Where does the Pope get his authority?

[RedFan]

I wouldn't call this a blending of civil and ecclesiastical authorities -- but Justinian deposed Pope Silverius. And that was really ballsy.

 

[Jude Thaddeus]

"Emperor Justinian I had significant power over the bishops during his reign. As the Byzantine Emperor from 527 to 565 AD, Justinian exercised extensive control over both the state and the church. He saw himself as both the head of state and God's representative on Earth, which gave him a religious authority that he used to influence ecclesiastical affairs.

Justinian saw the orthodoxy of his empire threatened by diverging religious currents, especially monophysitism, which had many adherents in the eastern provinces of Syria and Egypt. Monophysite doctrine, which maintains that Jesus Christ had one divine nature rather than a synthesis of divine and human nature, had been condemned as a heresy by the Council of Chalcedon in 451 that was convened 31 years before Justinian was born. He sided with the Church in opposition to monophysitism. Whatever religious authority the emperor had did not supersede the authority of the Pope, a false narrative common with bible cults.

Justinian was actively involved in theological disputes and church governance. He convened church councils, such as the Second Council of Constantinople in 553, and imposed his will on theological debates, sometimes deciding on matters of doctrine himself. He also used his power to appoint and depose bishops, enforce orthodoxy, and manage the organization of the church within the empire. This control was part of a broader pattern where the Byzantine emperors often had a hands-on approach to church matters, reflecting the close relationship between the church and the state in the Byzantine Empire."

Two sources: "The Cambridge Companion to the Age of Justinian" edited by Michael Maas. "Justinian and the Making of the Byzantine State" by John Moorhead.
Thanks, chat.

It is IMPOSSIBLE to convene a council without the pope. Your source is biased and misleading.
The Pope gets his authority from the prerogatives given to St. Peter by Jesus Himself, not from emperors. .

 

[RedFan]

It is IMPOSSIBLE to convene a council without the pope. Your source is biased and misleading.
The Pope gets his authority from the prerogatives given to St. Peter by Jesus Himself, not from emperors. .

I'm pretty sure the Council of Nicaea in 325 was convened at the request of Constantine, not Pope Sylvester (who didn't attend).

 

[Jude Thaddeus]

I wouldn't call this a blending of civil and ecclesiastical authorities -- but Justinian deposed Pope Silverius. And that was really ballsy.

a brief summary of Pope Silverius is here:

Saint Silverius | Pope, Exiled, Martyr

Saint Silverius ; feast day June 20) was an Italian pope from 536 to 537, a victim of the intrigues of the Byzantine empress Theodora. Silverius was born to the future pope St. Hormisdas before Hormisdas had entered the priesthood. Silverius was a subdeacon when the Ostrogothic king Theodahad

www.britannica.com

When Silverius refused to restore Anthimus, Theodora ordered the Byzantine general Belisarius to enter Rome (Dec. 9, 536) and depose Silverius; she replaced him with the deacon Vigilius, then nuncio to Constantinople. The Ostrogothic king Witigis then surrounded Rome and besieged Belisarius, who in March 537 falsely accused Silverius of treasonable collaboration with the Goths.​

​

Silverius was degraded to the rank of monk and was driven from his see to Lycia, in Anatolia. He appealed to Theodora’s husband, the emperor Justinian I the Great, who, apparently unaware of the situation, sent Silverius back to Rome for an inquiry. Vigilius, however, was ultimately able to banish his rival by force to the island of Palmaria, off Naples, where Silverius died by murder or starvation.​

​

It reads like a spy novel.

I'm pretty sure the Council of Nicaea in 325 was convened at the request of Constantine, not Pope Sylvester (who didn't attend).

Constantine collaborated with the Pope to convene Nicae; he knew there was no other way. That Constantine convened Nicae independently from the Pope is wishful thinking on the part of anti-Catholics.
Pope Sylvester was too sick to make the journey from Rome to Nicae, so he sent 2 legates with his full authority. That's why he didn't attend.

 

[Brakelite]

I mean after all, they are still adhering to the original Protests of their founding!! Are they not?

No. They aren't. If they were, they wouldn't be involving themselves in ecumenism, nor would they be signing formal agreements with Rome declaring that both they and Rome now agree on certain doctrinal matters which previously caused the division in the first place. Such as justification by faith.

 

[Aunty Jane]

Brakelite said: "He may not have authority within the church, but I'm Justinian's case, He had authority over his empire, and the bishops acted with his permission."

This is an opinion with no evidence. It implies bishops were subject to the emperor. Justinian had civil authority, bishops had church authority. Blending the two authorities into one never happened.

Justinian I - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Nope, nothing in there about bishops acting with his permission.

Taking the wider biblical view, we are talking here about a church already off the rails almost 500 years after Christ’s death and ample time for false doctrines to become prolific.....the foretold apostasy...with the “wheat” sown by Christ, oversown with “weeds” sown by the devil, had well and truly taken hold of the church. (Matt 13:24-30, 36-42) This ”falling away” was already in evidence whilst the last of the apostles were still alive towards the close of the first century, and they were acting as a restraint till the last words of the Christian Scriptures were penned by the apostle John.
After his death, the weeds did what weeds always do....they took over the church and we see in history, what they turned Christianity into....a sad fusion between weakened Christianity and pagan Roman sun worship. These evil men did everything Christ told them not to do....and formulated doctrines that had absolutely no foundation in Scripture.

Christendom is the product of the “weeds” sown by the devil, whilst pointing fingers at others and accusing them of apostasy. With much bloodshed, men drunk with their own power had authority even over the kings of the earth, when Jesus taught us to be no part of that world. (John 17:16; John 18:36)

Even today, the churches are up to their necks in politics, approving and sanctioning bloodshed in wars between egotistical world leaders. (1 John 5:19) Didn’t Jesus tell us to love our enemies and to pray for them? (Matt 5:43-44) Can you love your enemy with a bomb...a tank...or a missile?

You all see only what you want to see...but the whole ”church” system is not something Jesus would ever have given his authority to.....in fact when he comes as judge, he will reject all those who put their faith in its many unbiblical teachings and false doctrines....telling them “I never knew you”. With that stinging rejection still ringing in their ears, they will soon see that they placed their faith in the wrong people, and for all the wrong reasons. (Matt 7:21-23)

 

[Jude Thaddeus]

No. They aren't. If they were, they wouldn't be involving themselves in ecumenism, nor would they be signing formal agreements with Rome declaring that both they and Rome now agree on certain doctrinal matters which previously caused the division in the first place. Such as justification by faith.

A joint declaration is not a doctrinal agreement. After 500 years, each side got together and expressed what they really meant. There is nothing sinister in this. The JDDJ was a historic agreement signed by Lutherans and Catholics in 1999, effectively resolving one of the key theological conflicts of the Reformation, the understanding of salvation. Three other Christian World Communions, namely the Methodist, Anglican and Reformed families of churches, have since formally associated themselves with what was initially a Catholic-Lutheran agreement. Through the JDDJ, centuries-old controversies and misunderstandings were overcome.

https://lutheranworld.org/sites/default/files/Joint%20Declaration%20on%20the%20Doctrine%20of%20Justification.pdf

 

[RedFan]

Constantine collaborated with the Pope to convene Nicae; he knew there was no other way. That Constantine convened Nicae independently from the Pope is wishful thinking on the part of anti-Catholics.

I'm certainly not anti-Catholic. But I haven't seen the evidence that Pope Sylvester was involved in the convening of Nicaea in any way whatsoever. Can you point me to some?

 

[Marymog]

No. They aren't. If they were, they wouldn't be involving themselves in ecumenism, nor would they be signing formal agreements with Rome declaring that both they and Rome now agree on certain doctrinal matters which previously caused the division in the first place. Such as justification by faith.

You are right Brakelite! (shocking to hear from me, I know:))

Today, they are NOT still adhering to the original Protests of their founding!

For the last 500 years the doctrines of the Reformers have been reformed time and time again by the Protesters still inside their own church. Those Protestors that are starting a new Reformation have approved (they say God approved) gay marriage, abortion and women as elders.

Mary

 

[Marymog]

His opinion seems to ring with more truth than your own…..you keep laughing….but the old saying is true….”He who laughs last, laughs best”…...time will tell….won’t it? Let’s see who is still laughing when it all comes crashing down….

You crack me up Jane. A FACT rings with more truth than OPINON????????? Are you stating a fact or your opinion?

Protestantism has come crashing down Jane. Some of your Protestant brothers/sisters now approve of gay marriage, abortion and women as elders. ALL 3 practices are against Scripture. AND, most of your Protestant brothers/sisters don't participate in communion of the bread/wine after He told us to do it in remembrance of Him.

How much further can your Protestant brothers defy Scripture without their being consequences in the end?

 

[Jude Thaddeus]

I'm certainly not anti-Catholic. But I haven't seen the evidence that Pope Sylvester was involved in the convening of Nicaea in any way whatsoever. Can you point me to some?

The bishop of Rome at the time was Sylvester I (285-335 AD). Sylvester did not attend the council but did send representatives and did approve of the decisions made at the council.
non-Catholic source
Again, any so called council without papal approval would be deemed illegitimate.

The accounts given in all these writings concerning the persecution of Sylvester, the healing and baptism of Constantine, the emperor's gift to the pope, the rights granted to the latter, and the council of 275 bishops at Rome, are entirely legendary. The pope, however, took part in the negotiations concerning Arianism and the Council of Nicæa, and the expression ‘omooúsion was probably agreed upon with him before the council. The pontiff also sent legates to the first ecumenical council.

CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Pope Sylvester I

In office for 21 years, while Constantine was emperor. St. Sylvester died in 335

www.newadvent.org

So...where does Pope Sylvester get his authority? Authority over what? Did he compose the Nicene Creed by himself???

 

[BreadOfLife]

Taking the wider biblical view, we are talking here about a church already off the rails almost 500 years after Christ’s death and ample time for false doctrines to become prolific.....the foretold apostasy...with the “wheat” sown by Christ, oversown with “weeds” sown by the devil, had well and truly taken hold of the church. (Matt 13:24-30, 36-42) This ”falling away” was already in evidence whilst the last of the apostles were still alive towards the close of the first century, and they were acting as a restraint till the last words of the Christian Scriptures were penned by the apostle John.
After his death, the weeds did what weeds always do....they took over the church and we see in history, what they turned Christianity into....a sad fusion between weakened Christianity and pagan Roman sun worship. These evil men did everything Christ told them not to do....and formulated doctrines that had absolutely no foundation in Scripture.

Christendom is the product of the “weeds” sown by the devil, whilst pointing fingers at others and accusing them of apostasy. With much bloodshed, men drunk with their own power had authority even over the kings of the earth, when Jesus taught us to be no part of that world. (John 17:16; John 18:36)

Even today, the churches are up to their necks in politics, approving and sanctioning bloodshed in wars between egotistical world leaders. (1 John 5:19) Didn’t Jesus tell us to love our enemies and to pray for them? (Matt 5:43-44) Can you love your enemy with a bomb...a tank...or a missile?

You all see only what you want to see...but the whole ”church” system is not something Jesus would ever have given his authority to.....in fact when he comes as judge, he will reject all those who put their faith in its many unbiblical teachings and false doctrines....telling them “I never knew you”. With that stinging rejection still ringing in their ears, they will soon see that they placed their faith in the wrong people, and for all the wrong reasons. (Matt 7:21-23)

The fact that you actually believe this nonsense means that you consider Jesus to be a LIAR, when he guaranteed that His Church would NOT succumb to darkness (Matt. 16:18). He indicated that there would be "weeds" - not He NEVER stated that these weeds would overtake His Church.

What a pathetic lack of faith in Christ . . .

 

[Aunty Jane]

The fact that you actually believe this nonsense means that you consider Jesus to be a LIAR, when he guaranteed that His Church would NOT succumb to darkness (Matt. 16:18). He indicated that there would be "weeds" - not He NEVER stated that these weeds would overtake His Church.

What a pathetic lack of faith in Christ . . .

I’m sorry but that is a rather pathetic response....IMO.

The “darkness” was demonstrated by “the church” all through her sad and bloody history. (Isa 1:15)

Jesus said....”If the light that is in you is really darkness, how great that darkness is!” He was so right!

The list of doctrines that were formulated by “the Roman Catholic church” to introduce all manner of false teachings is a heinous departure from scriptural truth, and used as an excuse to silence any critic, permanently. Just like the Pharisees in Jesus day, full of their own importance and promoting their own teachings over the word of God. (Matt 15:7-9)

Who authorised “the church” to take the lives of dissenters? The only scriptural stance to take was excommunication, not murder...and certainly not torture to force confessions.

The definition of “excommunication” according to the dictionary is as follows......
”The meaning of EXCOMMUNICATION is an ecclesiastical censure depriving a person of the rights of church membership.” (1 Cor 5:11-13)

Who today follow through on that biblical command? Who removes wicked people from their churches so that “a little leaven does not ferment the whole lump”? How many in the church pews are “living in sin” or are living immoral lives.....who are dishonest in their business practices, or who are addicted to drugs or pornography?
The RCC puts them in a box to “confess their sins”, but then absolves them to return to their wicked ways and continue them. It’s a joke if you think they are truly repentant. I have probably spoken to more Catholics than you have in my 50 years of ministry......their faith is based on deliberately groomed ignorance.
The ‘lump’ was already ‘fermented’ long ago, and remains so to this day. Most Catholics are performers, not thinkers. Meaningless rituals and mindlessly repeated words hold no importance with God....he is not that shallow.

The churches know that if they clamped down on wilful sin in their congregations, their churches would be empty, and who then would pay the ministers and priests for their services? Truth is sacrificed for expedience as it always has been. Your pope lives in a gold inlaid palace full of earthly treasures, but devoid of heavenly ones....and this whilst the bulk of membership in your church, Iives in dire poverty......idolizing Mary instead of worshipping the true God.

The two most important celebrations in the church calendar year are Christmas and Easter, neither of which were originally ”Christian” in origin.....the churches, including your own, who originally adopted the trappings of false worship back in the early centuries, know where they came from, and what the Bible says about false worship, (2 Cor 6:14-18) yet they remain to this day as the two biggest money spinners for Christendom as a whole, giving the commercial system a big slice of its yearly mammon. Could Christ be a party to that? Sad if you think so.

“The church” was hijacked as it was the product of the foretold apostasy....NOT the true church which survived in the hearts of individuals who dared to tell the truth, despite the the RCC’s attempts to silence them. These are the true martyrs of history, those who knew that the church was very corrupt and refused to be silenced. What courage it took to speak out even though they knew that “the church” had no tolerance of anyone who dared to question its self-imposed authority. Death was preferable to compromise with the devil, as it was to the first Christians.

Jesus’ words to Peter as you cited in Matt 16:18 were true....but Jesus was the “rock”...the chief cornerstone of the Kingdom of God.....and the apostate Roman church and its off shoots, could never defeat God’s purpose for it...ever.

When we all face the judgment that is coming, it is Jesus himself who will show us who “the wheat and the weeds” really are.

 

[RedFan]

The bishop of Rome at the time was Sylvester I (285-335 AD). Sylvester did not attend the council but did send representatives and did approve of the decisions made at the council.
non-Catholic source
Again, any so called council without papal approval would be deemed illegitimate.

I love the sentence in your link just before the one you quoted: "What we need to remember is that the bishop of Rome was not known as the Pope at that time, nor did that bishop have the same authority over other churches and bishops the way we know it now."

There is no evidence I am aware of that "any so called council without papal approval would be deemed illegitimate." Nor is there any reason I can see to think it. More importantly, there is no evidence I have ever seen that Pope Sylvester was involved in any way in convening the council. Two exhaustive accounts, Rowan Williams' Arius: Heresy and Tradition (rev. ed. 2001) and R.P.C. Hanson’s The Search for the Christian Doctrine of God (1988), attribute no such role to Sylvester. My own research in connection with my own book has unearthed none. If you have any, PLEASE SHARE.

 

[Brakelite]

Again, any so called council without papal approval would be deemed illegitimate

I think it would be more accurate to say, rather than illegitimate, it wasn't Catholic. There were many church councils outside off Roman Catholic jurisdiction having no presence or papal approval. These were entirely legitimate.

The fact that you actually believe this nonsense means that you consider Jesus to be a LIAR, when he guaranteed that His Church would NOT succumb to darkness

Jesus was of course right. Yet the church in Rome did fall, and in devastating fashion. So, in order for Jesus words to be fulfilled we need to look elsewhere for His church that didn't fall away. That's not as difficult as you might think. A little honesty and yes, indeed faith in Jesus's words, you'll find His church.

 

[The Learner]

You don't seem to appreciate that the Waldenses for example were not just a few scattered rabble rousers that caused the locals a headache. The Waldenses populated a great area of Europe, and some historians estimate the numbers to be in excess of 800,000.
"One of the earliest dates in the martyr-history of this people is 1332, or thereabouts, for the time is not distinctly marked. The reigning Pope was John XXII. Desirous of resuming the work of Innocent III, he ordered the inquisitors to repair to the Valleys of Lucerne and Perosa, and execute the laws of the Vatican against the heretics that peopled them. What success attended the expedition is not known, and we instance it chiefly on this account, that the bull commanding it bears undesigned testimony to the then flourishing condition of the Waldensian Church, inasmuch as it complains that synods, which the Pope calls chapters, were used to assemble in the Valley of Angrogna, attended by 500 delegates. This was before Wyckliffe had begun his career in England."

The Use and Abuse of Church History

 

[The Learner]

not keeping up

 

[Jude Thaddeus]

I love the sentence in your link just before the one you quoted: "What we need to remember is that the bishop of Rome was not known as the Pope at that time, nor did that bishop have the same authority over other churches and bishops the way we know it now."

First, that assumption is easily disproven by the letters of Ignatius, Clement, Irenaeus and others, who clearly identified the Bishop of Rome as leader of the Universal Church centuries before "that time" in question. . Second, the basis for the papacy has always existed, and the doctrine of the papacy develops over time, just like the canon of Scripture developed over time. Jesus used seeds and bodies as metaphors for the Church, seeds and bodies grow and expand. Yet the essence or core of the doctrine has never changed. So expecting the papacy today to look exactly like the papacy did 2 millennia ago isn't reasonable.

There is no evidence I am aware of that "any so called council without papal approval would be deemed illegitimate."

Then you never heard of the illegitimate Robber Council

Nor is there any reason I can see to think it. More importantly, there is no evidence I have ever seen that Pope Sylvester was involved in any way in convening the council.

Then who signed the final declarations of the Council of Nicaea making it binding on all believers???

Two exhaustive accounts, Rowan Williams' Arius: Heresy and Tradition (rev. ed. 2001) and R.P.C. Hanson’s The Search for the Christian Doctrine of God (1988), attribute no such role to Sylvester. My own research in connection with my own book has unearthed none. If you have any, PLEASE SHARE.

You still don't get it. It is IMPOSSIBLE to convene an ecumenical council without the pope, who has the authority to send legal representatives, yet you can't find any evidence for Pope Sylvester convening the council. With a little work, I can probably find their names. You should include them in your book.

Ironically for such an important figure in the contemporary church, Pope Sylvester did not go to the famed and critical First Council of Nicea of 325. At this early universal church conclave the Nicene Creed was originated. The pope had two legates named Vincentius and Vitus who represented him at the meeting, and both were treated with honor though they did not preside over the event. The pope later gave his official approval to the decisions of the council after the return of his legates.​

Pope St. Sylvester I - The 33rd Pope - PopeHistory.com

Pope Sylvester I had the distinction of being the 33rd reigning pontiff of the Western Church in Rome. During his long and eventful pontificate of from 314

popehistory.com

 

[RedFan]

You still don't get it. It is IMPOSSIBLE to convene an ecumenical council without the pope, who has the authority to send legal representatives, yet you can't find any evidence for Pope Sylvester convening the council. With a little work, I can probably find their names. You should include them in your book.

Ironically for such an important figure in the contemporary church, Pope Sylvester did not go to the famed and critical First Council of Nicea of 325. At this early universal church conclave the Nicene Creed was originated. The pope had two legates named Vincentius and Vitus who represented him at the meeting, and both were treated with honor though they did not preside over the event. The pope later gave his official approval to the decisions of the council after the return of his legates.​

It wasn't impossible for Constantine to convene the Council of Nicaea without involving Pope Sylvester in the decision. Its exactly what happened. Constantine invited hundreds of bishops from around the Mediterranean -- including Sylvester. And the latter sent Victor and Vincentius in his stead. Of the 312 bishops present, virtually all of them subscribed to the Creed, including Victor and Vincentius. Only two bishops, Theonas and Secundus, refused to subscribe to it. Eusebius of Nicomedia and Theognis subscribed to all but the anathema.

I agree that Sylvester approved of the decisions made at Nicaea after his emissaries returned. He actually appoved them in full. That includes the special standing of various sees (Antioch, Alexandria) having authority over neighboring provinces or otherwise associated bishoprics, but with complete autonomy in their own spheres, i.e., Alexandria and Antioch, which gave no deference to Rome. The Council of Nicaea produced, aside from its famous Creed, about twenty canons, the sixth of which suggests if not confirms the equal standing of these sees with Rome. Fourth Century Christianity » Canons of the Council of Nicaea

But let's keep our eye on the ball. I ask again for any evidence that Sylvester was involved in Constantine's decision to convene Nicaea. Do you have any? Or are you just assuming that Constantine wouldn't have had the temerity to do this on his own?

 

[Jude Thaddeus]

It wasn't impossible for Constantine to convene the Council of Nicaea without involving Pope Sylvester in the decision. Its exactly what happened.

No, it's false history and a complete misunderstanding of the role of the pope.

Constantine invited hundreds of bishops from around the Mediterranean -- including Sylvester. And the latter sent Victor and Vincentius in his stead. Of the 312 bishops present, virtually all of them subscribed to the Creed, including Victor and Vincentius. Only two bishops, Theonas and Secundus, refused to subscribe to it. Eusebius of Nicomedia and Theognis subscribed to all but the anathema.

Constantine had a civil problem, Sylvester had a problem with a heretic. They collaborated to convene a council that would resolve both problems because Constantine knew he had no church authority to do it himself.

I agree that Sylvester approved of the decisions made at Nicaea after his emissaries returned. He actually appoved them in full. That includes the special standing of various sees (Antioch, Alexandria) having authority over neighboring provinces or otherwise associated bishoprics, but with complete autonomy in their own spheres, i.e., Alexandria and Antioch, which gave no deference to Rome. The Council of Nicaea produced, aside from its famous Creed, about twenty canons, the sixth of which suggests if not confirms the equal standing of these sees with Rome. Fourth Century Christianity » Canons of the Council of Nicaea

But let's keep our eye on the ball. I ask again for any evidence that Sylvester was involved in Constantine's decision to convene Nicaea. Do you have any?

You've asked twice and I already supported my statements with links.

Or are you just assuming that Constantine wouldn't have had the temerity to do this on his own?

Are you assuming Constantine never met the pope face to face?

Anti-Catholic Myths and Lies: #1 Emperor Constantine Founded the Catholic Church | Living Bread Radio Network