apostolic succession

  • Thread starter Thread starter Damo73
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Pope Leo the Great said that Rome owed its position to Peter AND Paul, who were both equal!

I. Rome Owes Its High Position to These Apostles.
The whole world, dearly-beloved, does indeed take part in all holy
anniversaries, and loyalty to the one Faith demands that whatever is recorded as done for all men’s salvation should be everywhere celebrated with common rejoicings. But, besides that reverence which to-day’s festival has gained from all the world, it is to be honoured with special and peculiar exultation in our city, that there may be a predominance of gladness on the day of their martyrdom in the place where the chief of the Apostles met their glorious end. For these are the men, through whom the light of Christ’s gospel shone on thee, O Rome, and through whom thou, who wast the teacher of error, wast made the disciple of Truth. These are thy holy Fathers and true shepherds, who gave thee claims to be numbered among the heavenly kingdoms, and built thee under much better and happier auspices than they, by whose zeal the first foundations of thy walls were laid: and of whom the one that gave thee thy name defiled thee with his
brother’s blood. These are they who promoted thee to such glory, that being made a holy nation, a chosen people, a priestly and royal state, and the head of the world through the blessed Peter’s holy See thou didst attain a wider sway. by the worship of God than by earthly government. For although thou weft increased by many victories, and didst extend thy rule on land and sea, yet what thy toils in war subdued is less than what the peace of
Christ has conquered.

VII. No Distinction Must Be Drawn Between the Merits of the Two.
And over this band, dearly-beloved, whom God has set forth for our example in patience and for our confirmation in the Faith, there must be rejoicing everywhere in the commemoration of all the saints, but of these two Fathers’ excellence we must rightly make our boast in louder joy, for God’s Grace has raised them to so high a place among the members of the Church, that He has set them like the twin light of the eyes in the body, whose
Head is Christ. About their merits and virtues, which pass all power of speech, we must not make distinctions, because they were equal in their election, alike in their toils, undivided in their death. But as we have proved for Ourselves, and our forefathers maintained, we believe, and are sure that, amid all the toils of this life, we must always be assisted in obtaining God’s Mercy by the prayers of special interceders, that we may be raised by the Apostles’ merits in proportion as we are weighed down by our
own sins. Through our Lord Jesus Christ, &c.

Pope Leo the Great “Sermon LXXXII”.( On the Feast Of the Apostles Peter and Paul (June 29).)
ccel.org/fathers2/NPNF2-12/Npnf2-12-214.htm#P4043_1035305
 
The Emperor has no power over the Church. He can not proclaim anyone “Universal Bishop”. This is a good example of the Eastern Church, when it disagrees with the Western Church to turn to the Emperor to get what she wishes. That’s a bad precedence that would haunt the Eastern Church for centuries. Why? Again, because it strips the power of all the bishops. This does not happen with the Papacy.
Western European histiry in the Catholic countires is very clear that until recently bishops were often appointed by the Kings and by the nobility - not by the Pope. The choice of bishops was made by the secular authorities.

From Hesychios: "Royal tyranny was common to the past in east and west. The French kings dominated the papacy in Avignon. Most kings of Europe had a stranglehold on their local churches: Spain, France, Portugal, Austria and even Poland went through periods of Royal domination.

It didn’t end when the monarchies ended, modern civil states had an interest in monitoring and controlling their local churches too, the age of the Concordats began, the contracts were signed and everybody got something at the expense of the local synods of bishops."

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=1470252&postcount=69
 
Western European histiry in the Catholic countires is very clear that until recently bishops were often appointed by the Kings and by the nobility - not by the Pope. The choice of bishops was made by the secular authorities.
I found this interesting and would like to learn more about this. Thanks for the heads up.

Why was this discipline changed? Did it tend to become corrupted (yes, Mr. Obvious, it did)?

Did the Pope have to approve of the bishop and what happened if he disapproved?
From Hesychios: "Royal tyranny was common to the past in east and west. The French kings dominated the papacy in Avignon. Most kings of Europe had a stranglehold on their local churches: Spain, France, Portugal, Austria and even Poland went through periods of Royal domination.
But (I think) the difference here is, that you are describing where the secular authorities had a stranglehold on the Church (armies will tend to allow you to do that, won’t they?), while I understood the East willingly went to the Emperor to help settle issues in the Church.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top