Why do Protestants reject the Pope's authority?

[KP3243]

the numbers are of interest…but yours need some work.

first, I expect the 1.2 billion figure for Catholics is inflated…for example it may count all those baptized into the CC in latin america…even though many of those have left the CC for protestantism (and of course do not accept the authority of the Pope)

second, if you look at a study such as this one , then you will note that only 89% of Catholics accept that the Pope is the divinely appointed successor of Peter…as such, even if you ignored the first problem of an inflated figure for the CC, you should still move about 11% of Catholics to the rejecting side to get:

accepting Catholics: 1,068 million

rejecting Catholics: 132 million
Orthodox: 230 million
Protestant: 800 million

…and the majority is not what you said it is.

Its not inflated. The Vatican issues a yearbook every year and it is called Annuario Pontificio . The Church is down in Europe and Latin America but it is really growing in Africa right now and as well as in Southeast Asia.

 

[joe370]

JonNC

Hey Jon…

Canon 6

**“Let the ancient customs in Egypt, Libya and Pentapolis prevail, that the Bishop of Alexandria have jurisdiction in all these, since the like is customary for the Bishop of Rome also…”
**
CC has always agreed…

**“Likewise in Antioch and the other provinces, let the Churches retain their privileges…”

**Ditto…

"And this is to be universally understood, that if any one be made bishop without the consent of the Metropolitan, the great Synod has declared that such a man ought not to be a bishop."

So that would mean that Pope Leo I could not have been elected without the consent of the Metropolitan correct?

**“If, however, two or three bishops shall from natural love of contradiction, oppose the common suffrage of the rest, it being reasonable and in accordance with the ecclesiastical law, then let the choice of the majority prevail.”
**
So, if this is true then two or three bishops via natural love of contradiction had the right to oppose the choice of Bishop of Rome and thereby remove him?

BTW the Bishop of Rome, back then, had always recognized the authority of those bishops in Alexandria etc., in their respective region.

In light of that 6th canon, why are people in the east appealing to the judgement of Rome in the following cases? Examples:

The Council of Sardica (344), for example:

“If any bishop looses the judgment in some case [decided by his fellow bishops] and still believes that he has not a bad but a good case, in order that the case may be judged anew …let us honor the memory of the Apostle Peter by having those who have given the judgment write to Julius, Bishop of Rome, so that if it seem proper he may himself send arbiters and the judgment may be made again by the bishops of a neighboring province.”

The council of Chalcedon (449):

Flavian, Archbishop of Constantinople to Pope Leo:

When Leo received the letter from the Archbishop Flavian of Constantinople, he sent his own letter back, and at the Council of Chalcedon, (after Leo’s letter on the two natures of Christ was read out) the bishops participating in the Council cried out: **“This is the faith of the fathers … Peter has spoken thus through Leo …”
**
Regarding the often mentioned canon 28, Maximus the Theologian aka Maximus of Constantinople later wrote:

"How much more in the case of the clergy and church of the Romans, which from old until now presides over all the churches which are under the sun? Having surely received this canonically, as well as from councils and the apostles, as from the princes of the latter (Peter & Paul), and being numbered in their company, **she is subject to no writings or issues in synodical documents, on account of the eminence of her pontificate **…even as in **all these things all are equally subject to her (the Church of Rome) according to sacerodotal law. **And so when, without fear, but with all holy and becoming confidence, those ministers (the popes) are of the truly firm and immovable rock, that is of the most great and Apostolic Church of Rome." (Maximus, in J.B. Mansi, ed. Amplissima Collectio Conciliorum, vol. 10)

And

“Hasten to your Apostolic See (Rome) in order to receive from you a cure for the wounds of the Church. For every reason it is fitting for you to hold the first place, inasmuch as your see is adorned with many priviledges. I have been condemned without trial. But I await the sentence of your Apostolic See. I beseech and implore Your Holiness to succor me in my appeal to your fair and righteous tribunal. Bid me hasten to you and prove to you that my teaching follows in the footsteps of the Apostles.” (Theodoret to Pope Leo, Ep. 113).

Regarding Chalcedon, Dioscorus of Alexandria also appealed to Rome.

In response, his accusers said:

“Wherefore the most holy and blessed Leo, archbishop of the great and elder Rome, through us, and through this present most holy synod together with the thrice-blessed and all-glorious Peter the Apostle, who is the Rock and foundation of the Catholic Church, and the foundation of the orthodox faith, hath stripped him (Dioscorus, Patriarch of Alexandria) of his episcopate, and hath alienated from him all hieratic worthiness” – Acts of Chalcedon, Session 3.

Why involve Rome on the matter?

Continued…

 

[joe370]

JonNC…

Continued…

Quote from Theodoret of Cyrus also appealing to the authority of Rome:

"When I began to appeal to the throne of the Apostolic See of Peter, the Prince of the Apostles, and to the whole sacred synod, which is obedient to Your Holiness, at once a crowd of soldiers surrounded me and barred my way when I wished to take refuge at the holy altar. …Therefore, I beseech Your Holiness not to permit these things to be treated with indifference …but to rise up first on behalf of the cause of our orthodox Faith, now destroyed by unlawful acts. …Further to issue an authoritative instruction …so that a like faith may everywhere be preached by the assembly of an united synod of fathers, both Eastern and Western. Thus the laws of the fathers may prevail and all that has been done amiss be rendered null and void. Bring healing to this ghastly wound.

"If Paul, the herald of the truth, the trumpet of the Holy Spirit, hastened to the great Peter, to convey from him the solution to those in Antioch, who were at issue about living under the law, how much more do we, poor and humble, run to the Apostolic Throne (Rome) to receive from you (Pope Leo) healing for wounds of the churches. For it pertains to you to have primacy in all things; for your throne is adorned with many prerogatives." (Theodoret Ibid, Epistle Leoni)

Council of Ephesus:

Eusebius of Doryleum appeals to the Bishop of Rome:

"The Apostolic throne has been wont from the beginning to defend those who are suffering injustice. I entreat Your Blessedness, give me back the dignity of my episcopate and communion with yourself, by letters from you to my lowliness bestowing on me my rank and communion." (Eusebius of Doryleum to Pope Leo)

Second Council of Ephesus:

Prior to the “Robber Council,” the heretic Eutyches (the instigator of the Monophysite heresy) also appeals to Rome:

"I take refuge, therefore, with you, the defender of religion and abhorrer of such factions. …I beseech you not to be prejudiced against me by their insidious designs about me, but to pronounce the sentence which shall seem to you right upon the Faith." (Eutyches to Pope Leo, Ep. 21. )

 

[ltwin]

So your answer, if you had lived back then, regarding certain members of Christ’s flock, (not just limited to the 16th century by the way) being too caught up in political affairs, buying their office and then neglecting it, all the while gathering wealth, and advocating war - would be:

Leave the catholic church?

If that is correct then any advice for that person in 1515 AD who would take your advice, if you had lived back then, as far as his next move, now that he has, hypothetically left the catholic church?

Perhaps starting his own church, in your opinion, is a viable solution?

I have no hypothetical advice for hypothetical men that hypothetically lived centuries ago and are hypothetically long dead. They’re in the hands of God now, hypothetically.

KP3243 in an earlier post asked,

It sounds like you view the Chair of Peter like it is a dictatorship comparable to Stalin. Through the Holy Spirit, which Jesus gave to his Church at Pentacost Jesus has guided and led his Church. Do you really think Jesus would allow his Church to be run like a bad dictatorship and allow it to mislead people?

I responded by pointing out that the Church and its leadership has in the past often acted like a “bad dictatorship” and had “mislead people.” I was simply pointing out the weakness in such logic. Then Nicea325 then asked what were my sources for the claim that the Church had been led like a dictatorship and that it had mislead people. I then offered Erasmus’ work as a “primary source.” There certainly is a lot more criticism of the Catholic Church that you can find throughout the centuries. Simony, political maneuverings, corruption in general and the “do as I say not as I do” approach to ecclesiastical behavior is not a feature of the Catholic Church today, and that is a good thing, but it hasn’t always been so.

 

[joe370]

ltwin;9765336]I have no hypothetical advice for hypothetical men that hypothetically lived centuries ago and are hypothetically long dead. They’re in the hands of God now, hypothetically.

KP3243 in an earlier post asked,

Well, it looks like you missed my point, or you just don’t want to answer. By the way I was absolutely not attempting to be flippant or sarcastic; I really wanted your opinion.

I responded by pointing out that the Church and its leadership has in the past often acted like a “bad dictatorship” and had “mislead people.” I was simply pointing out the weakness in such logic. Then Nicea325 then asked what were my sources for the claim that the Church had been led like a dictatorship and that it had mislead people. I then offered Erasmus’ work as a “primary source.” There certainly is a lot more criticism of the Catholic Church that you can find throughout the centuries. Simony, political maneuverings, corruption in general and the “do as I say not as I do” approach to ecclesiastical behavior is not a feature of the Catholic Church today, and that is a good thing, but it hasn’t always been so.

If the Catholic Church had been led like a dictatorship and continues to mislead people, doctrinally speaking, then logically speaking, people should search for truth elsewhere.

Where do you suggest I go (if I were to believe, what you are suggesting) to find a church that has never misled people, doctrinally speaking? Please be specific…

 

[Nicea325]

*From Matt 20:

20 Then the mother of Zebedee’s sons came to Jesus with her sons and, kneeling down, asked a favor of him.

21 “What is it you want?” he asked.

She said, “Grant that one of these two sons of mine may sit at your right and the other at your left in your kingdom.”

…24 When the ten heard about this, they were indignant with the two brothers. 25 Jesus called them together and said,** “You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their high officials exercise authority over them. 26 Not so with you.*** Instead, whoever wants to become great among you must be your servant, 27 and whoever wants to be first must be your slave— 28 just as the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many.”

From Mark 10:

35 Then James and John, the sons of Zebedee, came to him. “Teacher,” they said, “we want you to do for us whatever we ask.”

36 “What do you want me to do for you?” he asked.

37 They replied, “Let one of us sit at your right and the other at your left in your glory.”

…41 When the ten heard about this, they became indignant with James and John. 42 Jesus called them together and said,** “You know that those who are regarded as rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their high officials exercise authority over them. 43 Not so with you.** Instead, whoever wants to become great among you must be your servant, 44 and whoever wants to be first must be slave of all. 45 For even the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many.”

and from Luke 22:

35 Then James and John, the sons of Zebedee, came to him. “Teacher,” they said, “we want you to do for us whatever we ask.”

36 “What do you want me to do for you?” he asked.

37 They replied, “Let one of us sit at your right and the other at your left in your glory.”

…41 When the ten heard about this, they became indignant with James and John. 42 Jesus called them together and said,** “You know that those who are regarded as rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their high officials exercise authority over them. 43 Not so with you.** Instead, whoever wants to become great among you must be your servant, 44 and whoever wants to be first must be slave of all. 45 For even the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many.”

From Mark 9:

33 They came to Capernaum. When he was in the house, he asked them, “What were you arguing about on the road?” 34 But they kept quiet because on the way they had argued about who was the greatest.

35 Sitting down, Jesus called the Twelve and said, “Anyone who wants to be first must be the very last, and the servant of all.”

From Luke 9:

45 But they did not understand what this meant. It was hidden from them, so that they did not grasp it, and they were afraid to ask him about it.

46 An argument started among the disciples as to which of them would be the greatest. 47 Jesus, knowing their thoughts, took a little child and had him stand beside him.

and from Luke 22:

A dispute also arose among them as to which of them was considered to be greatest. 25 Jesus said to them,** “The kings of the Gentiles lord it over them; and those who exercise authority over them call themselves Benefactors. 26 But you are not to be like that. **Instead, the greatest among you should be like the youngest, and the one who rules like the one who serves.

…so then, after Peter was supposedly appointed to a supreme position, the 12 still didn’t clue in and continued to argue about who would be the greatest?..and still asked about being favored with being the right hand guy?. Christ didn’t have a problem with his own universal jurisdiction, but he made it clear that the disciples weren’t to rule in the manner of the examples that you provided and most certainly didn’t ever answer with, “Why do you keep arguing or asking about this matter?..Don’t you remember, I already made Peter supreme?”

And why do you keeping on resisting? Pride is deadly! Who would be the greatest? Where? Here on earth or in Heaven? And Christ most certainly made it clear where authority lies: His Church. Christ mostly did not leave the “loose-knit” church you believe.

 

[Nicea325]

I have no hypothetical advice for hypothetical men that hypothetically lived centuries ago and are hypothetically long dead. They’re in the hands of God now, hypothetically.

KP3243 in an earlier post asked,

I responded by pointing out that the Church and its leadership has in the past often acted like a “bad dictatorship” and had “mislead people.” I was simply pointing out the weakness in such logic. Then Nicea325 then asked what were my sources for the claim that the Church had been led like a dictatorship and that it had mislead people. I then offered Erasmus’ work as a “primary source.” There certainly is a lot more criticism of the Catholic Church that you can find throughout the centuries. Simony, political maneuverings, corruption in general and the “do as I say not as I do” approach to ecclesiastical behavior is not a feature of the Catholic Church today, and that is a good thing, but it hasn’t always been so.

And? Jesus was criticised by many? And that proves what? And Erasmus is the official voice of all humanity? He is one mere man casting his opinion and criticism is not the standard.

 

[Nicea325]

Originally Posted by Radical
the numbers are of interest…but yours need some work.

first, I expect the 1.2 billion figure for Catholics is inflated…for example it may count all those baptized into the CC in latin america…even though many of those have left the CC for protestantism (and of course do not accept the authority of the Pope)

second, if you look at a study such as this one , then you will note that only 89% of Catholics accept that the Pope is the divinely appointed successor of Peter…as such, even if you ignored the first problem of an inflated figure for the CC, you should still move about 11% of Catholics to the rejecting side to get:

accepting Catholics: 1,068 million

rejecting Catholics: 132 million
Orthodox: 230 million
Protestant: 800 million

…and the majority is not what you said it is.

1.2 billion is inflated? And I am sure you have done extensive research proving otherwise-right?

 

[JonNC]

Hi Jon!

I always hear people say that there was no evidence of papal supremacy and papal infallibility in the early Church. I will quote a Bishop Church Father to disprove this claim. I will quote only one quote to disprove both of those claims. I have quoted this patristic writing before and have never received an answer. In fact, no one has ever addressed it on here whenever I present the quote.

Here it is:

“This **most holy See has preserved the supremacy **over all Churches on the earth, for one especial reason among many others; to wit, that **it has remained intact **from the defilement of heresy. No one has ever sat on that Chair, who has taught heretical doctrine; rather that See has ever preserved unstained the Apostolic grace.” --Theodoret (Eastern Father) Epistle 116 to Renatus.

Another translation puts it like this:

“Wherefore, I beseech your sanctity, persuade the very sacred and holy archbishop to bid me hasten to your council. For that holy see has precedence over all churches in the world, for many reasons; and above all for this, that it is free from all taint of heresy, and that no bishop of heterodox opinion has ever sat upon its throne, but it has kept the grace of the apostles undefiled. Confident in your justice I shall accept your decisions, whatever they may be, and shall claim to be judged by my writings.”

Source: Translated by Blomfield Jackson. From Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Second Series, Vol. 3. Edited by Philip Schaff and Henry Wace. (Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Publishing Co., 1892.) Revised and edited for New Advent by Kevin Knight. http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/2707116.htm.

Blessings!

Three thoughts.

1. It has often been pointed out that the ECF’s are not infallible speakers for the Church.
2. As Theodoret lived in a time prior to the Great Schism, ISTM his point of reference is that of general councils, not a post-schism one.
3. Since he lived after the Council of Nicea, 325, ISTM he speaking in terms consistent with canon 6, not the current definition of the pope’s primacy in the CC.

It is also interesting the two rendering of his words, as precedence is not the same as supremacy. I wonder which rendering the EO would view as reflecting his view.

Jon

 

[JonNC]

“If anyone should say ‘Why then was it James who received the See of Jerusalem?’ I should reply that He made Peter the teacher not of that See but of the world.”

-St John Chrysostom (Homily 88 on Gospel of John)

And again, how does this show a supremacy as it is presented now?

Jon

 

[JonNC]

Hey Jon…

Canon 6

**“Let the ancient customs in Egypt, Libya and Pentapolis prevail, that the Bishop of Alexandria have jurisdiction in all these, since the like is customary for the Bishop of Rome also…”
**
CC has always agreed…

**“Likewise in Antioch and the other provinces, let the Churches retain their privileges…”

**Ditto…

"And this is to be universally understood, that if any one be made bishop without the consent of the Metropolitan, the great Synod has declared that such a man ought not to be a bishop."

So that would mean that Pope Leo I could not have been elected without the consent of the Metropolitan correct?

**“If, however, two or three bishops shall from natural love of contradiction, oppose the common suffrage of the rest, it being reasonable and in accordance with the ecclesiastical law, then let the choice of the majority prevail.”
**
So, if this is true then two or three bishops via natural love of contradiction had the right to oppose the choice of Bishop of Rome and thereby remove him?

BTW the Bishop of Rome, back then, had always recognized the authority of those bishops in Alexandria etc., in their respective region.

In light of that 6th canon, why are people in the east appealing to the judgement of Rome in the following cases? Examples:

The Council of Sardica (344), for example:

“If any bishop looses the judgment in some case [decided by his fellow bishops] and still believes that he has not a bad but a good case, in order that the case may be judged anew …let us honor the memory of the Apostle Peter by having those who have given the judgment write to Julius, Bishop of Rome, so that if it seem proper he may himself send arbiters and the judgment may be made again by the bishops of a neighboring province.”

The council of Chalcedon (449):

Flavian, Archbishop of Constantinople to Pope Leo:

When Leo received the letter from the Archbishop Flavian of Constantinople, he sent his own letter back, and at the Council of Chalcedon, (after Leo’s letter on the two natures of Christ was read out) the bishops participating in the Council cried out: **“This is the faith of the fathers … Peter has spoken thus through Leo …”
**
Regarding the often mentioned canon 28, Maximus the Theologian aka Maximus of Constantinople later wrote:

"How much more in the case of the clergy and church of the Romans, which from old until now presides over all the churches which are under the sun? Having surely received this canonically, as well as from councils and the apostles, as from the princes of the latter (Peter & Paul), and being numbered in their company, **she is subject to no writings or issues in synodical documents, on account of the eminence of her pontificate **…even as in **all these things all are equally subject to her (the Church of Rome) according to sacerodotal law. **And so when, without fear, but with all holy and becoming confidence, those ministers (the popes) are of the truly firm and immovable rock, that is of the most great and Apostolic Church of Rome." (Maximus, in J.B. Mansi, ed. Amplissima Collectio Conciliorum, vol. 10)

And

“Hasten to your Apostolic See (Rome) in order to receive from you a cure for the wounds of the Church. For every reason it is fitting for you to hold the first place, inasmuch as your see is adorned with many priviledges. I have been condemned without trial. But I await the sentence of your Apostolic See. I beseech and implore Your Holiness to succor me in my appeal to your fair and righteous tribunal. Bid me hasten to you and prove to you that my teaching follows in the footsteps of the Apostles.” (Theodoret to Pope Leo, Ep. 113).

Regarding Chalcedon, Dioscorus of Alexandria also appealed to Rome.

In response, his accusers said:

“Wherefore the most holy and blessed Leo, archbishop of the great and elder Rome, through us, and through this present most holy synod together with the thrice-blessed and all-glorious Peter the Apostle, who is the Rock and foundation of the Catholic Church, and the foundation of the orthodox faith, hath stripped him (Dioscorus, Patriarch of Alexandria) of his episcopate, and hath alienated from him all hieratic worthiness” – Acts of Chalcedon, Session 3.

Why involve Rome on the matter?

Continued…

Why not include him? why not seek out the council of the Bishop of Rome, held in high esteem, considered holding a primacy of honor?

Jon

 

[JonNC]

Continued…

Quote from Theodoret of Cyrus also appealing to the authority of Rome:

"When I began to appeal to the throne of the Apostolic See of Peter, the Prince of the Apostles, and to the whole sacred synod, which is obedient to Your Holiness, at once a crowd of soldiers surrounded me and barred my way when I wished to take refuge at the holy altar. …Therefore, I beseech Your Holiness not to permit these things to be treated with indifference …but to rise up first on behalf of the cause of our orthodox Faith, now destroyed by unlawful acts. …Further to issue an authoritative instruction …so that a like faith may everywhere be preached by the assembly of an united synod of fathers, both Eastern and Western. Thus the laws of the fathers may prevail and all that has been done amiss be rendered null and void. Bring healing to this ghastly wound.

"If Paul, the herald of the truth, the trumpet of the Holy Spirit, hastened to the great Peter, to convey from him the solution to those in Antioch, who were at issue about living under the law, how much more do we, poor and humble, run to the Apostolic Throne (Rome) to receive from you (Pope Leo) healing for wounds of the churches. For it pertains to you to have primacy in all things; for your throne is adorned with many prerogatives." (Theodoret Ibid, Epistle Leoni)

Council of Ephesus:

Eusebius of Doryleum appeals to the Bishop of Rome:

"The Apostolic throne has been wont from the beginning to defend those who are suffering injustice. I entreat Your Blessedness, give me back the dignity of my episcopate and communion with yourself, by letters from you to my lowliness bestowing on me my rank and communion." (Eusebius of Doryleum to Pope Leo)

Second Council of Ephesus:

Prior to the “Robber Council,” the heretic Eutyches (the instigator of the Monophysite heresy) also appeals to Rome:

"I take refuge, therefore, with you, the defender of religion and abhorrer of such factions. …I beseech you not to be prejudiced against me by their insidious designs about me, but to pronounce the sentence which shall seem to you right upon the Faith." (Eutyches to Pope Leo, Ep. 21. )

This is great, but it doesn’t indicate a universal jurisdiction. If it does, then canon 6 is dead.

Jon

 

[joe370]

Three thoughts.

1. It has often been pointed out that the ECF’s are not infallible speakers for the Church.
2. As Theodoret lived in a time prior to the Great Schism, ISTM his point of reference is that of general councils, not a post-schism one.
3. Since he lived after the Council of Nicea, 325, ISTM he speaking in terms consistent with canon 6, not the current definition of the pope’s primacy in the CC.

It is also interesting the two rendering of his words, as precedence is not the same as supremacy. I wonder which rendering the EO would view as reflecting his view.

Jon

Jon, you mentioned that you would be forced (due to the obvious guidance of the holy spirit) to join the one catholic church if in fact the EOC and the CC reunited and became one. The only way that will happen is if they embrace Petrine office. My question is:

If they decided to embrace the Petrine office would you?

 

[KP3243]

I have no hypothetical advice for hypothetical men that hypothetically lived centuries ago and are hypothetically long dead. They’re in the hands of God now, hypothetically.

KP3243 in an earlier post asked,

I responded by pointing out that the Church and its leadership has in the past often acted like a “bad dictatorship” and had “mislead people.” I was simply pointing out the weakness in such logic. Then Nicea325 then asked what were my sources for the claim that the Church had been led like a dictatorship and that it had mislead people. I then offered Erasmus’ work as a “primary source.” There certainly is a lot more criticism of the Catholic Church that you can find throughout the centuries. Simony, political maneuverings, corruption in general and the “do as I say not as I do” approach to ecclesiastical behavior is not a feature of the Catholic Church today, and that is a good thing, but it hasn’t always been so.

Is this the same Erasmus that was alive and friends with King Henry who killed Saint Thomas More?

 

[JonNC]

Jon, you mentioned that you would be forced (due to the obvious guidance of the holy spirit) to join the one catholic church if in fact the EOC and the CC reunited and became one. The only way that will happen is if they embrace Petrine office. My question is:

If they decided to embrace the Petrine office would you?

Yes. I would it on any terms the other patriarchates did.

Jon

 

[joe370]

This is great, but it doesn’t indicate a universal jurisdiction. If it does, then canon 6 is dead.

Jon

Bishops in the east appealing to Rome, saying the following, is not universal language:

“How much more in the case of the clergy and church of the Romans, which from old until now presides over all the churches which are under the sun.”

I have similar quotes from leaders prior to the 5th century.

Why would it kill it? Councils in the east (with representatives from Rome) often resolved matters on their own, without the need for appealing to Rome.

But let’s say you are right, and that that contradictory language would in fact kill either canon 6 of Nicaea or what was agreed upon at the council of Chalcedon. Either the council of Chalcedon is wrong or the council of Nicaea is wrong, which would mean that the Holy Spirit dropped the ball in either case. Or, maybe they are both right:

Councils, (consisting of representatives from the major Patriarchates) in places like Alexandria etc. did in fact enjoy the privilege of resolving doctrinal matters when faced with opposition, up to the point where resolution could not be found. That was the case with the council of Chalcedon, which was why, when they could not find resolution they appealed to Rome:

For example, when Leo received the letter from Flavian, he sent his own letter back, and the Council of Chalcedon, after Leo’s Tome on the two natures of Christ was read, the bishops participating in the Council cried out:** “This is the faith of the fathers … Peter has spoken thus through Leo …”**

Why would they care what the pope of Rome had to say on the matter?

 

[Stilldreamn]

My question is:

If they decided to embrace the Petrine office would you?

Could we bring at least some of our hymns?

 

[joe370]

Yes. I would it on any terms the other patriarchates did.

Jon

Then you would be OK with canon 6 of Nicaea?

 

[joe370]

Could we bring at least some of our hymns?

Jon knows why I asked…

 

[JonNC]

Then you would be OK with canon 6 of Nicaea?

Yes.

Jon