Nicea and Papacy

  • Thread starter Thread starter Gmsod
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
G

Gmsod

Guest
Hello everyone. I read something that said that the early church did not believe the bishop of Rome to have had the kind of primacy he has today and he cited canon IV of Nicea.
CANON IV. IT is by all means proper that a bishop should be appointed by all the bishops in the province; but should this be difficult, either on account of urgent necessity or because of distance, three at least should meet together, and the suffrages of the absent bishops also being given and communicated in writing, then the ordination should take place. But in every province the ratification of what is done should be left to the Metropolitan.

Is it true that all bishops must be chosen by the Pope, or something like that? For these contradict or does it just appear so.
 
Old canons from early Councils are easy to misinterpret.

There are ancient canons saying things such as you cannot kneel on Sunday, cannot visit a Jewish place of business, cannot shave your beard, etc.

The Canons don’t exist for individual laity to interpret and form judgments with.

They exist for a certain time and a certain place for certain people, and are/were interpreted and implemented by the lawful, competent Ecclesial authorities.
 
Last edited:
The One Holy Catholic and Apostolic orthodox Christian Church of Christ.
 
My question was why is it the Catholic Church that gets to say this means the papacy? Why not the Orthodox Church?has either church even made a statement they consider binding that says that this canon does or doesn’t contradict the papacy?
 
Ok. Thank you for the clarification. So not all bishops are chosen by the pope?
 
Gmsod said:
three at least should meet together
Click to expand...
To the best of my knowledge, the 3 bishop rule was instituted by popes Saint Anacletus or Saint Clement still in the first century.
 
Last edited:
Gmsod said:
So not all bishops are chosen by the pope?
Click to expand...
The Bishops Conference of a certain country choose the Priests they want to become Bishop.

Their choice is forwarded to the Pope for confirmation by him.

In the Eastern Catholic Churches the Patriarch chooses the Bishops instead of a Bishops conference, and the Pope just signs off on his decision.

The Pope is the Chief Executive of the Church, and as such has final power to either sign off on or veto many decisions in the Church.
 
From Pope Leo XIII’s Encyclical Satis Cognitum (1896):

“For He who made Peter the foundation of the Church also “chose, twelve, whom He called apostles” (Luke vi., 13); and just as it is necessary that the authority of Peter should be perpetuated in the Roman Pontiff, so, by the fact that the bishops succeed the Apostles, they inherit their ordinary power, and thus the episcopal order necessarily belongs to the essential constitution of the Church. Although they do not receive plenary, or universal, or supreme authority, they are not to be looked as vicars of the Roman Pontiffs; because they exercise a power really their own, and are most truly called the ordinary pastors of the peoples over whom they rule.”
 
Thank you for the link, GODwilling I will read it soon. This point isn’t a demotion of the Catholic position with one swoop. It is more of one little part of what can reveal what the early church believed in relation to the papacy. With that said, i realize how much of a primacy the Bishop of rome had and could have (according to the Orthodox). I just don’t see it extending into the areas that Catholics claim it does. Yes, the canons are hard to understand, but when deciding based off of history what the early church believes, i don’t have an authority to interpret it because both the Orthodox and catholic claim to be it.
 
I should’ve added - the vast, vast majority of the time the Pope simply signs off on the decision of the Patriarch or Bishops. He very rarely vetoes their Episcopal selections.

And definitely check out the resource I linked you to - it is a tremendous resource for anybody seeking to understand the Catholic doctrines in contrast to what some Eastern Orthodox claim.

Lastly, I will add this - the Eastern Orthodox are not a separate Church from the Catholic Church.

They are in fact Churches which are part of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church.

The problem is they are technically in a state of schism from the Roman See, and so they are not in full Communion with the rest of the Catholic Church.

So, as I said, they aren’t a separate Church - they ARE the Church. But they are in a canonically irregular situation where communion between their particular Churches and the Catholic Church is impeded.
 
The manner of appointing bishops was left to the Church’s authority. The supreme authority of the Church exercised by the episcopal college (with its head) or simply the head can determine how this can be carried out. It has been done in various ways over time for various reasons.

For example, when replacing Judas, St. John Chrysostom says St. Peter could have just made the decision himself, but chose to have it done in common as the more prudent course in those circumstances:
Why does he [Peter] make it their business too? That the matter might not become an object of strife, and they might not fall into contention about it. For if the Apostles themselves once did this, much more might those. This he ever avoids. Wherefore at the beginning he said, Men and brethren. It behooves to choose from among you. He defers the decision to the whole body, thereby both making the elected objects of reverence and himself keeping clear of all invidiousness with regard to the rest. For such occasions always give rise to great evils. Now that some one must needs be appointed, he adduces the prophet as witness: but from among what persons: Of these, he says, which have companied with us all the time. To have said, the worthy must present themselves, would have been to insult the others; but now he refers the matter to length of time; for he says not simply, These who have companied with us, but, all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us, beginning from the baptism of John unto that same day that He was taken up from us, must one be ordained to be a witness with us of His resurrection Acts 1:22: that their college (ὁ χορὸς) might not be left mutilated. Then why did it not rest with Peter to make the election himself: what was the motive? This; that he might not seem to bestow it of favor. And besides, he was not yet endowed with the spirit.
http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/210103.htm
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top