R
Rightglory
Guest
Martureo,
No bishop ever ceded authority to the Pope of Rome. The Pope of Rome never called an Ecumenical Council. He never attended a single one, but sent legates to five of the seven, and did was not represented at two of them. None of the findings of the Church in these Councils were unilaterally declared canon by the Pope. You will find that all of the findings were sent for his approval which was the practice for all bishops not present at a particular Council. After all, they all had equal voice in the matter.
Even in the several small schisms and the last Phobian Schism it was Rome that separated each time and each time they returned and recinded the order that was not followed by the East. Hardly indicative of a Supreme Pope.
Might also mention that the concept of the Pope is against the very theology of the Church regarding their understanding of the Trinity and the Incarnation. It is dependent upon the Christological meaning of the Church.
There is much more that clearly shows that the Supremacy of the Pope never existed before 1054. It actually did not even exist in Rome after 1054. It took several centuries for the Pope to consolidate his authority in the west.
Should also mention that the concept of the Pope as he actually exist in authority of both ecclesiastical and organization in the Church is one thing, but the Pope is also the political head of a secular state. He has been for centuries. Started with the Holy Roman Empire which is the real growth of the Papacy, the battle between Pope and Emporers. Both being interchangeable throughout the Middle Ages and to the breakdown and dissolving of the Empire. What was left for a long time were the seven papal states in Italy, which now is still in existance known and the Vatican. It is a recognized political state, has representatives to most countries, called ambassadors. The US has an ambassador to the Vatican. Hardly the Body of Christ. More like the union of Christ and Ceasar.
In short, the growth of the Papacy has much more to do with geography, politics, culture, economics than with anything ecclesiastical or Biblical development.
It really doesn't come down to what either explains it to be. It is what historically was placed in operation as to practice. For the first 1000 years there was no pope as in Supreme Pope. Pope by the way is just the latin word for little father as Papa is in Greek. So the pope was simply the patricarch of Rome and there were eventually 5 patriarches. Not only were the patriarches equal but every single bishop had equal standing everywhere. This practice, and it is the practice that one should follow, if you want to understand who is correct in their explanations.
No bishop ever ceded authority to the Pope of Rome. The Pope of Rome never called an Ecumenical Council. He never attended a single one, but sent legates to five of the seven, and did was not represented at two of them. None of the findings of the Church in these Councils were unilaterally declared canon by the Pope. You will find that all of the findings were sent for his approval which was the practice for all bishops not present at a particular Council. After all, they all had equal voice in the matter.
Even in the several small schisms and the last Phobian Schism it was Rome that separated each time and each time they returned and recinded the order that was not followed by the East. Hardly indicative of a Supreme Pope.
Might also mention that the concept of the Pope is against the very theology of the Church regarding their understanding of the Trinity and the Incarnation. It is dependent upon the Christological meaning of the Church.
There is much more that clearly shows that the Supremacy of the Pope never existed before 1054. It actually did not even exist in Rome after 1054. It took several centuries for the Pope to consolidate his authority in the west.
Should also mention that the concept of the Pope as he actually exist in authority of both ecclesiastical and organization in the Church is one thing, but the Pope is also the political head of a secular state. He has been for centuries. Started with the Holy Roman Empire which is the real growth of the Papacy, the battle between Pope and Emporers. Both being interchangeable throughout the Middle Ages and to the breakdown and dissolving of the Empire. What was left for a long time were the seven papal states in Italy, which now is still in existance known and the Vatican. It is a recognized political state, has representatives to most countries, called ambassadors. The US has an ambassador to the Vatican. Hardly the Body of Christ. More like the union of Christ and Ceasar.
In short, the growth of the Papacy has much more to do with geography, politics, culture, economics than with anything ecclesiastical or Biblical development.
Upvote
0
