![\"\"](\"https:\/\/wp-media.patheos.com\/blogs\/sites\/572\/2019\/01\/Calvin17.jpg\")
<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
This is an installment of a series of replies (see the\u00a0Introduction and Master List<\/a>) to much\u00a0<\/em>of Book IV (Of the Holy Catholic Church<\/em>) of\u00a0Institutes of the Christian Religion<\/a><\/em>, by early\u00a0Protestant leader\u00a0John Calvin<\/a>\u00a0(1509-1564). I utilize the public domain translation of Henry Beveridge, dated 1845, from the 1559 edition in Latin;\u00a0available online<\/a>. Calvin\u2019s words will be in\u00a0blue<\/span>. All biblical citations (in my portions) will be from RSV unless otherwise noted.<\/p>\n Related reading from yours truly:<\/p>\n Biblical Catholic Answers for John Calvin<\/a>\u00a0<\/i>(2010 book: 388 pages)<\/p>\n A Biblical Critique of Calvinism<\/a>\u00a0<\/i>(2012 book: 178 pages)<\/p>\n Biblical Catholic Salvation: \u201cFaith Working Through Love\u201d<\/a>\u00a0<\/i>(2010 book: 187 pages; includes biblical critiques of all five points of \u201cTULIP\u201d)<\/p>\n *****<\/p>\n IV, 7:1-2<\/strong><\/p>\n ***<\/p>\n This is untrue. I have already mentioned St. Irenaeus. He died around 202. In his work,\u00a0Against Heresies<\/em>,\u00a0Book III, Chapter 3, Section 2<\/a>, he writes:<\/p>\n 2. Since, however, it would be very tedious, in such a volume as this, to reckon up the\u00a0successions\u00a0of all the Churches, we do put to confusion all those who, in whatever manner, whether by an evil\u00a0self-pleasing, by vainglory, or by blindness and perverse opinion, assemble in\u00a0unauthorized\u00a0meetings; [we do this, I say,] by indicating that\u00a0tradition\u00a0derived from the apostles, of the very great, the very\u00a0ancient, and\u00a0universally\u00a0known\u00a0Church\u00a0founded and\u00a0organized\u00a0at Rome by the two most glorious apostles,\u00a0Peter\u00a0and Paul; as also [by pointing out] the faith preached to men, which comes down to our\u00a0time\u00a0by means of the\u00a0successions\u00a0of the bishops. For it is a\u00a0matter\u00a0of\u00a0necessity\u00a0that every\u00a0Church\u00a0should agree with this Church, on account of its preeminent authority,\u00a0that is, the\u00a0faithful everywhere,\u00a0inasmuch as the apostolical\u00a0tradition\u00a0has been preserved continuously by those [faithful\u00a0men] who\u00a0exist\u00a0everywhere.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n St. Clement of Rome died around the year 101. He was one of the early popes, and this is indicated in his letter, 1 Clement<\/em> (59:1<\/a>), written to the Corinthians:<\/p>\n But if some should be disobedient to the things spoken by him through us, let them know that they will entangle themselves in no small transgression and danger,<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Calvin, to be fair, probably didn\u2019t know about 1 Clement<\/em>. A complete copy of the manuscript was not discovered till 1873. Max Lackmann, a Lutheran, commented on this epistle:<\/p>\n Clement, as the spokesman of the whole People of God . . . admonishes the Church of Corinth in serious, authoritative and brotherly tones to correct the internal abuses of their ecclesiastical community. He censures, exhorts, cautions, entreats . . . The use of the expression send back in the statement: Send back speedily unto us our messengers (1 Clement 65,1), is not merely a special kind of biblical phrase but also a form of Roman imperial command. The Roman judge in a province of the empire sent back a messenger or a packet of documents to the imperial capital or to the court of the emperor (Acts 25:21). Clement of Rome doubtless also knew this administrative terminology of the imperial government and used it effectively.\u00a0(In Hans Asmussen, et al,\u00a0The Unfinished Reformation<\/em>, translated by Robert J. Olsen, Notre Dame, Indiana: Fides Publishers Association, 1961, 84-85)<\/p><\/blockquote>\n While the council, in dividing between him and the other Patriarchs, assigns the proper limits of each, it certainly does not appoint him head of all, but only one of the chief. Vitus and Vincentius attended on the part of Julius, who then governed the Roman Church, and to them the fourth place was given. I ask, if Julius was acknowledged the head of the Church, would his legates have been consigned to the fourth place?\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n Again, we give Calvin a pass for having less accurate historical information than we do now. Pope Julius reigned from 337-352, whereas the Council of Nicaea took place in 325, during the reign of Pope Sylvester (or Silvester: 314-335).\u00a0The Catholic Encyclopedia<\/em>\u00a0(\u201cGeneral Councils\u201d<\/a>) observes:<\/p>\n At\u00a0Nicaea,\u00a0Hosius<\/a>,\u00a0Vitus\u00a0and Vincentius, as\u00a0papal legates<\/a>, signed before all other members of the\u00a0council. The\u00a0right\u00a0of presiding and directing implies that the pope, if he chooses to make a full use of his powers, can determine the subject matter to be dealt with by the\u00a0council, prescribe rules for conducting the debates, and generally order the whole business as seems best to him. Hence no conciliar decree is\u00a0legitimate\u00a0if carried under protest \u2014 or even without the positive\u00a0consent\u2013 of the pope or his legates. The\u00a0consent\u00a0of the legates alone,\u00a0acting\u00a0without a special order from the pope, is not sufficient to make conciliar\u00a0decrees\u00a0at once\u00a0perfect\u00a0and operative; what is necessary is the pope\u2019s own\u00a0consent. For this reason no decree can become\u00a0legitimate\u00a0and null in\u00a0law\u00a0on account of pressure brought to bear on the assembly by the presiding pope, or by papal legates\u00a0acting on his\u00a0orders.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n For much more on this, see my paper,\u00a0Pope Silvester and the Council of Nicaea<\/a>. Brian W. Harrison, in his article,\u00a0\u201cPapal Authority at the Earliest Councils\u201d<\/a>\u00a0(This Rock<\/em>, January 1991),, wrote:<\/p>\n The Eastern priest-historian Gelasius of Cyzicus, who had no Roman ax to grind, affirms that Ossius \u201cheld the place of Sylvester of Rome, together with the Roman presbyters Vito and Vincentius.\u201d [Migne,\u00a0Patrologia Graeca<\/i>, 85:1229; Gelasius wrote around 475 and claimed to base his history on the Council\u2019s original acts, which are now lost.]<\/p>\n That Rome was acknowledged as the first of all sees is shown by the fact that the signatures of its undisputed legates, Vito and Vincentius, come immediately after that of Ossius. It is likely that Ossius, being a Western prelate and the foremost champion of anti-Arianism, was accepted by Sylvester as an ad hoc representative and presided by mutual agreement with Constantine.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Would Athanasius have presided in the council where a representative of the hierarchal order should have been most conspicuous?\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n No, because he was neither a bishop of Rome nor a legate of one.<\/p>\n In the Council of Ephesus, it appears that Celestinus (who was then Roman Pontiff) used a cunning device to secure the dignity of his See. For when he sent his deputies, he made Cyril of Alexandria, who otherwise would have presided, his substitute. Why that commission, but just that his name might stand connected with the first See? His legates sit in an inferior place, are asked their opinion along with others, and subscribe in their order, while, at the same time, his name is coupled with that of the Patriarch of Alexandria.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n This is inaccurate, and records of the council confirm that it is an inaccurate representation of what took place, and show that the pope was regarded as the head of the council and the Church:<\/p>\n The\u00a0council\u00a0assembled on 22 June, and\u00a0St. Cyril\u00a0assumed\u00a0the presidency both as Patriarch of Alexandria and \u201cas filling the place of the most\u00a0holy\u00a0and\u00a0blessed Archbishop\u00a0of the\u00a0Roman Church,\u00a0Celestine\u201d, in order to carry out his original commission, which he considered, in the absence of any reply from Rome, to be still in force. . . . At last on 10 July the papal envoys arrived. The second session assembled in the\u00a0episcopal\u00a0residence. The legate\u00a0Philip\u00a0opened the proceedings by saying that the former letter of\u00a0St. Celestine\u00a0had been already read, in which he had decided the present question; the pope had now sent another letter. This was read. It contained a general exhortation to the\u00a0council, and concluded by saying that the legates had instructions to carry out what the pope had formerly decided; doubtless the\u00a0council\u00a0would agree. The\u00a0Fathers\u00a0then cried:<\/p>\n This is a\u00a0just\u00a0judgment. To\u00a0Celestine\u00a0the new\u00a0Paul! To the new\u00a0Paul Cyril! To\u00a0Celestine, the\u00a0guardian\u00a0of the\u00a0Faith! To\u00a0Celestine\u00a0agreeing to the\u00a0Synod! The\u00a0Synod\u00a0gives thanks to\u00a0Cyril. One\u00a0Celestine, one\u00a0Cyril!<\/p><\/blockquote>\n The legate Projectus then says that the letter enjoins on the\u00a0council, though they need no instruction, to carry into effect the\u00a0sentence\u00a0which the pope had pronounced. . . . Firmus, the\u00a0Exarch\u00a0of\u00a0Caesarea\u00a0in Cappadocia, replies that the pope, by the letter which he sent to the\u00a0Bishops\u00a0of Alexandria, Jerusalem, Thessalonica,\u00a0Constantinople, and\u00a0Antioch, had long since given his\u00a0sentence\u00a0and decision; and the\u00a0synod\u00a0\u2014 the ten days having passed, and also a much longer period \u2014 having waited beyond the day of opening fixed by the emperor, had followed the course indicated by the pope, and, as\u00a0Nestorius\u00a0did not appear, had\u00a0executed\u00a0upon him the papal\u00a0sentence, having inflicted the\u00a0canonical\u00a0and\u00a0Apostolic\u00a0judgment\u00a0upon him. This was a reply to Projectus, declaring that what the pope required had been done, and it is an accurate account of the work of the first session and of the\u00a0sentence;\u00a0canonical<\/em>\u00a0refers to the words of the\u00a0sentence, \u201cnecessarily\u00a0obliged\u00a0by the\u00a0canons\u201d, and\u00a0Apostolic<\/em>\u00a0to the words \u201cand by the letter of the bishop of Rome\u201d. The legate Arcadius expressed his regret for the late arrival of his party, on account of storms, and asked to see the\u00a0decrees\u00a0of the\u00a0council.\u00a0Philip, the pope\u2019s personal legate, then thanked the bishops for adhering by their\u00a0acclamations\u00a0as\u00a0holy\u00a0members to their\u00a0holy\u00a0head \u2014 \u201cFor your\u00a0blessedness is not unaware that the\u00a0Apostle\u00a0Peter\u00a0is the head of the\u00a0Faith\u00a0and of the Apostles.\u201d The Metropolitan of Ancyra declared that God had shown the justice of the\u00a0synod\u2019s\u00a0sentence\u00a0by the coming of St. Celestine\u2019s letter and of the legates. The session closed with the reading of the pope\u2019s letter to the emperor. On the following day, 11 July, the third session took place. The legates had read the\u00a0Acts\u00a0of the first session and now demanded only that the condemnation of\u00a0Nestorius\u00a0should be formally read in their presence. When this had been done, the three legates severally pronounced a\u00a0confirmation\u00a0in the pope\u2019s name. The exordium of the speech of\u00a0Philip\u00a0is celebrated:<\/p>\n It is doubtful to none, nay it has been known to all ages, that\u00a0holy and\u00a0blessed\u00a0Peter, the prince and head of the\u00a0Apostles, the\u00a0column of the\u00a0Faith, the foundation of the Catholic Church, received from our Lord Jesus Christ, the\u00a0Saviour\u00a0and\u00a0Redeemer\u00a0of the human race, the\u00a0keys\u00a0of the\u00a0Kingdom, and that to him was given the power of binding and loosing sins, who until this day and for ever lives and\u00a0judges\u00a0in his\u00a0successors. His\u00a0successor\u00a0in order and his representative, our\u00a0holy\u00a0and most\u00a0blessed\u00a0Pope Celestine. . .<\/p><\/blockquote>\n It was with words such as these before their eyes that Greek Fathers and\u00a0councils spoke of the Council of Ephesus as celebrated \u201cby\u00a0Celestine\u00a0and\u00a0Cyril\u201d. A translation of these speeches was read, for\u00a0Cyril\u00a0then rose and said that the\u00a0synod had understood them clearly; and now the\u00a0Acts\u00a0of all three sessions must be presented to the legates for their signature. Arcadius replied that they were of course willing. The\u00a0synod\u00a0ordered that the\u00a0Acts\u00a0should be set before them, and they signed them. A letter was sent to the emperor, telling him how\u00a0St. Celestine had held a\u00a0synod\u00a0at Rome and had sent his legates, representing himself and the whole of the\u00a0West. (The Catholic Encyclopedia<\/em>,\u00a0\u201cCouncil of Ephesus\u201d<\/a>)<\/p><\/blockquote>\n What shall I say of the second Council of Ephesus, where, while the deputies of Leo were present, the Alexandrian Patriarch Dioscorus presided as in his own right? They will object that this was not an orthodox council, since by it the venerable Flavianus was condemned, Eutyches acquitted, and his heresy approved. Yet when the council was met, and the bishops distributed the places among themselves, the deputies of the Roman Church sat among the others just as in a sacred and lawful Council. Still they contend not for the first place, but yield it to another: this they never would have done if they had thought it their own by right.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n This is a fanciful interpretation as well, once we consult the actual proceedings of this illegitimate council:<\/p>\n No\u00a0time\u00a0had been left for any\u00a0Western\u00a0bishops to attend, except a\u00a0certain\u00a0Julius\u00a0of an unknown see, who, together with a\u00a0Roman\u00a0priest,\u00a0Renatus\u00a0(he died on the way), and the deacon\u00a0Hilarus, afterwards pope, represented St. Leo. The Emperor Theodosius II gave Dioscorus, Patriarch of Alexandria, the presidency \u2014\u00a0ten\u00a0authentian\u00a0kai ta proteia<\/em>. The legate\u00a0Julius\u00a0is mentioned next, but when this name was read at Chalcedon, the bishops cried: \u201cHe was cast out. No one represented\u00a0Leo.\u201d . . . The\u00a0brief\u00a0of\u00a0convocation\u00a0by Theodosius was read, and then the\u00a0Roman\u00a0legates explained that it would have been contrary to\u00a0custom\u00a0for the pope to be present in person, but he had sent a letter by them. In this letter St. Leo had\u00a0appealed\u00a0to his\u00a0dogmatic\u00a0letter to Flavian, which he intended to be read at the\u00a0council\u00a0and accepted by it as a rule of faith. But Dioscorus took care not to have it read, and instead of it a letter of the emperor, . . . Dioscorus decided that the\u00a0Acts\u00a0of the trial should have precedence, and so the letter of St. Leo was never read at all. . . . Flavian and Eusebius had previously interposed an\u00a0appeal\u00a0to the pope and to a\u00a0council\u00a0under his authority. Their formal letters of\u00a0appeal\u00a0have been recently published by\u00a0Amelli. . . . The papal legate\u00a0Hilarus\u00a0uttered a single word in\u00a0Latin,\u00a0Contradicitur<\/em>, annulling the\u00a0sentence\u00a0in the pope\u2019s name. He then escaped with difficulty. Flavian was deported into exile, and died a few days later in Lydia. . . .<\/p>\n In the next session, according to the\u00a0Syriac\u00a0Acts, 113 were present, including Barsumas. Nine new names appear. The legates were sent for, as they did not appear, but only the\u00a0notary\u00a0Dulcitius\u00a0could be found, and he was unwell. The legates had shaken off the dust of their feet against the assembly. It was a charge against Dioscorus at\u00a0Chalcedon\u00a0that he \u201chad held an (ecumenical)\u00a0council\u00a0without the Apostolic See, which was never allowed\u201d. This manifestly refers to his having continued at the\u00a0council\u00a0after the departure of the legates. . . .<\/p>\n Theodoret\u00a0had tried to make friends with Dioscorus, but his advances had been rejected with scorn. A monk of\u00a0Antioch\u00a0now brought forward a volume of extracts from the works of\u00a0Theodoret. First was read\u00a0Theodoret\u2019s\u00a0fine letter to the monks of the\u00a0East\u00a0(see Mansi, V, 1023), then some extracts from a lost \u201cApology for\u00a0Diodorus\u00a0and\u00a0Theodore\u201d \u2014 the very name of this work sufficed in the eyes of the\u00a0council\u00a0for a condemnation to be pronounced. Dioscorus pronounced the\u00a0sentence\u00a0of\u00a0deposition\u00a0and excommunication.\u00a0When\u00a0Theodoret\u00a0in his remote\u00a0diocese\u00a0heard of this absurd\u00a0sentence\u00a0on an absent\u00a0man\u00a0against whose\u00a0reputation not a word was uttered, he at once\u00a0appealed\u00a0to the pope in a famous letter (Ep. cxiii). He wrote also to the legate\u00a0Renatus\u00a0(Ep. cxvi), being unaware that he was dead. . . .<\/p>\n Meanwhile St. Leo had received the\u00a0appeals\u00a0of\u00a0Theodoret\u00a0and Flavian (of whose death he was unaware), and had written to them and to the emperor and empress that all the\u00a0Acts\u00a0of the\u00a0council\u00a0were null. He excommunicated all who had taken part in it, and\u00a0absolved\u00a0all whom it had condemned, with the exception of\u00a0Domnus\u00a0of\u00a0Antioch, who seems to have had no wish to resume his see and retired into the\u00a0monastic life\u00a0which he had left many years before with regret.\u00a0(The Catholic Encyclopedia<\/em>,\u00a0\u201cRobber Council of Ephesus\u201d<\/a>)<\/p><\/blockquote>\n For the Roman bishops were never ashamed to stir up the greatest strife in contending for honours, and for this cause alone, to trouble and harass the Church with many pernicious contests; but because Leo saw that it would be too extravagant to ask the first place for his legates, he omitted to do it.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n Again, the above account reveals Calvin\u2019s take to be a highly fictitious reading.<\/p>\n Next came the Council of Chalcedon, in which, by concession of the Emperor, the legates of the Roman Church occupied the first place. But Leo himself confesses that this was an extraordinary privilege; for when he asks it of the Emperor Marcian and Pulcheria Augusta, he does not maintain that it is due to him, but only pretends that the Eastern bishops who presided in the Council of Ephesus had thrown all into confusion, and made a bad use of their power. Therefore, seeing there was need of a grave moderator, and it was not probable that those who had once been so fickle and tumultuous would be fit for this purpose, he requests that, because of the fault and unfitness of others, the office of governing should be transferred to him. That which is asked as a special privilege, and out of the usual order, certainly is not due by a common law. When it is only pretended that there is need of a new president, because the former ones had behaved themselves improperly, it is plain that the thing asked was not previously done, and ought not to be made perpetual, being done only in respect of a present danger. The Roman Pontiff, therefore, holds the first place in the Council of Chalcedon, not because it is due to his See, but because the council is in want of a grave and fit moderator, while those who ought to have presided exclude themselves by their intemperance and passion.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n This is profoundly untrue, as can readily be verified by the documentation above, alone, and additional related facts, as outlined in my paper,\u00a0Papal Participation (Through Legates) in the First Seven Ecumenical Councils<\/a>. Pope St. Leo the Great\u2019s\u00a0Letter XCV to St. Pulcheria Augusta<\/a>, wife of the Emperor Marcian Augustus (see\u00a0more about her<\/a>), dated 20 July 451, shows no such lack of papal authority, as Calvin suggests:<\/p>\n I . . . nominate two of my fellow-bishops and fellow-presbyters respectively to represent me, sending also to the venerable synod an appropriate missive from which the brotherhood therein assembled might learn the standard necessary to be maintained in their decision, lest any rashness should do detriment either to the rules of the Faith, or to the provisions of the canons, or to the remedies required by the spirit of loving kindness.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n His famous\u00a0Letter CIV to the Emperor<\/a>\u00a0(22 May 452) reveals the same self-awareness of papal authority and Roman primacy:<\/p>\n For although the liberty of the Gospel had to be defended against certain dissentients in the power of the Holy Ghost, and through the instrumentality of the Apostolic See, yet\u00a0God\u2019s<\/span>\u00a0grace has shown itself more manifestly (than we could have hoped) by vouchsafing to the world that in the victory of the Truth only the authors of the violation of the Faith should perish and the Church restored to her soundness. . . .<\/p>\n Let the city of Constantinople have, as we desire, its high rank, and under the protection of\u00a0God\u2019s<\/span>\u00a0right hand, long enjoy your clemency\u2019s rule. Yet things secular stand on a different basis from things divine: and there can be no sure building save on that rock which the\u00a0Lord<\/span>\u00a0has laid for a foundation. He that covets what is not his due, loses what is his own. Let it be enough for Anatolius that by the aid of your piety and by my favour and approval he has obtained the bishopric of so great a city. Let him not disdain a city which is royal, though he cannot make it an Apostolic See; and let him on no account hope that he can rise by doing injury to others. For the privileges of the churches determined by the canons of the holy Fathers, and fixed by the decrees of the Nicene Synod, cannot be overthrown by any unscrupulous act, nor disturbed by any innovation. And in the faithful execution of this task by the aid of Christ I am bound to display an unflinching devotion; for it is a charge entrusted to me, and it tends to my condemnation if the rules sanctioned by the Fathers and drawn up under the guidance of\u00a0God\u2019s\u00a0<\/span>Spirit at the Synod of Nic\u00e6a for the government of the whole Church are violated with my connivance (which\u00a0God<\/span>\u00a0forbid), and if the wishes of a single brother have more weight with me than the common good of the\u00a0Lord\u2019s<\/span>\u00a0whole house.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n And again Leo writes to St. Pulcheria Augusta (Letter CV, 22 May 452<\/a>):<\/p>\n For no one may venture upon anything in opposition to the enactments of the Fathers\u2019 canons which many long years ago in the city of Nic\u00e6a were founded upon the decrees of the Spirit, so that any one who wishes to pass any different decree injures himself rather than impairs them. And if all pontiffs will but keep them inviolate as they should, there will be perfect peace and complete harmony through all the churches: there will be no disagreements about rank, no disputes about ordinations, no controversies about privileges, no strifes about taking that which is another\u2019s; . . .<\/p>\n Because if sometimes rulers fall into errors through want of moderation, yet the churches of Christ do not lose their purity. But the bishops\u2019 assents, which are opposed to the regulations of the holy canons composed at Nic\u00e6a in conjunction with your faithful Grace, we do not recognize, and by the blessed Apostle Peter\u2019s authority we absolutely dis-annul in comprehensive terms, in all ecclesiastical cases obeying those laws which the Holy Ghost set forth by the 318 bishops for the pacific observance of all priests in such sort that even if a much greater number were to pass a different decree to theirs, whatever was opposed to their constitution would have to be held in no respect.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Of the general opinion of Pope St. Leo the Great on the supreme authority of the papacy, there is no doubt, since he wrote some of the most explicit statements in this regard, in the history of the papacy. See:\u00a0Pope Leo the Great (r. 440-61) and Papal Supremacy<\/a>.<\/p>\n This statement the successor of Leo approved by his procedure. For when he sent his legates to the fifth Council, that of Constantinople<\/span>\u00a0[in 553], which was held long after, he did not quarrel for the first seat, but readily allowed Mennas, the patriarch of Constantinople, to preside.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n More myths to dismantle . . . Clearly, Calvin deliberately seeks to undermine papal authority at every turn, and is (shall we say?) \u201cmodifying\u201d his interpretation of the known facts, toward that end. Pope Vigilius was being held as a prisoner, and due to this and various imperial coercive tactics, no papal legates were present. It is no argument against Roman and papal primacy, if and when a pope is held in physical bondage:<\/p>\n From 25 January, 547, Pope Vigilius was forcibly detained in the royal city; . . . Vigilius had persuaded Justinian . . . to proclaim a truce on all sides until a general council could be called to decide these controversies. Both the emperor and the Greek bishops violated this promise of neutrality;. . .<\/p>\n For his dignified protest Vigilius thereupon suffered various personal indignities at the hands of the civil authority and nearly lost his life; he retired finally to Chalcedon, in the very church of St. Euphemia where the great council had been held, whence he informed the Christian world of the state of affairs. Soon the Oriental bishops sought reconciliation with him, induced him to return to the city, and withdrew all that had hitherto been done against the Three Chapters; the new patriarch, Eutychius, successor to Mennas, whose weakness and subserviency were the immediate cause of all this violence and confusion, presented (6 Jan., 553 his professor of faith to Vigilius and, in union with other Oriental bishops, urged the calling of a general council under the presidency of the pope. Vigilius was willing, but proposed that it should be held either in Italy or in Sicily, in order to secure the attendance of Western bishops. To this Justinian would not agree, but proposed, instead, a kind of commission made up of delegates from each of the great patriarchates; Vigilius suggested that an equal number be chosen from the East and the West; but this was not acceptable to the emperor, who thereupon opened the council by his own authority on the date and in the manner mentioned above. Vigilius refused to participate, not only on account of the overwhelming proportion of Oriental bishops, but also from fear of violence; moreover, none of his predecessors had ever taken part personally in an Oriental council. To this decision he was faithful, though he expressed his willingness to give an independent judgment on the matters at issue. . . .<\/p>\n The decisions of the council were executed with a violence in keeping with its conduct, though the ardently hoped-for reconciliation of the Monophysites did not follow. Vigilius, together with other opponents of the imperial will, as registered by the subservient court-prelates, seems to have been banished (Hefele, II, 905), together with the faithful bishops and ecclesiastics of his suite, either to Upper Egypt or to an island in the Propontis. Already in the seventh session of the council Justinian caused the name of Vigilius to be stricken from the diptychs, without prejudice, however, it was said, to communion with the Apostolic See. Soon the Roman clergy and people, now freed by Narses from the Gothic yoke, requested the emperor to permit the return of the pope, which Justinian agreed to on condition that Vigilius would recognize the late council. This Vigilius finally agreed to do, and in two documents (a letter to Eutychius of Constantinople, 8 Dec., 553, and a second \u201cConstitutum\u201d of 23 Feb., 554, probably addressed to the Western episcopate) condemned, at last, the Three Chapters (Mansi, IX, 424-20, 457-88; cf. Hefele, II, 905-11), independently, however, and without mention of the council.\u00a0(The Catholic Encyclopedia<\/i>:\u00a0\u201cSecond Council of Constantinople,\u201d<\/a>\u00a0written by Thomas Shahan)<\/p><\/blockquote>\n In like manner, in the Council of Carthage, at which Augustine was present, we perceive that not the legates of the Roman See, but Aurelius, the archbishop of the place, presided, although there was then a question as to the authority of the Roman Pontiff.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n This was not an ecumenical council, so it is a moot point.\u00a0In any event, Pope Innocent I concurred with and sanctioned the canonical ruling of the Council of Carthage in 397, in his\u00a0Letter to Exsuperius, Bishop of Toulouse<\/i><\/a>\u00a0(dated 405).<\/p>\n Nay, even in Italy itself, a universal council was held (that of Aquileia), at which the Roman Bishop was not present.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n So what? That is irrelevant.<\/p>\n Ambrose, who was then in high favour with the Emperor, presided, and no mention is made of the Roman Pontiff.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n That is no more necessary than it is for any state Senate assembly in America to mention the President of the United States every time it meets.<\/p>\n Therefore, owing to the dignity of Ambrose, the See of Milan was then more illustrious than that of Rome.<\/span><\/p>\n Since no proof is given, since it is a subjective statement, and a ridiculous one at that. I shall pass on commenting. We have seen that when Calvin tries to rely on historical fact (rather than unsubstantiated subjective assertion) to support his case, he can easily be amply refuted at every turn. The Institutes is compelling and convincing only on the surface. Once examined and opposed with counter-factual information, it quickly becomes infinitely less impressive.<\/p><\/div>\n<\/div>\n ***<\/p>\n (originally 6-15-09)<\/p>\n Photo credit:\u00a0<\/strong>Historical mixed media figure of John Calvin produced by artist\/historian George S. Stuart and photographed by Peter d\u2019Aprix: from the<\/span>\u00a0George S. Stuart Gallery of Historical Figures archive<\/a>\u00a0[Wikimedia Commons<\/a>\u00a0\/\u00a0Creative Commons<\/a>\u00a0Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported<\/a>\u00a0license]<\/p>\n ***<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/body><\/html>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" This is an installment of a series of replies (see the\u00a0Introduction and Master List) to much\u00a0of Book IV (Of the Holy Catholic Church) of\u00a0Institutes of the Christian Religion, by early\u00a0Protestant leader\u00a0John Calvin\u00a0(1509-1564). I utilize the public domain translation of Henry Beveridge, dated 1845, from the 1559 edition in Latin;\u00a0available online. Calvin\u2019s words will be in\u00a0blue. […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2331,"featured_media":27721,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[131,37,138],"tags":[598,1131,1132,7396,7411,3820,245,163,810,3508,7402,342,2355,4361,7408,161,7390,1130,162,7405,1133,7414,1653,1129],"class_list":["post-27871","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-church-ecclesiology","category-john-calvin","category-papacy-infallibility","tag-apostolic-succession","tag-bible-papacy","tag-biblical-authority","tag-biblical-ecclesiology","tag-chalcedon","tag-christian-church","tag-early-church","tag-ecclesiology","tag-ecumenical-councils","tag-elders","tag-fathers-the-papacy","tag-institutes-of-the-christian-religion","tag-john-calvin","tag-leo-the-great","tag-nicaea","tag-papacy","tag-patristic-ecclesiology","tag-petrine-primacy","tag-popes","tag-popes-ecumenical-councils","tag-primacy-of-rome","tag-robber-council","tag-roman-primacy","tag-st-peter"],"yoast_head":"\nBook IV<\/strong><\/span><\/div>\n\nCHAPTER 7<\/span><\/h3>\n
OF THE BEGINNING AND RISE OF THE ROMISH PAPACY, TILL IT ATTAINED A HEIGHT BY WHICH THE LIBERTY OF THE CHURCH WAS DESTROYED, AND ALL TRUE RULE OVERTHROWN.<\/span><\/div>\n1.\u00a0First part of the chapter, in which the commencement of the Papacy is assigned to the Council of Nice. In subsequent Councils other bishops presided. No attempt then made to claim the first place.<\/em><\/span><\/div>\n*<\/div>\n<\/div>\nIn<\/span>\u00a0regard to the antiquity of the primacy of the Roman See, there is nothing in favour of its establishment more ancient than the decree of the Council of Nice, by which the first place among the Patriarchs is assigned to the Bishop of Rome, and he is enjoined to take care of the suburban churches.\u00a0<\/span>\n
\n*<\/p>\n
\n*<\/p>\n2.\u00a0Though the Roman Bishop presided in the Council of Chalcedon, this was owing to special circumstances. The same right not given to his successors in other Councils.<\/em><\/span><\/div>\n*<\/div>\n\n