"[CANON XXXIX] Of the care and power which a Patriarch has over the bishops and archbishops of his patriarchate; and the primacy of the Bishop of Rome over all.
"Let the patriarch consider what things are done by the archbishops and bishops in their provinces; and if he shall find anything done by them otherwise than it should be, let him change it and order it as seemeth him fit; for he is the father of all, and they are his sons. And although the archbishop be among the bishop as an elder brother, who hat the care of his brethren, and to whom they owe obedience because he is over them; yet the patriarch is to all those who are under this power, just as he who holds the seat of Rome, is the head and prince of all patriarchs; inasmuch as he is first, as was Peter, to whom power is given over all Christian princes and over all their peoples, as he who is the Vicar of Christ our Lord over all peoples and over the whole Christian Church, and whoever shall contradict this, is excommunicated by this Synod."

Even though I am amazed to find this canon, still it would be interested to hear how our orthodoxs brothers think of this post (since lately I have been a little closed-mind:P). I hope posting this canon isn't offensive I just wish to establish a healthy discussion.

Armando,

Can you elaborate what you seek from this discussion?

From the Catholic viewpoint one would say that this canon speaks of the authority of the Bishop of Rome as one of an elder brother to the other bishops of the Church. Such authority at that time was one that was not ordinary jurisdiction but one of both �last appeal� and �right to interfere� when bad things were happening in the Church.

Do you think you might extend your comments, perhaps adding to it the teachings of the various Orthodox Church Fathers as well as the various Catholic Church Fathers?

And maybe also provide a summary of the development of papal authority over the past two millennium and current Orthodox and Catholic thought on Pope John Paul the Great�s call to reform the role of the Bishop of Rome for a someday reunited Church?

So far, you�ve given us nothing to comment on and it comes across as if you are looking for a fight over something. I ask all of our forum participants to wait for Armando to develop his idea into something we can respond to.

Admin

Dear Armando,

I think the Orthodox Church would agree with you...except that we believe that the Pope strayed from the true faith. The Catholics believe otherwise, and so the split.

As for me, I believe it all has to do with 'semantics'. Greek vs. the Latin mind...or rather the Germanic mind that in time infiltrated the West.

Of course this is only my opinion...and I don't find your post offensive at all.

Zenovia

Hi Armando

I dont have problems with this post, but probably for the orthodox yes,

this canon is part of the Arabic Canon of nicea and is not part of the canon accepted by orthodox and probably the catholic church as well.

The quote is not from the original Canons of Nicaea but from what I believe was a paraphrase in Arabic discovered at a later date. IIRC, there were only twenty canons that came out of the First Nicene Council. The Arabic paraphrases may be historically interesting, but they have zero authoritative value.

I'm really not sure what this thread was supposed to achieve.

Andrew

To all those who posted after the Administrator asked us not to until Armando explained himself better:

Can't you people read? I just HATE it when there are those here who give the Administrator cause for grief . . .

Armando, well?

Alex

Dont you just love the crawlers . While you are down there licking boots, my boots also need a good shine. Did I say boots...sily me I'm wearing sandals today.

ICXC
NIKA

too funny hehehehe

You can get Athlete's tongue that way. Be careful!

I just read this canon on the book Jesus, Peter and the keys and decided to post it to see the comments that would come up. I do not think that I did something wrong.

Today it's Lindt 70% cocoa.

Charles - you have my heartfelt sympathy

I'll think of you next week when I'm having wonderful French choccie

Dear Armando,

I think you've explained yourself in response to the Administrator's request and the discussion can go on.

I don't believe you did anything wrong and Rilian has already provided a good comment on the subject.

Alex

As long as you remember to pray for all of us, I won't be jealous of the wonderful chocolate you will be having.

So on what particular points did he stray? Are you referring specifically to filioque?

Armando, that is a great quote. I have "Jesus Peter and the Keys" but it has been a while since I read it.

Gordo

Armando,

Christos Anesti!

You did not do anything wrong. But I jumped in quickly to set the course of the thread because I did not know the reason you were posting the question you asked. Very often it seems that those who quote from a canon and ask what people think about it are trying to start an argument. In the past 8 years we�ve had many people post �proof texts� for one position or another (as if a one line quotes can settle all the differences between Catholicism and Orthodoxy with finality). It would be far better if you offered a position on an issue and back it up with something. For example, �Here is a quote from Canon 39 of the Council of Nicea. It says X about the authority of Peter. The Church of Rome interprets this as Y and Orthodoxy says it means Z. Greek Fathers say A and B about this subject and the Latin Fathers say C and D. I believe it means E, F and G. What do others think?�

Since our Forum community is made up of people from various Churches we need always to be mindful of how we compose our posts.

Admin

I'll go with the Latin Fathers and say it means C and D... :p Just kidding...