www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life Faith & Theology Ecumenical Dialogue and Faith

This is all very nice and makes for fascinating reading!

But how was the role of the Bishop of Rome seen in the first millennium by the Church, especially in the East? Does not the Sixth Ecumenical Council's documents contain quite the superlative estimation of his role?

So, let me put it in an imaginary way. Next week, the Vatican and the Patriarchs of the Orthodox world (including the Patriarchs of the Oriental Orthodox Churches) will meet in, say, Peoria, to convene a Council for the expressed purpose of seeing if unity can be achieved.

The first topic will be the role of the pope of Rome. And Rome has already, in advance, agreed to return to the role of the pope of Rome as it was in the first millennium.

Everything is open for discussion and everything is on the table ("tuchis afin tish" as the Jews say).

Now, what would that role be? And will it play in Peoria?

Alex

In support of Marduk points as a fellow "Oriental" Catholic, I would ask Todd - you stated earlier that you experienced the Roman perspective living as one, and now accept the Eastern Orthodox perspective as a Melkite - both perfectly legitimate and Catholic as far as I'm concerned.

However, Marduk is not pointing out either of these in his explanations, although he does quote from both. He is showing a third view - that of the Oriental (Syriac, Copt, Indian, etc) Churches. The Syriac Churches hold a very strong view of the Petrine Ministry in all forms.

Todd, you essentially asked if the Pope was being treated as a super-bishop, while the eparch was relegated to being his presbyter. This may seem "odd" to one from the EO view, but not so much from the OO. The Patriarchs/Catholicoi of the Syriac, Coptic, Assyrian, etc Churches have a very strong, immediate, and universal jurisdiction - sometimes more so than any Roman Pope in relation to Latins or Eastern Catholics - no matter what is claimed on paper.

As to Successors - as a Syriac, I don't see any conflict with multiple Successors of Peter (Rome, Alexandria, Antioch - notice all three have a very strong jurisdictional Patriarch in relation to their eparchial bishops), while one is Prime Successor (called "Reesh" [Head/High/Above] in Syriac). (Even more recently, the EO Antiochian Patriarch practiced this traditionally OO view in relation to how it sees the AOCA Metropolitan in relation to the other bishops)

To follow the first paragraph - you seem to be rejecting the Oriental/Syriac perspective on the "Reesh" Patriarch, without having experienced it as a practicing member, lumping it in with the Roman, since there is some overlap. How is your imposition of byzantinization any different than the others imposing latinization onto the perspective of the Catholic Church (granted: the latinization crowd has been vocal longer, and have caused much more damage to reunion in the recent term)?

Dear Michael Thoma,

Thank you for this perspective!

It was indeed the Pope of Alexandria who first defined the praxis of "primacy of jurisdiction."

As I understand it, (from my Dyophysite standpoint ), the Bishop of Alexandria was the first to name himself "Pope" and to declare his jurisdiction over all of Africa and over every bishop, priest and parish within his jurisdiction - something I don't believe the pope of Rome has ever articulated.

And he did this at a time when the Bishop of Rome was "His Beatitude" and had quite limited immediate jurisdiction in Italy.

We don't often get the important Oriental Orthodox perspective on things here where "Eastern" is practically seen as "Byzantine" only.

So thanks to both you and to Marduk.

Alex

The last I checked, it is not a teaching of the non-chalcedonians that patriarchs may not be deposed, that they are above all forms of ecclesiastical judgment, or that they are protected from error when speaking in virtue of their office. They may exercise what appears to be immediate extraordinary jurisdiction, but if they can be deposed, then their jurisdiction is, in the end, still only mediate.


What the Antiochian synod did in 2009 in fact was quite aberrant ecclesiologically, and I hope that that most shameful decision shall someday be overturned. I for one shall never recognize that a power-grabbing robber synod like that should have the ability to rob so many bishops of their God-given power and right of episcopal jurisdiction. That being said, at least the Antiochians were honest with their restructuring. They recognize the ancient principle that there cannot be two with episcopal jurisdiction in one place (something which the non-chalcedonians most assuredly must recognize, given even their reluctance to allow bishops to transfer sees), which is why all of the bishops first had to be demoted to the rank of auxiliary bishops. In this scheme the bishops have no immediate or ordinary jurisdiction, which now belongs to the metropolitan alone, who delegates his authority to the auxiliaries as he sees fit. It is not, in other words, as the Roman model is (where two with immediate jurisdiction can coexist), but it still runs along ancient ecclesiological principles, even if they are being applied in a twisted and aberrant fashion.

No offense, but the only "Oriental" Christians I come across who accept or advocate this so-called "third view" are Oriental Catholics. None of my Coptic Orthodox friends, either those I know in my every day life, or those I know on the internet, accept this "third view," which really amounts to a variation on the Roman Catholic view of the papacy.

Well stated.

I am pleased that you do not see a problem with multiple petrine successors, because - as I have already indicated in my posts - all bishops are successors of St. Peter.

I am curious though, what do you make of Cardinal Ratzinger's assertion that only the bishop of Rome is the successor of St. Peter? This seems to be incompatible with your stated position that there can be multiple successors of St. Peter.

Finally, as far as primacy is concerned, you seem to have missed the fact that I accept primacy, while only rejecting the later Roman errors that speak of the supremacy of one bishop over all the local Churches. Theologically, the notion that one bishop is universal, or that there can be a bishop of bishops, is untenable, because all bishops are sacramentally and ontologically equal, for they all possess one and the same priesthood. As St. Jerome explained: "Wherever there is a bishop, whether at Rome or Gubbio, or Constantinople or Rhegium, or Alexandria or Tanis, his worth is the same, and his priesthood is the same. The power of riches or the lowliness of poverty does not make him a higher or a lower bishop. But all are the successors of the Apostles." [St. Jerome, Epistle 146]

Seems to me that Latin Church is claiming that any Pope which requires deposition is no longer Pope. Their rule for "deposing" excludes health, political pressure (as in the past), or otherwise non-dogmatic matter. They have decided that they will only remove their Patriarch in matters of heresy/heterodoxy - by which, according to their own canons - he ceases to be Pope (e.g. Deposed.) In the past, Popes have been forcibly removed by secular forces (wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_Silverius), today's Latin canons on this seem a reaction - a way to prevent that.
(byzcath.org/forums/ubbthreads.php/topics/99360/Deposing_of_Patriarchs)

As far as I know, the EO and OO have multiple overlapping jurisdictions all over the world. It seems to be the regular practice, rather than the exception for the past few centuries.

As to the Coptic view, the titles of the Pope of Alexandria are "The Pillar and Defender of the Holy, Catholic, Apostolic and Orthodox Faith
The Ecumenical (Universal) Judge (Arbitrator) of the Holy Apostolic and Catholic (Universal) Church
The Thirteenth among the Holy Apostles
Father of Fathers, Shepherd of Shepherds
Hierarch of all Hierarchs
Bishop (Archpriest) of Bishops (Archpriests)
Judge (Arbitrator) of the Universe (the Oecumene)"

That doesn't seem like just honorary "first among equals" in a local meeting.

The Syriac Orthodox say their "Prince" Patriarch is "His Holiness the Supreme Pontiff Moran Mor Ignatius . . . Patriarch of Antioch and all the East and the Supreme Head of the Universal Syrian Orthodox Church." (soc-wus.org/ourchurch/constitutioneng.html)
The Armenian Catholicos claims to be:

If by this you are saying that one specific bishop has an ontological priority over other bishops, then yes I am rejecting that idea as false (even as heretical), because the episcopate is one, and St. Peter is - as St. Cyprian indicated - its foundation. But if by primacy you mean only a functional role assigned to a specific bishop by the episcopate gathered in synod, then I have no problem with that idea, because that is supported by the patristic tradition.

Which canons in the CIC speak about deposing a pope?

If his function, as representative of the whole, is to be just that "ontologically" (why else have a prime bishop at all in any case) - how is that heretical? You seem to be saying that the EO stated practice of this era is the Patristic, despite teachings by the Fathers (Syriac, Coptic, Armenian and more) supporting one specific See over other bishops regionally and universally, and even varying practices by EO.

Does the Armenian Catholicos claim to be infallible in matters related to faith and morals? Having lots of high titles is one thing, but claiming ontological superiority is quite another. I notice also that even with all the high sounding titles he still is referred to as "first among equals." Are Roman Catholic bishops equal with the Pope? The appendix to Lumen Gentium says that they are not, and that is true whether they are taken individually or collectively.

Every diocese is the whole Church, because every diocese is the Catholic Church. There is no Church over the local Church; instead, when speaking about geographic distribution there is a communion of Churches. It is the same with the Eucharist, there is no universal Eucharist celebrated worldwide; instead, there are only local Eucharists and these many Eucharistic celebrations are one, because Christ is their source and He is present whole and entire in them all. Christ is not more present in one Eucharist than in another, and so too there is no bishop who is more of a bishop than any other bishop.

So you don't like that the Latins "claim" infallibility and universal jurisdiction, while the EO and OO don't "claim" either but exercise both, sometimes more often than the Roman Pope?

I have never run into a single Coptic Christian who speaks as you do. Not a one of them (either in person or on the internet) has ever told me that they accept the notions of supremacy asserted by the Roman in connection with its universal bishop (i.e., the pope).