Your post is full of opinion, but little in the way of substance.
Having national synods is not such a bad thing, your own church has revived the concept in national bishops conferences. The older synods were too independent for modern Popes, so they were suppressed in the 19th century, only to come back in a neutered form in the 20th century.
Vatican II gave the bishops’ conferences more lee-way in making decisions for the countries they serve, but such decisions need to be ‘approved’ by the pope. But a lot of dialogue goes into this process; neither the pope nor the bishops can rubber stamp anything without approval from both.
Primacy means something different to Latin Catholics these days, you should know then that the bishops of Rome (even in it’s most arrogant and ambitious administrations) were highly respected by Orthodox before the schism. Now Latin Catholics interpret primacy to mean something it never meant before, and that is not acceptable.
Primacy is two-fold: first, it has to do with the office of Peter and the special charism bestowed upon it by Christ Himself through Peter and, eventually, those who followed him in that position. This is all wrapped up in both Old Testament and New Testament fulfillment of the Davidic Kingdom about which I am sure you know the arguments. Second, primacy means that the pope, together with the bishops, when making a pronouncement having to do with the Faith or with morals, cannot err because the Faith is protected and preserved by the Holy Spirit. As for secondary matters, it doesn’t hold (i.e., canon law, discipline, etc.). Ex-cathedra only happens very rarely in the Church.
You would be hard pressed to find evidence of Saint Peter the Apostle assuming the powers of a modern Pope. The Apostles clearly had more respect for each other.
**Powers of the modern pope are rooted in the historical development of the papacy. Remember that for centuries after the fall of the Roman Empire, the bishop of Rome assumed all the essentials (and non-essentials) of the position of the emperors and the bishop basically held it all together for a time.But this no longer holds and, actually, was abolished with the Vatican Concordat between Mussolini and the pope earlier in the 20th century. **
The early church was a collection of individual churches, all of them in communion with each other. They gathered in synods to decide on mutually agreeable policies. Over much of Europe and the Levant the bishop of Rome had no involvement with local synodal gatherings and Councils (except in the central Italian region). This was even true in the west for many centuries.
Agreed.
In fact, the seven Ecumenical Councils were called and convened without the participation of the bishops of Rome, and they took effect without the appropval of that bishop being required.
They also took place with very little participation by western bishops, from my understanding.
Today however, Latin Catholics like to claim that Pope is actually superior to an Ecumenical Council, and from his judgnment there is no appeal. This is actually the basis for the Popes’ claim to jurisdiction in all matters, including the right to codify the Canons, editing and deleting, writing new canons at will. The first millenium has no evidence of anything like that.
That is not exactly true. Some Latin Catholics may like to make that claim for the pope, but no pope is ever superior to an ecumenical council, and that was very obvious during Vatican II. Neither John XXIII nor Paul VI ever made an appeal to any type of superiority over the council because that is not what their roles were. Also, popes do not codify the canons - canon lawyers do that; they do the editing and deleting. After serious review with a pontifical commission to review any changes in the law, the pope and the commission will either agree or disagree, but usually they have always agreed. It’s not a rubber-stamped process at all; it never was. Canon law is the law which binds the Church together, as do laws of any society.
When Latin Catholics draw up lists of the Councils, they usually cover the trail by listing the reigning Pope of the day, but do not address the fact that he did not call the Council or chair it. It is a less than honest way of addressing this truth, misleading many people into thinking that the way the Popes call and run Councils today was the way it has always been.
For the Western Church, all of the councils are valid.
When you ascribe the differences between us to nationalism you had better also acknowledge the fact the Frankish nationalism and rivalry with the East Romans was a key element in the great schism. It was the Frankish dominance of western Europe, and the Papacy, which altered the original ecclesiology of your church.
Michael
