I keep seeing this, but I don’t see how it proves the point you are trying to make. The Bishop of Rome did not exercise authority over the churches of the East. To me that implies it was within his power to, but he chose not to exercise authority.
Or it could be implied that he never exercised authority because it was never within his power.
But the role of king prior to the fall of the Western Empire wasn’t any bishop, it was the Emperor. The Emperor convened councils, mediated disputes, and thus in a very real sense the canonical authority.
Even Eastern Orthodox Bishops during Council of Florence admitted Purgatory, Papal Supremacy and use of unleavened bread as well as truthfulness of Filioque (not necessarily it’s inclusion to Creed). As that was not dogmatic to Eastern Church, neither is Chieti Document to us. I’d like to say that I agree with Chieti Document in certain sense, but I would not limit Pope to NEVER be able to act without appeal. Papal Authority is there to protect Church. It would be akin to saying Ecumenical Councils should have no authority unless approved by local bishops.
I would question that. Certainly while the Empire persisted in both the East and West, the Emperor very much sat as a sort of latter day Melchizedek. This was certainly the ideal that the Emperors set for themselves, and the Church of the day was more than happy to accommodate. The Christian Emperors were the head of Church and State. Admittedly that was an ideal that didn’t last long even in the East, and the Eastern Churches often bristled at the notion that the Byzantine Emperor outranked them in spiritual matters (thus some historians dislike the name Caesaro-Papism for the system of government that evolved in the East).
Come to think of it, I’m reasonably sure that the Roman emperor called all of the seven ecumenical councils.
News to me. And I’ve been looking over this junk for decades now.
Yes but also many others. Emperors introduced heresies and rampaged Church with Caesaropapism- while some Emperors were good protectors of the Church, unquestionably, some were also not. Emperor protected Church and in some situations was a self-proclaimed guide of Eastern Church (and through influence it’s master but not officially anyway).
Iconoclasm, Monophysitism, Photian Schism (after all, Ignatius did get appointed back to Patriarchal See). That’s what I can recall, but there should be more.
Exactly. They did, and while some believed it to be true it was never true. Unlike Popes, Emperors were not infallible or free from heresies. See of Rome always upheld orthodox faith. Church was influenced by Emperors but I would not say Emperors were heads of Church or that their claim was justified, nor their authority being anything more than byproduct of earthly power. Problem with Charlemagne is that after him, his successors were not as reliable. I stand by the idea the Church should appoint those who rule the Church and represent fullness of Church locally (Bishops, as successors of Apostles).
…obviously except for popes Honorius and Alexander VI, certainly others but I don’t recall.
We could argue, due to lack of evidence concerning most of the early popes, that popes themselves may not have actively advocated heresies. But heretical adoptionism - a forerunner of arianism - was born in Rome.
How would you feel about voting bishops in, (a la bottom-up) rather than appointing them (a la top-down), as was widely done in the earlier pre-schism Church?
And that position started to make much more sense in the late Middle Ages and the Renaissance as a lay civil service began to form. But up until that point, the Church was supplying the bulk of the civil servants in the governments of most kingdoms. I think any ruler was not being unreasonable in wanting his bureaucrats to have some loyalty to the state.niceatheist:
Exactly. They did, and while some believed it to be true it was never true. Unlike Popes, Emperors were not infallible or free from heresies. See of Rome always upheld orthodox faith. Church was influenced by Emperors but I would not say Emperors were heads of Church or that their claim was justified, nor their authority being anything more than byproduct of earthly power. Problem with Charlemagne is that after him, his successors were not as reliable. I stand by the idea the Church should appoint those who rule the Church and represent fullness of Church locally (Bishops, as successors of Apostles).
And many other heresies were born in Rome, but Papacy never adopted them.
I am aware of that, however as nobles tried to mend in those elections and bribed people, Popes decided to intervene and I find that necessary complication to minimize abuses.
Yes, but appointing them would not be necessary to secure loyalty. I find the fact bishops were more concerned about worldly matters concerning. In my opinion they could have advised state, solved disputes within boundaries of spirituality but I do not like the fact they held such authority inside the state- precisely for this reason. You can not serve two masters.
I think that last distinction - “Not from the Catholic viewpoint” - is rather key here. But enough on that.
As far as we know. Because Goths, Vandals and other folks who sacked Rome had this nasty habit of setting things on fire, our information on the papacy for a good chunk of the first millennium enjoys a rather small number of surviving sources.
Well, after Charlemagne it seems the meddling went both ways between the Church and state. It’s largely why German princes didn’t crush papal dissidents in the early Reformation.