Council Of Nicea And The Pope

[Resurrexi]

From reading the Council of Nicea, it doesn't seem that the Pope was thought to have much authority, though I know of course that the Pope was always thought to have supreme authority as it is a dogma. Could someone please explain this to me?

[quote name='First Council of Nicea']6. [b]The ancient customs of Egypt, Libya and Pentapolis shall be maintained, according to which the bishop of Alexandria has authority over all these places since a [color="#FF0000"]similar custom exists with reference to the bishop of Rome.[/color][/b] Similarly in Antioch and the other provinces the prerogatives of the churches are to be preserved. In general the following principle is evident: if anyone is made bishop without the consent of the metropolitan, this great synod determines that such a one shall not be a bishop. If however two or three by reason of personal rivalry dissent from the common vote of all, provided it is reasonable and in accordance with the church's canon, the vote of the majority shall prevail.[/quote]

[Thy Geekdom Come]

[quote name='StThomasMore' post='1113101' date='Nov 6 2006, 07:16 PM']
From reading the Council of Nicea, it doesn't seem that the Pope was thought to have much authority, though I know of course that the Pope was always thought to have supreme authority as it is a dogma. Could someone please explain this to me?
[/quote]
Seems to me that the quote is just saying that the Bishop of Rome as a Metropolitan has a certain primacy over the dioceses around Rome, just as the Bishop of Antioch would have a certain primacy over the smaller neighboring dioceses and such. I think it just supports the notion of patriarchates, metropolitans, and archdioceses. In fact, if anything, it supports papal primacy by imitating the way the Holy Father has done things in his region and following his example. It doesn't address univeral primacy, just local primacy.

[jswranch]

This quote seems to be more about bishopric jurisdiction of a local head honcho than supremacy of bishop of Rome.

[Era Might]

The local Churches were more autonomous in the early Church. The Bishop of Rome was the ultimate See of authority, but it was a very different situation than today. The Bishop of Rome began to function in a role akin to a monarch as his temporal power grew, and also as the Catholic Church became associated with the west after the schism. Since most of the Church was western, and the Pope was the Patriarch of the west, the Papacy became more and more centralized. Today everything goes through Rome in the West, from Liturgy to discipline to pastoral guidance; we expect Wednesday audiences and all kinds of speeches from the Pope, which we don't even get from our local Bishop. In the early Church, the local Bishop was much more prominent (also in large part because it wasn't easy to communicate in those days), and it was this collegiality that the Second Vatican Council set about restoring.

[Oik]

Era Might,

Your post is spot on. What we are seeing though, imo, is a decentralizing of the Papacy in attempts to spur reunion with the Orthodox. This is a good thing.

[Thy Geekdom Come]

[quote name='Oik' post='1113418' date='Nov 6 2006, 11:55 PM']
Era Might,

Your post is spot on. What we are seeing though, imo, is a decentralizing of the Papacy in attempts to spur reunion with the Orthodox. This is a good thing.
[/quote]
So you're saying it would be a bad idea to send free copies of Akalyte's "Ultramontane" to the Orthodox patriarchs? Oops...

:

[Oik]

hahaha...
Hey, just remember, the gates of hell will not prevail, the gates of hell will not prevail...