www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West HOCNA

Alex,

Thanks for the information regarding the history of the title "pope." But, at the risk of being blunt, why does it matter if the Bishop of Alexandria was ever called "pope?" It's just a word after all. I think the real point concerns the Bishop of Rome, no matter if he's called Pope X or That Guy X. His title doesn't seem to be the focal aspect, ISTM.

Logos Teen

Dear Zoe,

Yes, I know what you meant, M'Lady!

If you mean that the Roman Popes exercised Universal Jurisdiction over the entire Church in the first Millennium as they do today in the Roman Church - how, when, where, what?

It was accepted that when an Eastern theologian or bishop got into a tiff with his Patriarch, he could ask Rome for help.

But ONLY then.

The idea that somehow Rome had ordinary universal jurisdiction in Churches that were not its own is, well, not true.

Rome could get involved jurisdictionally only if the Church in question asked it to.

Alex

Dear Teen Latin, er, Logo!

I was corresponding with my friend, ZoeTheodora, before you butted in, Big Guy!

I was discussing something she raised with her.

But the title "Pope" is important and if it wasn't, then the Bishop of Rome would have been content to be simply called that and "His Beatitude."

But his influence grew (as did that of other Patriarchates as well as their collective ambitions) and so additional titles were added.

Both Rome, Constantinople and Alexandria were involved in a process of self-aggrandizement and struggled for first place, second place etc.

Something similar happened in Catholic England when the Archbishops of York and Canterbury fought over who was first in England.

They came to a settlement with York being "Archbishop of York and England," and Canterbury being "Archbishop of Canterbury and ALL England."

Try telling them that titles aren't important - they do tell a story.

Alex

Very simple, indeed...very simply wrong. :p

You will probably disagree with what I'm about to write, but it is my opinion, and I don't think it is wrong. It is my perception that there is a certain type of Roman Catholic who, when confronting the Orthodox, think of them as just another variety of Protestantism. Sure, it is a Protestantism with valid sacraments, apostolic succession, etc., but Protestantism all the same. And so, when the Orthodox teach something that conflicts with the Catholic teaching, the Catholic teaching is addressed in all seriousness, and after only a cursory dealing with the Orthodox teaching (if that at all), the Orthodox teaching is simply dismissed as silly.

While this may work with Protestants (because they deny some fundamental teachings of the ancient Church, for which there is abundant Scriptural, patristic, and historical evidence), it is useless against the Orthodox, because the Orthodox counter-arguments to the specific Roman teachings that are actually in question are serious, and based on the same sources that Roman Catholics base their doctrine. Fortunately, I see the Roman Catholic Church, through her official channels, taking the Orthodox seriously, even though some of her sons and daughters choose not to follow the example of their mother.

By no means do I consider myself an expert in this field, but I do know that for about six years or so, I believed the Roman teaching on its own terms. Only relatively recently have I come to believe, after studying the Orthodox response to the issue, that the Orthodox are right. The *nicest* thing I can say about the Roman teaching is that, as it is up to this point, the argument has enough holes to make it appear suspicious. If it is always better to err on the side of caution in important matters, then the Orthodox Church is the safer bet. I am always open to reading more on the issue, and I hope to take a look at the thread you recommended, Diane, precisely because I'd like to read more, but so far, nothing I've seen has been able to convince me that the Orthodox position is faulty; therefore, I must conclude that the Catholic teaching is wrong, and, while I will approach the thread with an open mind, I don't expect that it will convince me otherwise.

Of course, one could ask why, if you think Orthodoxy is so wrong, you "haunt" Orthodox boards?

I wasn't aware that I did so.

...right. You know what I'm talking about, and that's all I'll say.

Dear Qathuliqa Mor Ephrem,

Certainly, I think the Pope is more ecumenical toward the Orthodox than a number of our Latin posters here!

I like to think of them as "Ukrainians" since we have sometimes been accused of being "more papal than the Pope!"

And sometimes I think that with some traditional RC's here, Catholic ecumenism is something that happens to other people.

Have a great day and keep up the good work on your site - even though I never go there.

It's enough for me to be here . . .

Alex

[ Mor Ephrem,

I have experienced the same thing. I accepted the Roman view point for a very large portion of my life and even argued it with Protestants while I was in college.

Since embracing Eastern Christinaity seven years ago, first as a Byzantine Catholic and later as an Orthodox, and having studied the Church fathers and the Orthodox response to the issues, have I come to the same conclusions on the universal jurisdiction and authority of the Pope of Rome.

Alex,

That was a very interesting point of view: that the Pope does not have immediate ORDINARY jurisdiction over the entire Church, but only proximate, EXTRAORDINARY jurisdiction. In fact, this was debated at the Vatican Council. As you know, the decision came on the side of the immediate, ordinary jurisdiction position. HOWEVER, did you know that a consortium of German bishops after the Council wrote a treatise that basically outlined the instances WHEN the Pope can use his prerogative, and the Pope actually agreed with it? Thus, though in THEORY, the Catholic position is established, in PRACTICE, the Orthodox position is also accounted for.

As I have said in another thread, this is the best way to reunion � to admit that the Pope has the biblical prerogatives he claims, but at the same time, to believe that he is constrained by the biblical exhortations to peace and order to use those prerogatives only in extraordinary circumstances. This position admits the validity of BOTH positions, and it is a position that will promote peace and order in the Church. The Orthodox position that states it can ONLY be collegiality seems, from every perspective, to be splitting the Church needlessly, especially when there is an alternative option that is both biblical and has support from Tradition.

Someone wrote that they saw �holes� in the Western position and eventually became Orthodox. In truth, there are just as many �holes� in the Orthodox position because there is an equal amount of testimony to which the Catholic Church can appeal that the Orthodox Church can also appeal to for their respective positions. The key is in reconciling these positions because both are obviously valid according to Tradition. I think that the Catholic position enjoys the additional support of Scripture, which decides the case (Tradition being equal to both sides) and as I said in another thread, I would welcome a lively discussion on how Orthodox can justify collegiality by the example of the Bible.

In Christ always for the sake of unity.

Dear Francis,

Well, I think that the relationship of Latin Catholics to the Pope is on one level and that of Eastern Catholics is on another level.

For you, he is your Patriarch and the Superintendent of your ecclesial household.

For us, he is not, our own Patriarchs are responsible for our own ecclesial households.

It's only when there's a breakdown in communications that we would "contract out" to Rome in this regard . . .

(You're into engineering, aren't you? )

Collegiality basically affirms that all Bishops and Patriarchs are inherently equal, but there are leaders among them, especially in connection to Ecumenical Councils.

I understand the whole monarchial principle of the papacy (allow me to introduce myself - I am a constitutional monarchist up here in Her Majesty's Dominion of Canada).

Collegiality means that the Pope, the Patriarch of Constantinople or whoever, doesn't go above another fellow Patriarch's head in matters of internal jurisdiction.

It means that the Pope and the Patriarchs, in effect, define, teach and defend the faith of the Church as contained in scripture, tradition, the Councils and the Canons.

It means that there is a sharing of church government in vital matters and a strict sense of respect for other's jurisdiction in all other matters.

Collegiality means that bishops, as the descendants of the Apostles, live and act like the brothers they are called to be in leading and guiding the Body of Christ that is the Church.

I see nothing in scripture or tradition that contradicts any of this.

I believe that an overemphasis on the authoritarian nature of episcopal roles, whether it is the Pope of Rome or the Patriarch of Moscow, is something that goes against the spirit of both.

Alex

HOORAY! More theology! Errr.. Ecclesiology!

Interestingly, Alex, everything you wrote just now is exactly how I always understood jurisdictions and the papacy merely on the basis of history. I have never known the Pope to be monarchial or to �lord it over,� even after Vatican I, simply because I have never seen instances of it in Church history. I guess my road to Rome was not based on a study of her doctrine, but a study of Church history. Thus, I think that is why I accept Rome�s position to be true.

Let me explain. I study history, and I see that a Pope asserts his authority in some instances, accedes to the wishes of councils in other instances (even local councils), and declares WITH councils in other instances. I look at these facts, and I bemuse to myself, �their actions show that they were always willing at whatever time to do whatever it was that was best for the good order and peace of the Church.� I have studied modern interpretations of what occurred in 1054, so I believe wholeheartedly that it was all a misunderstanding. I have studied the issue of the Filioque and saw that the Pope never imposed anything on the Eastern Church. Rather, the Pope added it, the East ASSUMED it was a universal declaration, and then they complained. It seemed to me that for them to automatically ASSUME that the Pope�s action had a universal application meant that the East understood the Pope to have that prerogative � they were just mad that the Pope left them out of the loop. Understand, this was my assessment WITHOUT reading about the doctrine of the Church. I was purely a student of Church history in my Protestant days, and did not care to study about what the Pope or the Catholic Church taught.

After a while, I began to think that in order to truly understand these historical events, I would need to study the Church�s doctrine. At that point, I eventually came upon the doctrine of papal infallibility. I saw it as sensible and logical and necessary. Then I came upon the doctrine of universal and immediate jurisdiction. Already knowing the exigencies of history BEFORE coming upon this doctrine, I thought to myself, �well, the Pope seems to exemplify this sometimes in history, but other times he did not.� THEN I recalled the example of Peter, who I already believed as a Bible-believing Protestant, had a unique and special place among the Apostles, not as a mere representative. For heaven�s sake, God spoke to him ALONE, when he revealed to him that the Gentiles should be received into the Church. However, I also recalled the biblical exhortations of humility and not lording it over. I put two and two together, and concluded in my heart and in my mind that in those instances where the Pope seems NOT to have exercised his prerogative, he did not do it NOT because he did not have the authority, but because he chose the better part of humility for the peace and good order of the Church. Understand that at this time, I was still basically a Protestant, and did not have any inkling as to patristic theology, though I was aware of the FACTS of Church history. Thus, in my Protestant mindset, I took the reality of history and the theory of Vatican I, and put it up against my only standard � the Bible. I saw in history and the Vatican I doctrines a reflection of what is contained in the Bible. Later in my life, I finally came around to reading patristics, and discovered that though there were a lot of instances where Vatican I could be supported, there were also other instances where it was not. Not being reliable IN THIS INSTANCE, I had only my Bible to turn to, and was thus convinced that the doctrine of Vatican I, and the actions of Popes down through history, most clearly reflects the biblical example.

The situation would be different, I gather, for someone who came at the issue from the opposite perspective. That is, they saw the doctrine first, accepted it to be ALWAYS true, then, upon finding instances in history where it was false, became disillusioned and completely rejected it. Myself, I already KNEW about the actions and weaknesses of Popes, so I was not so �shocked� into disillusionment.

So THAT is where I am coming from. I see from the Bible that the visible head of the Church has a special prerogative. Yet his actions must be such that he cannot be viewed as �lording it over.� This is the example I find in the Bible, and the reality I have found in Church history.

In Christ always.