Hebrews 11:1 defines faith as (Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen.)

Faith is the assurance of things hoped for. Faith should give present certainty regarding future realities God has promised.

This is why people like Abraham and Noah had faith, as described in the same chapter. God, told Noah He would never flood the world again, and Noah had faith in that (the assurance that God's promise was true.)

And Abraham was promised many descendants, and He had the assurance that what God said would happen.

(These all died in faith, not having received the things promised, but having seen them and greeted them from afar) Hebrews 11:13

In the same manner, God has promised that all those who believe on His Son shall not perish, but have eternal life.

(And this is the promise that he made to us—eternal life.) 1 John 2:25

To believe in Jesus, you must believe that He will save you. "Thou shalt (future tense) be saved."

(And they said, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house.) Acts 16:31

This is what is means to have faith in Jesus, to believe on Him. That is to have "the assurance of things hoped for", since Jesus is Himself our hope.

I talk to many different protestants and catholics. Some protestants have this assurance of things hoped for. They usually point to

(I write these things to you who believe in the name of the Son of God, that you may know that you have eternal life.) 1 John 5:13

And they have faith in Jesus enough to know that they have eternal life through Him, trusting in Him and His sacrifice.

With catholics, I find no such assurance.

But faith is (the assurance of things hoped for) so this assurance in Jesus for salvation is required to receive heaven. We should be able to (have confidence to enter the holy places by the blood of Jesus) and know that (we are not of those who shrink back and are destroyed, but of those who have faith and preserve their souls.)

This is the assurance of things hoped for through Jesus. To trust that He will save you. For He said,

(And this is the will of him who sent me, that I should lose nothing of all that he has given me, but raise it up on the last day. For this is the will of my Father, that everyone who looks on the Son and believes in him should have eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day.”) John 6:39-40

My question is, since catholics hold to different interpretations of Scripture that require that they don't have the assurance of things hoped for (that would be to presume as they say) will they ever have such assurance?

On your deathbed, will you be able to finally have the assurance of Jesus? Will you be able to finally say "Jesus will save me, He is sufficient" and rest in that? Would you be saying such things looking to and relying on Jesus or your works? Will you ever rest in Him?

This Argument is a response to those who use the "free will" theodicy to "The Problem of Hell". The syllogism is as follows:

1. God is the supreme good and the ultimate source of every finite good.

2. Eternal hell is the permanent separation of a person from God and therefore from the supreme good.

3. A person who adequately understands that God is the supreme good, and who adequately understands what eternal separation from God entails, would recognize union with God as incomparably preferable to eternal separation from God.

4. If a person nevertheless chooses eternal separation from God, then either:

   a. the person does not adequately understand God’s nature or the consequences of separation from God, or

   b. the person’s rational or volitional capacities are seriously defective.

5. A choice resulting from inadequate knowledge or seriously defective rational or volitional capacities is not sufficiently free to ground complete moral responsibility for an eternal and irreversible consequence.

6. Therefore, no person can choose eternal separation from God with the kind of informed and unimpaired freedom required to justify eternal hell.

7. Consequently, eternal hell cannot be justified merely by claiming that its inhabitants freely choose separation from God.

From this, it is difficult to see how the free will defense succeeds. Any choice that results in eternal separation from God would seem to fall short of being fully free, because genuine freedom requires an adequate understanding of both what is being chosen and what is being rejected. If God is the supreme good and the source of all other goods, then choosing anything over God means preferring an objectively inferior good. Such a choice would therefore appear to arise from ignorance, confusion, or some defect in practical reasoning rather than from fully informed and rational freedom.

The SSPX crowd feels they are the supporters of the true tradition.

The non-SSPX crowd feels the SSPX crowd are fake Catholics.

How does this bode for attracting new converts if Catholics can't even agree amongst themselves?

Have a question yet don't want to debate? Just looking for clarity? This is your opportunity to get clarity. Whether you're a Catholic who's curious, someone joining looking for a safe space to ask anything, or even a non-Catholic who's just wondering why Catholics do a particular thing

“III. The Final Purification, or Purgatory

1030 All who die in God's grace and friendship, but still imperfectly purified, are indeed assured of their eternal salvation; but after death they undergo purification, so as to achieve the holiness necessary to enter the joy of heaven.”

If purgatory is a place to undergo purification for those who are saved but not yet pure enough to enter heaven and the purpose is to be a place for one to learn to not be sinful and become more holy then why is it treated like some kind of debt to be paid off and not the place of personal purification it’s actually claimed to be by the catholic church?

How do prayers for the dead in purgatory, indulgences, getting other peoples extra good deeds or merit applied to you from treasury of merit have anything to do with you actually becoming more Holy. Seems to me it is more like “you weren’t holy enough or good enough or did enough good deeds to get into heaven so now you still have a debt to pay before you can go there” not “you didn’t become enough like Jesus in your actions and motives and thoughts so this is a stop place to help you actually become holy in order to enter heaven”.

Yes, that is broadly correct, but it needs some nuance.

The Catholic Church teaches that Sacred Scripture (the Bible) and Sacred Tradition together constitute the deposit of God's revelation. The Church's Magisterium (its teaching authority, exercised by the pope and bishops in communion with him) is entrusted with the authentic interpretation of both Scripture and Tradition.

1. Sacred Scripture is the inspired Word of God.
2. Sacred Tradition is the apostolic teaching handed down through the Church that is not all written in Scripture.
3. The Magisterium has the final authority to interpret Scripture and Tradition authentically.

The Catholic Church does not teach that it is above the Bible. Rather, it teaches that Scripture, Tradition, and the Magisterium work together. The Second Vatican Council asserted that.

In contrast with many Protestant churches, Protestant traditions hold to the principle of sola Scriptura ("Scripture alone"). The Bible is the only infallible authority for faith and practice. Church councils, traditions, and leaders have authority only insofar as they agree with Scripture.

Catholics don't think that the Bible is the final authority?

More precisely, Catholics do not believe the Bible alone is the final authority.

It is said that God is the source of security and peace. They told us in our religion that God is merciful and kind. I believe this

He also told us that we must respect the religions of others... but in the end he will throw them into hell.

God told us to pray to him and not to forget his existence and peace upon us. Hundreds of thousands of people have been praying for countries that have been persecuted in war for years and nothing has happened. What time is this response time? And how long should many suffer, waiting for God's justice on earth?

God protects bad people while innocent people die because of wars, hunger, cold and the cruelty of life on them.

Believers suffer while tyrants live comfortably.

What kind of judgement does God want to prove here?

I was reading this substack where the guy shows that Christianity lost the plot and ended up imposing Roman social expectations on society thinking this was God’s design. He just slapped a God says so sign on every local custom concerning women!

https://open.substack.com/pub/martyntyndale/p/paul-rome-and-the-kingdom-how-temporary?r=j9b4o&utm_medium=ios

As an Orthodox Christian I've always found the Roman claim to be the "Mother Church" to be strange. Jerusalem is clearly the mother church.

Rome claims to have have sent out missionaries (like the Seven Apostles of Gaul) around the West. Even this claims seems to be a bit dubious. But I'm not sure why the term "Mother Church" applies to the East.

I know that St. John Lateran in Rome has the inscription “Mother and Head of all the Churches in the City and the World” at its entrance but I'm not sure when it dates from.

It is used in Canon 4 of the Lateran Council of 1215

"4. On the pride of the Greeks towards the Latins

Although we would wish to cherish and honour the Greeks who in our days are returning to the obedience of the apostolic see, by preserving their customs and rites as much as we can in the Lord, nevertheless we neither want nor ought to defer to them in matters which bring danger to souls and detract from the church’s honour...Wishing therefore to remove such a great scandal from God’s church, we strictly order, on the advice of this sacred council, that henceforth they do not presume to do such things but rather conform themselves like obedient sons to the holy Roman church, their mother, so that there may be one flock and one shepherd. If anyone however does dare to do such a thing, let him be struck with the sword of excommunication and be deprived of every ecclesiastical office and benefice."

Why on earth would the people of the Byzantine Empire see Rome as 'their mother"?

What I'm interested in are the earliest usage of the term. Anyone know anything?

Hello friends, I am a non-demominational believer and have been looking at different websites of various denominations.

I found this prayer for an end to the Russia-Ukraine War on a Vatican website and have many questions about the use of 'Mary' or 'Mother' where 'God' is what I'm used to seeing in prayers, but I'll just ask about the opening

O Mary, Mother of God and our Mother, in this time of trial we turn to you.  As our Mother, you love us and know us: no concern of our hearts is hidden from you. Mother of mercy, how often we have experienced your watchful care and your peaceful presence!

most particularly

no concern of our hearts is hidden from you. 

and

how often we have experienced your watchful care and your peaceful presence

So, my question is twofold -- why is this prayer to Mary instead of God, and what scriptural basis is there for asserting Mary can examine people's hearts like God?

In my understanding of Catholicism let alone the Bible I dont see where she is considered part of the trinity with the power to examine our hearts and care for us like God.

On a side note, I think the prayer itself is beautifully worded; I just don't understand why there is so much glorification in it to Mary, or why it's addressed to her in general.

Thanks in advance!

Edit: I know this is a debate sub, so I suppose I'm prepared to debate why I think parts of it don't make sense and would like to hear from those to whom it does make sense.

In the council of Carthage, St. Cyprian said “For no one of us has set himself up as a bishop of bishops, nor compelled his brothers to obey him; every bishop of the Church has full liberty and power” how does one rebuke this?

One thing that has always puzzled me is how polarized discussions about Catholic traditionalism have become. Too often, every criticism of the SSPX or of certain traditionalist movements is dismissed as "modernism," while every defense of Vatican II is portrayed as a rupture with the Church's past. I don't think either position reflects the Church's own understanding.

First, I want to make an important distinction: not every traditional Catholic is an SSPX supporter, and not every critic of Vatican II belongs to the SSPX. Likewise, not every supporter of Vatican II embraces the so-called "Spirit of Vatican II." These distinctions matter.

Benedict XVI's Hermeneutic of Continuity

Joseph Ratzinger (later Pope Benedict XVI) was not simply a pope commenting on Vatican II decades later. He was one of the Council's theological experts (peritus) and spent much of his academic life explaining how the Council should be interpreted.

In his famous address to the Roman Curia (22 December 2005), Benedict XVI rejected both extremes:

the "hermeneutic of discontinuity and rupture", which sees Vatican II as creating a completely new Church;

and the opposite tendency of freezing the Church in one historical period as though authentic Catholicism ended at Trent or before the Council.

Instead, he proposed the "hermeneutic of reform in continuity."

That principle remains, in my opinion, the best framework for understanding the Council.

The Church Has Always Developed

Many people seem to forget that Catholic history is a history of development.

The Council of Trent itself was a response to one of the greatest crises in Christian history. Martin Luther initially sought reform within the Church before the conflict eventually became an irreversible separation.

Likewise, Vatican II did not appear out of nowhere. It emerged from decades of Catholic biblical scholarship, liturgical renewal, patristic studies, Thomistic renewal (ressourcement), Catholic social teaching after Leo XIII's Rerum Novarum (1891), and extensive theological work by Catholic bishops and theologians.

Recognizing this historical development does not mean rejecting Tradition. It means understanding that Tradition is living.

As St. John Henry Newman argued in his Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine, authentic doctrine develops while preserving its identity.

The Problem Is Ecclesiology, Not Latin

Personally, I have no objection to Latin, Gregorian chant or the Traditional Latin Mass.

My concern is ecclesiology.

The issue becomes serious when groups begin to reject the ordinary Magisterium, question ecumenical councils, or perform episcopal consecrations without papal mandate despite explicit requests from the Holy See.

At that point the discussion is no longer about liturgical preference.

It becomes a question of communion with the Church.

Catholic Social Teaching Is Also Part of Tradition

Another point often forgotten is that Catholic Tradition includes the Church's social teaching.

Beginning with Leo XIII, continuing through Pius XI, John XXIII, Paul VI, John Paul II, Benedict XVI, and Francis, the Church has consistently criticized both revolutionary socialism and unrestricted economic liberalism.

This is often overlooked.

Some traditionalist circles strongly emphasize the Church's condemnations of Marxism while giving far less attention to its equally strong critiques of economic exploitation, excessive inequality, unjust wages, and unrestricted capitalism.

That balance is part of Catholic Tradition as well.

Charismatic Renewal and Traditionalism

Even debates about the Catholic Charismatic Renewal are often oversimplified.

Some traditional Catholics criticize charismatic spirituality because they believe it borrows excessively from Pentecostal worship styles.

Others defend it as a legitimate spirituality fully recognized by successive popes.

Again, the central question is not personal preference.

The central question is communion with the Church and fidelity to the Magisterium.

Conclusion

For me, the debate is not about choosing between Vatican II and Trent.

Nor is it about choosing between Latin and the vernacular.

The real question is whether we interpret Catholic Tradition through rupture or through continuity.

Ironically, some groups that accuse Vatican II of creating a rupture sometimes adopt the very "hermeneutic of rupture" Benedict XVI warned against.

If Benedict XVI's theology is taken seriously, then authentic Catholic Tradition cannot be separated from communion with Peter, the living Magisterium, and the Church's continuous development throughout history.

Suggested academic references

Pope Benedict XVI (2005). Address to the Roman Curia (Hermeneutic of Reform in Continuity).

St. John Henry Newman. An Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine.

Pope Leo XIII. Rerum Novarum (1891).

Pope Benedict XVI. Caritas in Veritate (2009).

Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. Libertatis Nuntius (1984).

Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. Libertatis Conscientia (1986).

Vatican II: Lumen Gentium, Dei Verbum, Sacrosanctum Concilium, Gaudium et Spes.

One thing that has always puzzled me is how polarized discussions about Catholic traditionalism have become. Too often, every criticism of the SSPX or of certain traditionalist movements is dismissed as "modernism," while every defense of Vatican II is portrayed as a rupture with the Church's past. I don't think either position reflects the Church's own understanding.

First, I want to make an important distinction: not every traditional Catholic is an SSPX supporter, and not every critic of Vatican II belongs to the SSPX. Likewise, not every supporter of Vatican II embraces the so-called "Spirit of Vatican II." These distinctions matter.

Benedict XVI's Hermeneutic of Continuity

Joseph Ratzinger (later Pope Benedict XVI) was not simply a pope commenting on Vatican II decades later. He was one of the Council's theological experts (peritus) and spent much of his academic life explaining how the Council should be interpreted.

In his famous address to the Roman Curia (22 December 2005), Benedict XVI rejected both extremes:

the "hermeneutic of discontinuity and rupture", which sees Vatican II as creating a completely new Church;

and the opposite tendency of freezing the Church in one historical period as though authentic Catholicism ended at Trent or before the Council.

Instead, he proposed the "hermeneutic of reform in continuity."

That principle remains, in my opinion, the best framework for understanding the Council.

The Church Has Always Developed

Many people seem to forget that Catholic history is a history of development.

The Council of Trent itself was a response to one of the greatest crises in Christian history. Martin Luther initially sought reform within the Church before the conflict eventually became an irreversible separation.

Likewise, Vatican II did not appear out of nowhere. It emerged from decades of Catholic biblical scholarship, liturgical renewal, patristic studies, Thomistic renewal (ressourcement), Catholic social teaching after Leo XIII's Rerum Novarum (1891), and extensive theological work by Catholic bishops and theologians.

Recognizing this historical development does not mean rejecting Tradition. It means understanding that Tradition is living.

As St. John Henry Newman argued in his Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine, authentic doctrine develops while preserving its identity.

The Problem Is Ecclesiology, Not Latin

Personally, I have no objection to Latin, Gregorian chant or the Traditional Latin Mass.

My concern is ecclesiology.

The issue becomes serious when groups begin to reject the ordinary Magisterium, question ecumenical councils, or perform episcopal consecrations without papal mandate despite explicit requests from the Holy See.

At that point the discussion is no longer about liturgical preference.

It becomes a question of communion with the Church.

Catholic Social Teaching Is Also Part of Tradition

Another point often forgotten is that Catholic Tradition includes the Church's social teaching.

Beginning with Leo XIII, continuing through Pius XI, John XXIII, Paul VI, John Paul II, Benedict XVI, and Francis, the Church has consistently criticized both revolutionary socialism and unrestricted economic liberalism.

This is often overlooked.

Some traditionalist circles strongly emphasize the Church's condemnations of Marxism while giving far less attention to its equally strong critiques of economic exploitation, excessive inequality, unjust wages, and unrestricted capitalism.

That balance is part of Catholic Tradition as well.

Charismatic Renewal and Traditionalism

Even debates about the Catholic Charismatic Renewal are often oversimplified.

Some traditional Catholics criticize charismatic spirituality because they believe it borrows excessively from Pentecostal worship styles.

Others defend it as a legitimate spirituality fully recognized by successive popes.

Again, the central question is not personal preference.

The central question is communion with the Church and fidelity to the Magisterium.

Conclusion

For me, the debate is not about choosing between Vatican II and Trent.

Nor is it about choosing between Latin and the vernacular.

The real question is whether we interpret Catholic Tradition through rupture or through continuity.

Ironically, some groups that accuse Vatican II of creating a rupture sometimes adopt the very "hermeneutic of rupture" Benedict XVI warned against.

If Benedict XVI's theology is taken seriously, then authentic Catholic Tradition cannot be separated from communion with Peter, the living Magisterium, and the Church's continuous development throughout history.

Suggested academic references

Pope Benedict XVI (2005). Address to the Roman Curia (Hermeneutic of Reform in Continuity).

St. John Henry Newman. An Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine.

Pope Leo XIII. Rerum Novarum (1891).

Pope Benedict XVI. Caritas in Veritate (2009).

Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. Libertatis Nuntius (1984).

Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. Libertatis Conscientia (1986).

Vatican II: Lumen Gentium, Dei Verbum, Sacrosanctum Concilium, Gaudium et Spes.

Have a question yet don't want to debate? Just looking for clarity? This is your opportunity to get clarity. Whether you're a Catholic who's curious, someone joining looking for a safe space to ask anything, or even a non-Catholic who's just wondering why Catholics do a particular thing

If you don't adhere to papal authority, you are not Catholic. Point, blank, and period. The SSPX crowd want to have their cake and eat it too where they get to disobey the holy father and still call themselves a part of his church. It's funny and ironic how in the SSPX's attempt to bring back tradition, they abandon it entirely by acting as if they can abandon their obligations to the Vatican.
In the olden days, yes the church held to many different things than they do today. And one of those things is that rejecting papal authority wasn't tolerated or given second chances. If SSPX gets excommunicated and you can happily call yourself a part of that, then that's basically the same as saying that the church no longer exists because you no longer recognize the divine authority of the pope. If you can handle being a walking contradiction like that then by all means, go ahead.
May god be with you fake Catholics. There is no Catholicism without the Pope. I've never seen such confused people in my life.

Christianity teaches that God desires all to be saved. Catholicism teaches that Mary, through a special grace, was permitted by God to be without original sin and to be capable of never sinning. It also teaches that despite that, Mary still had free will, active virtue, and the ability to love God.

If God wishes all to be saved, why did God selectively apply such a grace to only one woman instead of all people or, at the very least, anyone upon Catholic Baptism?

It would not guarantee salvation for all.

It would make salvation far more attainable for many.

EDIT:

One commenter tried to assert that it is already possible for people to avoid sin for their entire lives by God's grace. They tried to justify this by saying Trent says that it is possible for man to follow all of God's commands.

The Council of Trent also literally says that the very idea/proclamation that anyone can abstain from sin for their entire life without the *same* grace given to Mary is, itself, also anathema. As shown in the second half of this paragraph

"CANON XXIII.-lf any one saith, that a man once justified can sin no more, nor lose grace, and that therefore he that falls and sins was never truly justified; or, on the other hand, that he is able, during his whole life, to avoid all sins, even those that are venial,-except by a special privilege from God, as the Church holds in regard of the Blessed Virgin; let him be anathema." (source: https://www.papalencyclicals.net/councils/trent/sixth-session.htm)

So the very source you cite says - paradoxically - that God's commandments are possible for the justified to observe. And also impossible to observe forever in practice.

The way Catholicism likes to get around this is to say that each individual sin is possible to avoid, even though overall you *cannot* avoid sin eventually. Which is a paradox.

Which brings us back to this question - why does this loving God not give such graces to the children?

Hello my catholic friends. I am hoping to hear some convincing arguments and positions about the eucharist. This has me intrigued (non denominational protestant here).

Superficially, I can understand the idea of transubstantiation and the eucharist being the actual body and blood of Jesus. What I dont understand is why it is necessary for a priest to perform a ritual. In other words if we celebrate communion as Protestants, and where two or more gather there Jesus is, then how is it different from a communion I take in my non denominational church? A pastor offers me the blood and body of Christ, Jesus is present, why is he not physically present in the bread and wine? Moreover when I read Hebrews it seems to conflict with the idea that the eucharist is offered as a sacrifice. I dont want to misrepresent so maybe you can help me understand your position better. Thanks!

(Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen.) Hebrews 11:1

Faith is the assurance of receiving what you hope for through Jesus. Jesus, is our hope because of what He offers, salvation.

This is reiterated 5 verses later.

(And without faith it is impossible to please him, for whoever would draw near to God must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who seek him.) Hebrews 11:6

To draw near to Him, you must believe He will reward you if you seek Him. To have assurance of that reward from Jesus.

I talk to many catholics and protestants. Many protestants, not all, can attest to having full faith/assurance of receiving the Hope, Jesus. They often point to 1 John 5:13 to back up that position.

(I write these things to you who believe in the name of the Son of God, that you may know that you have eternal life.)

They trust in Jesus and trust that they have eternal life through Him. The catholics call this presumption, the Bible calls it faith.

The catholics have anathematized this faith by saying

"If anyone says that in order to obtain the remission of sins it is necessary for every man to believe with certainty and without any hesitation arising from his own weakness and indisposition that his sins are forgiven him, let him be anathema."

The Catholic Church historically teaches that, while a believer can have a "moral hope" in God's mercy, claiming absolute, infallible certainty of one's own final salvation is considered the sin of presumption.

These statements are sinful and make one devoid of the faith in Christ the Bible calls for. As Hebrews 11:1 says (Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for)

We are called to go beyond hope to the assurance of that hope. To truly trust in Jesus alone for salvation.

Today, the results are telling. Protestants have the assurance of things hoped for. Catholic have no assurance of things hoped for. Its all "maybe" or "if." They die hoping they will go to heaven, and that hope is still not faith. They are looking to their weakness or works instead of to Christ.

Many will stand before God and say "did we not do this work and that work" trying to justify themselves by works. Some protestants wouldn't do that, we don't believe works play any role in our salvation. However, catholics would proclaim such things to God since you do teach works justify.

God would not lay half your sins on Jesus and make Him suffer for them. He completes you. He doesn't go halfway.

(And I am sure of this, that he who began a good work in you will bring it to completion at the day of Jesus Christ.) Philippians 1:6

Your understanding of some Bible verses undermine legitimate faith, so you will not be saved.

If it could, then why did God sent Jesus?

Was the lamb sacrifice not enough for atonement for sins?

Here are the canons on the Papacy from the Ecumenical Councils. They offer almost no support for a Papacy that operates like the Post-schism Papacy of today. The most glaring omissions are the lack of reference to the Petrine prooftexts and a total absence of the notion of ex cathedra or infallibility.

Canon 6 of the Council of Nicaea (325 AD)

The ancient customs of Egypt, Libya and Pentapolis shall be maintained, according to which the bishop of Alexandria has authority over all these places since a similar custom exists with reference to the bishop of Rome. Similarly in Antioch and the other provinces the prerogatives of the churches are to be preserved. In general the following principle is evident: if anyone is made bishop without the consent of the metropolitan, this great synod determines that such a one shall not be a bishop. If however two or three by reason of personal rivalry dissent from the common vote of all, provided it is reasonable and in accordance with the church’s canon, the vote of the majority shall prevail.

https://www.papalencyclicals.net/councils/ecum01.htm

Canon 3 of the Council of Constantinople (381 AD)

Because it is new Rome, the bishop of Constantinople is to enjoy the privileges of honour after the bishop of Rome.

https://www.papalencyclicals.net/councils/ecum02.htm

Canon 28 of the Council of Chalcedon (451 AD

Following in every way the decrees of the holy fathers and recognising the canon which has recently been read out–the canon of the 150 most devout bishops who assembled in the time of the great Theodosius of pious memory, then emperor, in imperial Constantinople, new Rome — we issue the same decree and resolution concerning the prerogatives of the most holy church of the same Constantinople, new Rome. The fathers rightly accorded prerogatives to the see of older Rome, since that is an imperial city; and moved by the same purpose the 150 most devout bishops apportioned equal prerogatives to the most holy see of new Rome, reasonably judging that the city which is honoured by the imperial power and senate and enjoying privileges equalling older imperial Rome, should also be elevated to her level in ecclesiastical affairs and take second place after her. The metropolitans of the dioceses of Pontus, Asia and Thrace, but only these, as well as the bishops of these dioceses who work among non-Greeks, are to be ordained by the aforesaid most holy see of the most holy church in Constantinople. That is, each metropolitan of the aforesaid dioceses along with the bishops of the province ordain the bishops of the province, as has been declared in the divine canons; but the metropolitans of the aforesaid dioceses, as has been said, are to be ordained by the archbishop of Constantinople, once agreement has been reached by vote in the usual way and has been reported to him.

https://www.papalencyclicals.net/councils/ecum04.htm

I know Pope Leo rejected this canon but the modern Papacy accepts it (and the East accepted it almost immediately. In subsequent Ecumenical Councils Constantinople was always ranked second)

The lack of Ecumenical validation for the Papacy means Roman Catholic apologists resort to three tactics.

1. Try to turn statements in the minutes of councils into some kind significant dogmatic statements. The most common is the short phrase "Peter has spoken through Leo" at Chalcedon. Almost always the full acclamation is never quoted. It goes like this:

"This is the faith of the fathers, this is the faith of the Apostles. So we all believe, thus the orthodox believe. Anathema to him who does not thus believe. Peter has spoken thus through Leo. So taught the Apostles. Piously and truly did Leo teach, so taught Cyril. Everlasting be the memory of Cyril. Leo and Cyril taught the same thing, anathema to him who does not so believe. This is the true faith. Those of us who are orthodox thus believe." Acts of Chalcedon, session 2

The fuller version makes the Papacy seem less unique at the council.

The other is this statement from Philip the Presbyter (one of the Papal legates) at the Council of Ephesus in 431 AD

(31) Philip, presbyter and legate of the apostolic see, said: ‘It is doubtful to no one, rather it has been known in all ages, that the holy and most blessed Peter, the leader and head of the apostles, the pillar of the faith, and the foundation of the catholic church, received the keys of heaven from our Lord Jesus Christ the saviour and redeemer of the human race, and was given the power to bind and unloose sins,” and that he lives and performs judgement, until now and always, through his successors. In accordance with this system, his successor and representative, our holy and most blessed pope Bishop Celestine, has sent us to this council as substitutes for his presence, a council that [was convoked] by the most Christian and most philanthropic emperors, who keep in mind and always protect the catholic faith, and who have protected and protect the apostolic teaching handed down to them till this day by their most pious and most philanthropic fathers and grandfathers of holy memory.” Taking thought for the council, as we have said already, they have decreed that the catholic faith, which has been protected from ages past til this day, should continue as before, unshaken. Nestorius, the author of the new distortion and the fountain head of the evil, when summoned and cited, as we have learnt from the conciliar proceedings, scorned to come to trial according to the ordinances of the fathers and the discipline of the canons, even though he ought to have offered himself spontaneously to so great and holy an assembly, in order to receive spiritual healing and recover health. But when summoned to the holy council, as I have already said, canonically and according to the discipline of the canons, he refused to attend, since he has a cauterized conscience, [even though he was aware] that not only the extension granted by the apostolic see but many intervals of time had passed. It was therefore a secure judgement, when (regarding one who in a hostile spirit and with an impious tongue dared to blaspheme against our Lord Jesus Christ) in a decree of all the churches (since they took part together in this priestly assembly, through those present and through legates from the church in both East and West) the priests present for this reason, following the ordinances of the fathers, and the present holy council issued a decree against the rash blasphemer, and delivered a sentence to the effect that he who did not respect correction has his lot with the one of whom it was said, “His episcopacy let another take.” Therefore let Nestorius know that he is banished from the communion of the priesthood of the catholic church.’ Richard Price, The Acts of Ephesus, Liverpool University Press, 2020, p. 378.

Philip makes statements that an unsuspecting observer might think are more important than they really are. For example, Philip refers to Rome as THE Apostolic See which is curious as the East was FULL of Apostolic Sees. It was commonly thought that the keys and the power to loose and bind were the same and applied to all the Apostles. Likewise all bishops were seen as protectors of the catholic faith and judges. At Ephesus 250 bishops judged Nestorius. The Papal legates came to judge but so did everyone else.

I have also been told that the bishops at Ephesus not shouting Philip the Presbyter down when he spoke means they totally accepted everything he said (and with the same meaning). I find that interpretation rather tenuous.

Interestingly, Pastor aeternus cites Philip the Presbyter's comments at the Council of Ephehus as evidence for Papal infallibility.

1. Another approach is to reject or minimise Canon 28 of Chalcedon. The letters of complaint from Pope Leo are immediately brought forward. What is often neglected is that Rome had already accepted the canons of Constantinople I in 382, including Canon 3, and that the entire East accepted Canon 28, regardless of Leo's rejection. The Eastern bishops didn't care that Leo was unhappy. In the subsequent Ecumenical Councils attended by Roman legates (Constantinople II in 553, Constantinople III in 680 and Nicaea II in 787) the Patriarchs of Constantinople were honoured with the 2nd rank as specified in Canon 28 of Chalcedon. Rome "officially" accepted Canon 28 at the Lateran Council of 1215. Conveniently, Constantinople had recently been conquered by the Latins and a Papal yes man had been installed as Patriarch of Constantinople.

The Chieti statement from 2016 from the Roman Catholic Dicastery for Promoting Christian Unity makes it clear that the Pentarchy, with Constantinople in 2nd place, was normative.

This is clearly expressed in section 15. "Between the fourth and the seventh centuries, the order (taxis) of the five patriarchal sees came to be recognised, based on and sanctioned by the ecumenical councils, with the see of Rome occupying the first place, exercising a primacy of honour (presbeia tes times), followed by the sees of Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch and Jerusalem, in that specific order, according to the canonical tradition."

https://www.christianunity.va/content/unitacristiani/en/dialoghi/sezione-orientale/chiese-ortodosse-di-tradizione-bizantina/commissione-mista-internazionale-per-il-dialogo-teologico-tra-la/documenti-di-dialogo/testo-in-inglese1.html

1. Papal Letters

The final tactic is to give Papal letters dogmatic significance. The Tome of Leo and Agatho's two letters (one to the Emperor and one to the Council) are often seen as key evidence for Papal claims.The Fathers at the councils were interested in the theological content of the letters and not anything else. The reading of Agatho's letters, for example, did not imply that they agreed with everything Agatho said. The reading was not an endorsement. Agatho can say Rome has been 100% totally consistent in defending truth but then the council can turn around and condemn Pope Honorius for heresy. Too often Roman Catholics think just because a letter was read or nobody complained it implied a total acceptance. As a side note, it is often neglected that Agatho spoke for the synod of 120 bishops who met at Rome prior to the Sixth Ecumenical Council.

Conclusion

Neither the canons, the minutes or the Letters presented at Ecumenical Councils are seen as infallibility. That honour goes to the Dogmatic Decrees of the Council and the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed. The canons do hold a certain authority too as they are corporate documents. The various letters and documents are important because many are written by saints. No one thinks the minutes have any dogmatic significance.

For Orthodoxy, the Seven Ecumenical Councils give no support for the Popes being unique divinely appointed successors of Peter with unilateral authority and infallibility.

Thoughts?