Hadrian (Leo’s successor, who had  served as the papal legate at the Robber Council) sent a letter discussing the authority of the pope over the Church, which the Council accepted. The Patriarch of Constantinople, Tarasius, then declares the pope’s letter to be true and accurate.  So in the Ecumenical Council refuting the Robber Council, accepted by Catholics, Orthodox, and Protestants alike, the papacy is established quite plainly.

The second Council worth mentioning is another false Council, the Quinisext Council. It was held in the East, and accepted by the Eastern Orthodox, but rejected by the papacy. The East is careful to recognize it, not as an additional Council, but as additional canons to be added to existing Councils (this way, they can say that they affirm just the first Seven Ecumenical Councils). Two things make it remarkable.  First, Basil of Gortyna presented himself as the “papal legate,” although he was not.  The fact that it was viewed as necessary that there be a papal legate speaks volumes.  Second, the Byzantine Emperor, Justinian II, was outraged that the pope refused to accept the council, and actually sent an officer to Rome to kidnap him. Italian troops came down from Ravenna (then the capital of the Western Roman Empire) and stopped him.  That the pope, and he alone, was viewed as a significant enough figure to send troops to kidnap him a thousand miles away is telling.  If papal approval of the Council was unnecessary, why bother trying to arrest him?

119 Comments

  1. oldadam,

    absolutely, God can call anyone to do his work from wherever they may be. Whether they recognize it or not is another matter but this is part of the reason there is no requirement of Catholicism to be “saved.” However, if you knowingly saw something that Christ established and turned from it….saying that his church is everywhere just means you dont have to be Catholic to be Christian, but the Church already recognizes this, but that they dont have the fullness of truth. If what you are saying here is true, are Mormons Christians? I mean they proclaim the NT and OT you ascribe to, and certainly they are doing some things Christ is calling them for right?

  2. I found this fascinating, but thought that there was just no way the Orthodox didn’t have a better response than you gave them credit for. Turns out OrthodoxWiki (not a very authoritative source, obviously, but nonetheless) pretty much admits that they’ve got nothing at all in response to this. http://orthodoxwiki.org/Ecumenical_Councils

    It notes that “a particular council may declare itself to be ecumenical, it may later be regarded by the Church as being a Robber Council.” But then spends its whole time beating up the idea “which has been popular since the time of the Slavophile philosopher Alexis Khomiakov first defined it is that ecumenicity—the idea that a particular council is of universal, infallible significance for the Church—is determined by the reception of the whole body of the Church.”

    The reason? “Such reasoning is circular, because whoever accepts a council is therefore inside the Church, but any who reject it are outside. In other words, such councils are ecumenical essentially because those who hold to their decrees declare themselves exclusively to be the Church.”

    But that is the best they’ve got: “At the current time, the episcopacy of the Church has not as yet put forward a universal definition as to what precisely lends a council its ecumenicity. What is generally held is that councils may be regarded as ecumenical and infallible because they accurately teach the truth handed down in tradition from the Church Fathers.”

    At which point my head started to spin since they decried circularity and presented even more circularity in its place, so I went and read a little Msgr. Knox as therapy:

    “Strange as it may seem I had always assumed at the back of my mind that when my handbooks talked about ‘Arian’ and ‘Catholic’ bishops they knew what they were talking about; it never occurred to me that the Arians also regarded themselves as Catholics and wanted to know why they should be thought otherwise. ‘Ah! but,’ says my Church historian ‘the Church came to think otherwise, and thus they found themselves de-Catholicized in the long run.’ But what Church? Why did those who anathematized Nestorius come to be regarded as ‘Catholics’ rather than those who still accept his doctrines? I had used this argument against the attitude of the Greek Orthodox Church when it broke away from unity, but it had never occurred to me before that what we mean when we talk of the Catholic party is the party in which the Bishop of Rome was, and nothing else: that the handbooks had simply taken over the word without thinking or arguing about it, as if it explained itself; but it didn’t.”

  3. I just stumbled on a reference to this thread on the “why not Orthodox thread.” I want to finish posting things there (some posts got sucked into the void of the net it seems), but in the meantime, just a few brief comments.

    “First, the Council of Chalcedon was convened precisely to establish that Christ has two natures.”
    Not excatly: it was to confirm the Home Synod of Constantinople in which St. Flavian had deposed Eutyches, and reverse Ephesus II, which had reversed the Synod in Constantinople.

    “After reading into the record St. Leo’s “tome,” his defense of the dual natures of Christ, the bishops cried out, “Peter has spoken thus through Leo. So taught the Apostles.” It’s an affirmation of the Petrine ministry, and the headship of the pope, and it was recorded in the proceedings of the Council.”
    Not quite: Pope St. Leo wanted the Council (which he wanted in Italy) to adopt his Tome as its Definition of Faith, on the basis of his authorship. The Fathers instead established a committee to examine it for Orthodoxy, and when they found it comporting with the writings of Pope St. Cyril of Alexandria etc., then read it into the record and declared it Orthodox, but then wrote their own definition of the Faith.

    “And Pope Hadrian (Leo’s successor, who had served as the papal legate at the Robber Council) sent a letter discussing the authority of the pope over the Church, which the Council accepted.”
    The letter you cite is from Nicea II, held over three centuries later. And, as you source shows, the letter was edited when read out.

    Quintisext was accpeted by Rome, but that is a post in and of itself.

    “First, Basil of Gortyna presented himself as the “papal legate,” although he was not. The fact that it was viewed as necessary that there be a papal legate speaks volumes.”
    Not quite. There was no legate from Rome at Constantinople II. Ephesus (I) had a cloud hanging over it because the Antiochian delegation had not arrived before Nestorius was deposed, which had to be ironed out in the Formula of Union between Pope Cyril and Pat. John of Antioch. The Egyptian delegation was not allowed to leave Chalcedon until they elected a new Pope to replace Dioscoros so the Holy Synod of Alexandria could ratify Chalcedon. Constantinople II was held over Rome explicit objection (to which the Council struck Abp. Vigilius of Rome from the diptychs) etc. The Council of Constantinople 1593, which ratified the elevation of Moscow into a Patriarchate, was held so the Pope of Alexandria, who had been holding out, would consent.

    “If papal approval of the Council was unnecessary, why bother trying to arrest him?”
    Because Justinian II (note the name)thought himself a second Justinian, who was going to restore the empire, including Italy. That the canons weren’t scrapped until Rome agreed (which she did, Pope Adrian I citing its canons; and canon I of Nicea II refers to it as a done deal) undermines any “need to arrest him.”

  4. Joe,

    I have a question for you. Is Leo’s Tome ex-cathedra? If so he says, that Jesus acquired Mary’s fault. The council said, “it was Peter speaking through Leo” Would this not make the later doctrine of the immaculate conception seem like a contradiction.

    1. Yes, the Letter is Infallible.

      Pope St. Gelasius, Decretal, 495: “Also the epistle of blessed Leo the Pope to Flavian… if anyone argues concerning the text of this one even in regard to one iota, and does not receive it in all respects reverently, let him be anathema.”

      The heretics that say this need to realize that Pope St. Leo is defining on sanctification/justification from the state of sin.

      The Blessed Virgin Mary had no sin. She was conceived already in a state of perfect sanctification. Since Pope Leo is defining on sanctification/justification from sin, his definition does not apply in any way to her.

  5. It’s good to show a singular example of where people looked to the pope.

    As it stands it works.

    It fails however in the context of other councils – such as one headed by Meletius who was not in communion with the pope.

    Or for all the councils that were called to judge matters after the pope had already made a ruling – such as the 1st Ecumenical Council – that judged on Arianism even though the pope had condemned it. Or where they judged Nestorius even though the pope had already condemned him.

    A court of appeal – as the pope had been – does not make him the leader anymore than the Supreme Court of the USA is not the president.
    Also making d

    1. @Rhys John Mckenzie

      The early Church which was the Catholic Church recognized the supremacy of the Bishop of Rome.

      Here are some Patristic quotes proving Papal supremacy.

      “THERE IS NO DOUBT , AND IN FACT IT HAS BEEN KNOWN IN ALL AGES, that the holy and most blessed Peter, prince and head of the Apostles, pillar of the faith, and foundation of the Catholic Church, received the keys of the kingdom from our Lord Jesus Christ , the Savior and Redeemer of the human race, and that to him was given the power of loosing and binding sins: WHO DOWN EVEN TO TODAY AND FOREVER BOTH LIVES AND JUDGES IN HIS SUCCESSORS, The holy and most blessed Pope Celestine, ACCORDING TO DUE ORDER, IS HIS SUCCESSOR AND HOLDS HIS PLACE…Wherefore Nestorius knows that he is alienated from the communion of the priests of the Catholic Church.” Ecumenical Council of Ephesus,Session III (A.D. 431)

      The council Fathers at Chalcedon writing to Pope St.Leo the Great say:

      “For if ‘where two or three are gathered together in His name’ He has said that ‘there He is in the midst of them,” must He not have been much more particularly present with 520 priests, who preferred the spread of knowledge concerning Him… OF WHOM YOU WERE CHIEF, AS HEAD TO THE MEMBERS, showing your good will.” -Chalcedon to Pope Leo (Repletum est Gaudio), November 451

      Also

      “Knowing that every success of the children rebounds to the parents, we therefore beg you to honor our decision by your assent, and as we have yielded agreement to the Head in noble things, so may the Head also fulfill what is fitting for the children.” -Chalcedon to Pope Leo, Ep. 98

      Also

      “Besides all this, he (Dioscorus) extended his fury even against him who had been charged WITH THE CUSTODY OF THE VINE BY THE SAVIOR. We refer to Your Holiness.” -Chalcedon to Pope Leo, Ep. 98

      St.Cyril of Alexandria says:

      “That these things are really so, let us produce a witness most worthy of faith, a most holy man, and ARCHBISHOP OF THE WHOLE HABITABLE WORLD, that Celestine, who is both Father and Patriarch of the mighty City of Rome, who himself also exhorted thee by letter, bidding thee desist from that maddest of blasphemies, and thou didst not obey him.”(St.Cyril of Alexandria To The Heresiarch Nestorius) [Rev. Joseph Berington and Rev. John Kirk, The Faith of Catholics, Volume 2, p.83]

      Patriarch St.Sophronius of Jerusalem in the 7th century says:

      “Go through all the world till you come to the Apostolic See, where is the foundation of orthodox belief. Tell the most holy persons of that See all about our difficulties: do not cease to beg and entreat them until their Apostolic and Divine wisdom shall pronounce the victorious sentence, and shall canonically root out this new heresy.” -Patriarch St.Sophronius to bishop Stephen of Dora (before sending him to Rome, 639 A.D.) [Mansi, Collectio conciliorum, 10:896]

      The conjecture that St.Meletius was not in communion with Rome is a myth.

      It was started by an anti-Catholic heretic.

      St.Jerome To Pope St.Damasus Letter 16:

      “The influence of the monks is of long standing, and it is directed against me. I meantime keep crying: ‘He who clings to the chair of Peter is accepted by me.’ Meletius, Vitalis, and Paulinus ALL PROFESS TO CLEAVE TO YOU…”

      “But then this was hardly a schism from Rome. For Meletius himself always claimed to be in communion with Rome.” [The Eastern Churches and the Papacy, p.120]

      1. Mining for quotes is a poor attempt at refutation. A great many uotes that praise Peter exist. I accept this. However many quotes dont show the equal praise of others in thesame terms.

        Three Sees are equally Sees of Peter so there are three princes . Augustine calls Jesus the Prince of the Apostles. That’s just to one of your selective quotes

        1. @Rhys John McKenzie

          If you read the quotes, you would realize that they are NOT ‘praising Peter’ but showing that the early Church submitted to the Bishop of Rome and that he was the successor to St.Peter and the Head of all the churches.

          You cannot belong to Christ if you reject parts of His revelation and/or don’t adhere to His Church (St.Matthew. 28:20; St.Matthew. 18:17). That means you cannot belong to Christ if you reject the Papacy (St.Matthew.16:18-19) or the Eucharist (St.John 6:53) or Confession (St.John 20:23) or that justification is not by faith alone (St.James 2:24), etc. Non-Catholics who claim to follow Christ actually reject His teaching in many areas. They are thus not of Christ. 

          St. Ambrose (389): “Even the heretics appear to have Christ, for none of them denies the name of Christ; yet, anyone who does not confess all that pertains to Christ does in fact deny Christ.”

          1. You’re missing the point. Whther they praise Peter or Rome its not unique to Peter or Rome…it doesn’t address incidentof ignoring Rome. You have no argument but random quotes.

            I accept his church. I don’t accept his church is your distortion.

            Rome was founded by Peter and Paul equally

            The first ecumenical council met to decide on Arianism after the pope had already condemned it. An ecumenical council met to judge Nestorius after the pope had already condemned him.

          2. All bishops are successors to Peter everywhere.

            All bishops are equal in authority.

            Sometimes submission was made to Rome because Rome spoke the truth. Other times appeals are made to other churches.

            Your quotes are still selective and have not addressed my initial point.

  6. I find Catholic apologetics exceptionally lazy. Since debating these issues from 2003 onwards l’ve had Catholics throw quote mines at me with no critical thought displayed.

    In 2003 l told my friends l was considering the Orthodox church. Four differnt people sent me quote mine sites. At first l thought i had made a mistake… until l started to look up the quotes in context. Such deception only convinced me to leave the RC Church

    Take a simple quote on Catholic sites. Athanasius “Rome is the Apostolic throne ”

    But he doesn’t say “the” he says “an”… the meaning is changed. Rome is not uniquely praised at all

    If you have to resort to such missdirection then it goes to the saying of knowing a tree by the fruit it bares

    1. @Rhys John McKenzie

      Please watch this video, it contains irrefutable factual evidence for the Biblical basis for the Papacy.

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6KV6PXSODgE

      “Inasmuch as it is manifest that the Apostolic See, is, by the ordering of God, set over all Churches, there is, among our manifold cares, especial demand for our attention…” [Pope St.Gregory The Great, Letter to Subdeacon John; Register of the Epistles, Book III, Epistle XXX; NPNF 2, Vol. XII]

      “We exhort you, honourable brother, to submit yourself in all things to what has been written by the blessed Bishop of Rome, because St. Peter, who lives and presides in his see, gives the true faith to those who seek it. For our part, for the sake of peace and the good of the faith, we cannot judge questions of doctrine without the consent of the Bishop of Rome.” (St.Peter Chrysologus, Epistle 25; Winter, 215)

      You said:

      “All bishops are successors to Peter everywhere… All bishops are equal in authority.”

      Said no one.

      The Pope is the Supreme Bishop and has universal jurisdiction.

      “It is clear that this Church [The Roman] is to all churches throughout the world as the Head is to the members, and that whoever separates himself from it becomes an exile to the Christian religion. ” [Pope St.Boniface I, Letter to Rufus, bishop of Thessaly, 422 A.D.]

      “Although bishops have a common dignity, they are not all of the same rank. Even among the most blessed Apostles, though they were alike in honor, there was a certain distinction of power. All were equal in being chosen, but it was given to one to be preeminent over the others… the care of the universal Church would converge in the one See of Peter, and nothing should ever be at odds with this head.” (Letter to Bishop Anastasius of Thessalonica, c.446 A.D., 14:11; in Jurgens, The Faith of The Early Fathers, vol. 3, p. 270)

      ARE YOU ALSO AWARE THAT 2 EASTERN HISTORIANS IN THE EARLY CHURCH PROVE THE CATHOLIC POSITION???

      “Neither was Julius, bishop of the great Rome, there, nor had he sent a substitute, ALTHOUGH AN ECCLESIASTICAL CANON COMMANDS THAT THE CHURCHES SHALL NOT MAKE ANY ORDINANCES AGAINST THE OPINION OF THE BISHOP OF ROME.” – Socrates Scholasticus, Steve Ray, Upon This Rock p. 224

      “…there is a sacerdotal canon which declares THAT WHATEVER IS ENACTED CONTRARY to the judgment of the bishop of Rome is null.” -Sozomen Steve Ray, Upon This Rock p. 227

      You need to humble yourself and convert to the Traditional Catholic Faith.

      1. Says no one?

        Paul himself taught AS Peter -Galatians 2:7-8

        Augustine says that we are “…called to feed the sheep, as Peter had been.”- On John Tractate 123

        Origen “we too become as Peter,” -Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew, Book XII. Chapter 10 The Answer of Peter.

        John Chrysostom said that John the Evangelist held the keys as Peter had. Homilies on the Gospel of John. Homily One (Preface) 1.2

        I also mentioned that there were three Sees of Peter – which you ignored even though Pope Gregory the Great said ii (To Eulogius, Bishop of Alexandria Book VII, Epistle XL.)

        You’ve demonstrated an unwillingness to discuss things – rather than direct me to quote mines or argument made on video.

        You’ve avoided what I said about Ecumenical Councils. Instead you direct me to a quote in Steven Ray which is an ordinance of a local council, not the mind of the church.

        It’s another dishonest selective quoting – this local synod was composed of Eusebians against Athanasius. If you want to accept a synod that condemns a saint revered in the Catholic and Orthodox churches, that’s entirely up to you but it’s typical of Catholic apologetics.

        Trawl through any source find anything remotely pro-papal and pluck it out of any context.

        P Schaff who is accepted as a good translator by Catholic sources gives this note in his translation “There is no record of any enactment requiring the consent of the bishop of Rome to the decisions of the councils before they could be considered valid. There may have been a general understanding to that effect, having the force of an unwritten law. In any case the use of the word by Socrates is quite singular, unless we assume that he supposed there was such an enactment somewhere, as is implied by its use ordinarily.”

        So instead of presenting an argument you’ve presented quote mines again. Then you’ve done it again. Then again. Then again.

        That seems to be your version of a reasoned address.

        As you do not wish to discuss this matter I for one am done.

        1. @Rhys John McKenzie

          You quote Scripture then deny the words of God Himself regarding the Papacy! [St.Matthew 16:18, St.John 21:15-17, St.Luke 22: 31-32]

          A typical heretic who is blinded by pride.

          I don’t care for your personal interpretation of Scripture. Jesus said to hear the Church, not the personal opinion of a puffed up heretic who misinterprets Scripture to his own condemnation (2 St.Peter 3:16).

          Many Popes referred to the Sees of Antioch and Alexandria as ‘Apostolic See’ but you must be a complete dunce to think they were denying their supreme authority!

          You quote Phillip Schaff, an anti-Catholic historian for his interpretation of the Eastern historians when they speak for themselves. You do realize we don’t have all the writings of the Church Fathers, nor all the canons and documents of Church councils right? The quote by Socrates was the mind of the Church! A council has no authority unless it is approved by the Pope.

          “Neither was Julius, bishop of the great Rome, there, nor had he sent a substitute, although an ecclesiastical canon commands that the churches shall not make any ordinances against the opinion of the bishop of Rome.” (Socrates, Church History, 2, 8; concerning a synod in Antioch in 341; NPNF 2, Vol. II)

          The following quote is relevant:

          “… we must stress that a particular patristic text is in no instance to be regarded as a ‘proof’ of a particular doctrine. Dogmas are not ‘proved’ by patristic statements, but by the infallible teaching instruments of the Church. The value of the Fathers and writers is this: that in the aggregate, they demonstrate what the Church believes and teaches; and again, in the aggregate, they provide a witness to the content of Tradition, that Tradition which is itself a vehicle of revelation.” [Fr. William Jurgens, The Faith of the Early Fathers, Vol. 1, p. 413.]

          If someone rejects the Papacy, they don’t even have a criteria on how to choose which councils are binding!

          Here is a Greek monk from Constantinople who will tell you what makes a council binding!

          “How can you call a council Ecumenical when The Bishop of Rome has not given his consent? And the canons forbid ecclesiastical affairs to be decided without The Pope of Rome?” [754 A.D, St.Stephen the Faster to the heretical “bishops” at the robber council of Hieria, PG 100,1144]

          The point of the Patristic quotes i provided was to show you that the early Church accepted the Bishop of Rome as the Supreme Bishop and Head of the Church.

          Catholicism is the only Biblical and historical Christian religion, it was common sense in the early Church, even to Emperors.

          Emperor Justinian, to Pope St. Agapetus says:

          “…the source of the priesthood… the venerable See of the most high Apostle Peter… No one doubts that the height of the Supreme Pontificate is at Rome.” [The Eastern Churches and the Papacy, S. Herbert Scott, p. 231]

          You need to submit to the Chair of St.Peter, don’t end up in Hell like Core and his minions did for their schism against Moses. (Numbers 26:10)

          For overwhelming irrefutable factual evidence for the Papacy, see the following link:

          http://www.mostholyfamilymonastery.com/catholicchurch/bible-papacy-st-peter/#.WJ3hR_krLIU

      2. I must add that the quote from the Council of Antioch comes from

        Sozomen Ecclesiatical History – Book II – Chapter VIII.—Eusebius having convened Another Synod at Antioch in Syria, causes a New Creed to be promulgated.

        Note the title of his chapter – a NEW CREED.

        I had to do some searching to find this because you did not cite it but rather cited it in a book by Ray which I do not possess. I hope you did this not to make it more difficult to find.

        The Catholic Encyclopaedia has this to say about the council “…there is no council that presents a greater amount of difficulty to the historian as well as to the theologian.”

        Some canons of this council were later adopted by the church as a whole

        But let’s do a recap

        You quote a guy citing it in a book – not the original source

        Your citation is out of context

        It’s by a council not widely accepted

        Its’a “NEW” creed even by the source your guy cites

        There’s just so much difficult with this that it shows either a lack of understanding on your part or a reliance on the work of others

        Anyway good luck with that.

  7. I recommend The Council of Chalcedon Re-Examined by VC Samuel. It can help correct a lot of misinformation in this article. For the record, the pejorative “monophysite” was polemic term introduced LATER in the 6th and 7th centuries to exclude the Churches that didn’t agree with the Council of Chalcedon.

    Kind regards

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *