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

It is not that I do not like them; instead, it is simply that I see them as erroneous. I do not accept the idea that one bishop can have immediate episcopal jurisdiction in every diocese in the world, because that would mean that there are two bishops in every local Church, i.e., the pope and the local bishop. The second millennium Roman doctrine of the papacy is simply contrary to the patristic tradition.

As far as infallibility is concerned: was Pope Honorius infallible, was Vigilius infallible, was John XXII infallible (especially when he denied that his successors could bind him through irrevocable - i.e., infallible - decrees)? Pope Adrian VI seemed to be in the dark about his own infallibility, and even went so far as to emphasize that many popes had been heretics and so it was improper to speak of infallibility in connection with the office of the bishop of Rome.

Why can two or more have episcopal jurisdiction over the same area? Or even a Council of more than one? I agree that the "supremacy" statements are silly, in fact, impractical usually - as it is near impossible to enforce. Nevertheless, it seems to be a functionary extension of the whole.

Look, I think that communion could be reestablished in a generation or two, that is, if Rome would accept that its primacy is a functional (i.e., non-dogmatic) and historically developed position (i.e., not divinely revealed) established by the local Churches for the good ordering of the relations between them. Sadly it would not happen immediately because there are still other issues that divide the Roman Church from the other Apostolic Churches, and those things would still need to be solved, but it would be a big step in the right direction.

I've met plenty. Syriacs too. Some claim their own Catholicos in India can be wiped away with by a singular act of the Patriarch. If so, that's more ImperialPope than the Roman one.

Gosh, think of all the "supreme" bishops we would have if Rome and the Orientals reunited. But then no one is supreme if there are many supremes (except of course for the music group).

I know of no "supreme" bishop in the New Testament, at least it is never mentioned, nor is there a "universal" Church over and above the local Churches. The New Testament texts speak of the Churches of God, and when the term is used in the singular it refers to the local Churches which make the one eschatological Church present, whole and entire, in a given place.

The Church Fathers speak of the minor orders and the major orders, and the major orders are the diaconate, the presbyterate, and the episcopate, but I do not remember them ever mentioning any other offices beyond these three. Where is the supreme bishop mentioned, and where is the universal bishop mentioned (in a good light - I do know that St. Gregory condemned the notion of a universal bishop in his letters)? Where are these additional sacramental offices mentioned by the Holy Fathers?

Todd,

I don't think this is directed to me, but I agree with what you say principally. My disagreement is that in function, the Pope is no more supreme than the EP, Syriac Patriarch, Coptic Patriarch, Armenian Patriarch, or any others. Sometimes less so.

I guess one has to decide which is worse. Delusions of grandeur or totalitarian behavior - and pick a side according to time and place.

On that issue I do not agree. I see papal primacy as purely functional, but that is why it is important, because it is meant to function for the good ordering of the local Churches. That said, the primacy of the protos (i.e., at an ecumenical level) is only fully active when the universal episcopate is meeting in council.

But as far as jurisdiction is concerned, the bishop of Rome has no jurisdiction outside of his diocese, and in that sense he is like every other bishop. That said, his true importance is only revealed when he uses moral persuasion in order to keep unity among the many local Churches, but this is a form of moral authority, which means that he cannot just order the other bishops around as their lord (contrary to the Gospel). Moreover, when the bishops of the world meet together, I see no problem with the idea of the protos exercising a certain directive function by leading the other bishops in the discussion of the issues that may be causing strife within the Churches at a given point in history.

Finally, as far as episcopal "titles" are concerned, I am not all that concerned by them - that is, unless they are given ontological status - then I have a problem with them because then they infringe upon the oneness of the episcopate, which - as I have said many times - is one priesthood participated in simultaneously and fully by many different individuals.

Postscript: I must admit that one of the only things I like about Pope Francis is that he really is not interested in using (or acquiring) titles. He seems content simply being called the bishop of Rome.

Why can't the Pope or any Patriarch, as head and father of a Church, have moral authority that is jurisdictional due to his unique role as head and father of the whole? The Synod is not considered the many headed fathers, nor are they each normally named in the Liturgy as such - the Pope/Patriarch is, and has a personality due to this headship and fatherhood. In other words, he has a draw for a reason.

I would like to go on record that I very much agree with the LCMS on the "Renunciation of unionism and syncretism". (Not that I -- or anyone else who has posted on this thread AFAIR -- is LCMS. But that seems to me to get to the core of the discussion here.)

Jurisdiction is a legal term that speaks to the idea of power over others. Authority does not carry that same baggage.

Postscript: When I was a child my father had both authority and jurisdiction in matters related to my life and upbringing, but when I became an adult my father lost his jurisdiction, but he never lost his authority.

My mother claims both to this day. Maybe she and the Pope have a few things in common.

Interstingly we do call the bishops gathered in council Fathers. So in that sense a synod is composed of many fathers, and even many heads, because each bishop is the head of his local Church. The protos on the other hand, i.e., within the synod, is the head of his own local Church (of course), but he is also the head of the synod in a functional role for the good ordering of the synodal process. But the protos is not the head of all the Churches at the same time. He can only be the head of one Church, i.e., his own local Church.

As far as fatherhood is concerned, I would refrain from making the protos into the father of the assembled bishops, because that turns them into children, when in actual fact they are his brothers in the episcopate. Again the episcopate is one sacramental order, and there can be no ontological distinctions between the bishops without dividing the unity of episcopacy into different "sacraments." Why can there be primacy among the bishops? Because primacy is inherent to episcopacy, and that is why there are (or can be) local, regional, and ecumenical primacies.