Come to think of it, I don’t know for sure whether either or both of them were offered it. But it seems to me that either way, people tend to make it into more of a conflict than it necessarily was (some people speaking as though the patriarch(s) snubbed the pope by turning down the “red hat”, and others speaking as though the pope snubbed the patriarch(s) by not offering it in the first place).Funny you mention the Melkites again. I was very recently told by a normally very reliable source that the story wherein it is said that both Maximos V & Gregory III declined the “red hat” is not true. The story was, supposedly, contrived and disseminated to save face, i.e. to white-wash the fact that neither was ever offered the “red hat” at all, or so it was told to me.
NB: Please don’t anyone jump down my throat over this. It’s what I was told and frankly I’m taking it with a grain of salt. IOW I’m not sure I believe it, despite the usually excellent source.
In a way, it is.That however is not your decision to make.
The Patriarchis the first among equals of his bishops. Something the Pope isn’t.One of the Melkite patriarchs wrote a letter explaining why he didn’t ask for it after 1990. It was posted online for several years, at least.
It boiled down to him not feeling it appropriate for one Patriarch to be electing another Patriarchal church’s Patriarch.
And while I can see his point, I respectfully disagree with him.
For, I find myself seeing the pope’s role described best by an ancient source: “The role of the Pope to the Patriarchs is like that of a Patriarch to his bishops.”
is.The Patriarchis the first among equals of his bishops. Something the Pope -]isn’t/-]
To say that he is merely first among equals carries an anathemization (is that a word?).
Sacramentally, he is “first among equals,” since the episcopate is the highest tier of Holy Orders.The Patriarchis the first among equals of his bishops. Something the Pope isn’t.
And besides, patriarchs have at least some type of jurisdiction throughout their patriarchate. Right?To say that he is merely first among equals carries an anathemization (is that a word?).
So, then,
if anyone says that
the Roman pontiff has merely an office of supervision and guidance, and
not the full and supreme power of jurisdiction over the whole church, and this not only in matters of
faith and morals, but also in those which concern the discipline and government of the church dispersed throughout the whole world; or that
he has only the principal part, but not the absolute fullness, of this supreme power; or that this power of his is not ordinary and immediate both over all and each of the churches and over all and each of the pastors and faithful:
let him be anathema.
intratext.com/IXT/ENG0063/_PG.HTM
Good point … which ties in to the fact that those of us who are “Orthodox in communion with Rome” are something of an anomaly in the eyes of our fellow Catholics (Eastern or Western) who are “just Catholic”, as well as in the eyes of the Orthodox.To say that he is merely first among equals carries an anathemization (is that a word?).
So, then,
if anyone says that
the Roman pontiff has merely an office of supervision and guidance, and
not the full and supreme power of jurisdiction over the whole church, and this not only in matters of
faith and morals, but also in those which concern the discipline and government of the church dispersed throughout the whole world; or that
he has only the principal part, but not the absolute fullness, of this supreme power; or that this power of his is not ordinary and immediate both over all and each of the churches and over all and each of the pastors and faithful:
let him be anathema.
intratext.com/IXT/ENG0063/_PG.HTM
No. Protestant denominations, by definition, are heretic. There is no error in the Church of Jesus Christ. Protestants live in error and, BTW, condemn the Church of Jesus Christ.Very true - the Church of Jesus Christ - which includes us all - Catholic and Orthodox and all the Protestant denominations as well !
And that is why he is not first among equals, mainly because he has as much authority over other bishops that other bishops do not have over him. That is not equality.Sacramentally, he is “first among equals,” since the episcopate is the highest tier of Holy Orders.
I see no problem with the term. When Catholics use it, the context of the fact that it’s a Catholic saying so clearly indicates that the term is not meant to imply that the pope lacks jurisdiction.
No, Patriarchs do not have an authority over their Church the same way the Pope has. For one thing, Patriarchs can be deposed by council. They don’t have ordinary jurisdiction in eparchies outside of the Patriarchal Eparchy. Decisions are made by synod and not the Patriarch alone. And the list goes on, it’s not even a comparison.And besides, patriarchs have at least some type of jurisdiction throughout their patriarchate. Right?
All that considered, “the pope is to the patriarchs what a patriarch is to his bishops” seems like a pretty good summary to me.
I’m not exactly sure how that “by definition” part would work. (Not really asking a question here, just making an observation.)No. Protestant denominations, by definition, are heretic. There is no error in the Church of Jesus Christ. Protestants live in error and, BTW, condemn the Church of Jesus Christ.
What nonsense. This puts those Patriarchs of Sui Juris Eastern Churches in a position with the possibility of becoming pope. It really takes some visciously twisted thinking to see that as negative for those Churches.How unfortunate. Continuing to symbolically coerce submission out of patriarchs of other sui juris Churches shows Rome is still unserious about reunion with the other separated Churches.
It isn’t a comparison in the modern Eastern Orthodox Church, but I understand that the patriarchal primacy is much stronger in Oriental Orthodoxy - and even historically in Eastern Orthodoxy. (For example, when the Melkites with their canonical patriarch reconciled with Rome, Constantinople simple appointed a new Orthodox patriarch to pastor those who remained in the E Orthodox communion). The Coptic Pope doesn’t have unlimited authority, but I understand that he does exercise real authority/jurisdiction over the entire Coptic Church.And that is why he is not first among equals, mainly because he has as much authority over other bishops that other bishops do not have over him. That is not equality.
No, Patriarchs do not have an authority over their Church the same way the Pope has. For one thing, Patriarchs can be deposed by council. They don’t have ordinary jurisdiction in eparchies outside of the Patriarchal Eparchy. Decisions are made by synod and not the Patriarch alone. And the list goes on, it’s not even a comparison.
If that isn’t an over-simplified version then I don’t know what is.(For example, when the Melkites with their canonical patriarch reconciled with Rome, Constantinople simple appointed a new Orthodox patriarch to pastor those who remained in the E Orthodox communion).
Yes, if you mean *purely *negative. But it doesn’t take any twisting to see that it’s a mixed blessing.What nonsense. This puts those Patriarchs of Sui Juris Eastern Churches in a position with the possibility of becoming pope. It really takes some visciously twisted thinking to see that as negative for those Churches.
Hi ConstantineTG,The Patriarchis the first among equals of his bishops. Something the Pope isn’t.
It works by definition of the word itself.I’m not exactly sure how that “by definition” part would work. (Not really asking a question here, just making an observation.)
That is why there is a council, to clarify confusions. And in councils, all bishops are equal. What if the confusion came from the Pope himself? Doesn’t the whole Church fall into heresy then? The Pope is a human being like all of us, thus subject to his own errors and limitations. The Papacy, must like any Episcopacy, is not a magic position that someone suddenly becomes imbuned with powers. Even St. Peter erred after Pentecost when he allowed the baptizing of Gentiles, and then backtracked later on. He was called on this by St. Paul. Today, no other bishop can correct the Pope because he has set himself above all bishops.Hi ConstantineTG,
I don’t know whether you are catholic or not, but if you are at some point you are going to have to accept the truth that the Pope is the head of the Catholic Church. Maybe you do accept this truth but it appears that you have some problem with it, maybe I’m wrong. It is of catholic faith that the pope is the head of the Church and this is founded on the teaching of Christ and attested to by tradition. You will probably say to me, “well not all of tradition, there are some eastern churches who do not accept this.” However, the Eastern Catholic Churches do accept that Christ founded the Church upon Peter, the rock, and that the bishop of Rome is the successor of Peter. For a catholic, to deny the teaching of the Church concerning the Bishop of Rome, i.e., the Pope, is to deny the teaching of Jesus Christ and how Jesus wanted his Church to be governed.
I think it makes a lot of sense that Christ made one bishop the head of the Church. Suppose there is some disagreement in the Church concerning some point of doctrine or discipline. One bishop says this, another bishop says that, one Patriarch says this, another Patriarch says another thing and thus no agreement can be made. Wouldn’t this cause confusion in the Church? Confusion is something that comes from the devil. Jesus knows about this kind of problem so he made one bishop that can have the final word and thus avoid confusion in the Church and the faithful. Now the Pope doesn’t arbitrarily exercise his authority. He always consults the bishops throughout the world for a consensus on matters of faith and morals especially as seen in an ecumenical council and this too is a teaching of the Church. But to avoid confusion in the Church, Christ made Peter and his successor the final authority.
Peace, Rich