Replies

Why would you think that? You described the roles of the Holy Apostles in the Apostolic Council admirably. Exactly as the Orthodox describe them. Now, just extend this to later Church councils: the bishops met in council, the Emperor or an Imperial appointee presided, but the council of bishop pronounced judgement as to what the faith once delived to the saints was (not should be, was). The legates of the Bishop of Rome (or the Pope himself at the one Ecumenical Council he attended) had one vote each, the same as all other bishops.

Once again, briefly, I don't believe this "corruption" was an immediate process. It took time, somewhat in the same way water makes it's own path. By the time of Luther (and I am no particular fan of him as an individual) the RCC had become extremely corrupt.

I do; however, believe this process began with the advent of the power and wealth of Constantine. (That is why I constantly tell SD his Church is the "Church of Constantine.)

Are you aware that several RC's on this forum still insist that "Pope" Innocent gave his "approval" to the canons of the Council of Nicea and that is what gives it it's authenticity?

I agree that the Latin church was corrupt by the time of Luther. I, of course, trace this corruption to its departure form the communion of the Church. I am also quite well aware that the Latins erroneously read their ecclesiology back into the concilar era and insist the papal assent is needed to validate a council. This is one reason why I often point out to them the assent given by Pope John VIII to the Council which restored St. Photius the Great to the Patriarchate of Constantinople, limited Papal jurisdiction to the Patriarchate of Rome, and anthematized a council they insist on considering the "Eighth Ecumenical Council".

Of course, as an Orthodox, I regard the Holy Ecumenical Councils as the Church's highest authority, and regard as valid the canons giving equal honor to Constantinople as to Rome, and those of the Sixth Ecumenical Council which the Latins ignore. (Incidentally--the Latins love to quote the Council of Chalcedon shouting "Peter has spoken through Leo". The same council in its canons raised Constantinople to equal status with Rome and attributed Rome's primacy of honor to its place as the Imperial Capital.)

I think a major reason that Rome got an overly exalted opinion of itself is that it was the only apostolic see in the West (soon styling itself "the Apostolic See"). In the East there are lots of apostolic sees: Antioch, Alexanrdia (both with Petrine foundations), Jerusalem, Ephesus, Corinth, Crete,...

Are you aware that several RC's on this forum still insist that "Pope" Innocent gave his "approval" to the canons of the Council of Nicea and that is what gives it it's authenticity?

But he did. If he had not approved of it, it never would have been official teaching in the West. TRD speaks of councils that were overturned by later councils, I know of examples that were Arian or Iconoclastic. I know not of any council approved by the Bishop of Rome that were later reputed.

That says something about the conciliar system and its limitations.