Catholic vs. Orthodox who's right, who was first and why?

[John_Larocque]

I thought that Saint Augustine also viewed Peter as the rock.

Nope. Augustine’s only known view of the Matthew text is the one Dr. Hahn challenged in the above link. “Thus Peter, so named by that rock (petra), would represent the person of the Church which is built upon the rock. He was not called petra but Peter, the petra was Christ.” And elsewhere “It is founded on a Stone [Petra], from which Peter took his name Stone-Founded [Peter] - for the Stone did not take its name from the Stone-Founded, but the Stone-Founded from the Stone - as Christ does not take his name from Christians, but Christians from Christ… because the stone was Christ.”

Here’s an Adventist page with extensive quotations:
omega77.tripod.com/augustineonpeter.htm

( Again, for clarification, I’m with Dr. Hahn in questioning the Reform/Augustinian view. )

 

[CHESTERTONRULES]

My, my, you really dislike Atheists, don’t you?

why would I read a book that’s long and drawn out when I can ask individuals to explain it to me?

Does anyone have anything to add relaing to the topic?

Thanks!

Catholicism was first.

We can rest assured of this fact by reading the words of many early eastern patriarchs who acknowledge the primacy of Peter and the Pope. The Orthodox later rejected this teaching, but it was held by their precursors.

Some examples:

Jerusalem

**St. Cyril of Jerusalem, Patriarch (363) **

Peter, that Leader of the choir, that Mouth of the rest of the Apostles, that Head of the brotherhood, that one set over the entire universe, that Foundation of the Church. (Chrys. In illud hoc Scitote)

Our Lord Jesus Christ then became a man, but by the many He was not known. But wishing to teach that which was not known, having assembled the disciples, He asked, ‘Whom do men say that the Son of man is?’ …And all being silent (for it was beyond man to learn) Peter, the Foremost of the Apostles, the Chief Herald of the Church, not using the language of his own finding, nor persuaded by human reasoning, but having his mind enlightened by the Father, says to Him, ‘Thou art the Christ,’ not simply that, but ‘the Son of the living God.’ (Cyril, Catech. xi. n. 3)

For Peter was there, who carrieth the keys of heaven. (Cyril, Catechetical Lectures A.D. 350).

Peter, the chief and foremost leader of the Apostles, before a little maid thrice denied the Lord, but moved to penitence, he wept bitterly. (Cyril, Catech ii. n. 15)

**St. Sophronius, Patriarch of Jerusalem (c. 638) **

Teaching us all orthodoxy and destroying all heresy and driving it away from the God-protected halls of our holy Catholic Church. And together with these inspired syllables and characters, I accept all his (the pope’s) letters and teachings as proceeding from the mouth of Peter the Coryphaeus, and I kiss them and salute them and embrace them with all my soul … I recognize the latter as definitions of Peter and the former as those of Mark, and besides, all the heaven-taught teachings of all the chosen mystagogues of our Catholic Church. (Sophronius, Mansi, xi. 461)

Constantinople

**
St. John Chrysostom, Patriarch of Constantinople (c. 387) **

Peter himself the Head or Crown of the Apostles, the First in the Church, the Friend of Christ, who received a revelation, not from man, but from the Father, as the Lord bears witness to him, saying, 'Blessed art thou, This very Peter and when I name Peter I name that unbroken Rock, that firm Foundation, the Great Apostle, First of the disciples, the First called, and the First who obeyed he was guilty …even denying the Lord." (Chrysostom, T. ii. Hom)

Peter, the Leader of the choir of Apostles, the Mouth of the disciples, the Pillar of the Church, the Buttress of the faith, the Foundation of the confession, the Fisherman of the universe. (Chrysostom, T. iii Hom).

Antioch

**Theodoret, Bishop of Cyrus in Syria (450)
A native of Antioch, Theodoret ruled under the Antiochean Patriarch. **

The great foundation of the Church was shaken, and confirmed by the Divine grace. And the Lord commanded him to apply that same care to the brethren. ‘And thou,’ He says, ‘converted, confirm thy brethren.’ (Theodoret, Tom. iv. Haeret. Fab. lib. v.c. 28)

‘For as I,’ He says, ‘did not despise thee when tossed, so be thou a support to thy brethren in trouble, and the help by which thou was saved do thou thyself impart to others, and exhort them not while they are tottering, but raise them up in their peril. For this reason I suffer thee also to slip, but do not permit thee to fall, thus through thee gaining steadfastness for those who are tossed.’ So this great pillar supported the tossing and sinking world, and permitted it not to fall entirely and gave it back stability, having been ordered to feed God’s sheep. (Theodoret, Oratio de Caritate in J. P. Minge, ed., Partrologiae Curses Completus: Series Graeca).

I therefore beseech your holiness to persuade the most holy and blessed bishop (Pope Leo) to use his Apostolic power, and to order me to hasten to your Council. For that most holy throne (Rome) has the sovereignty over the churches throughout the universe on many grounds. (Theodoret, Tom. iv. Epist. cxvi. Renato, p. 1197).

Many more such quotes here:

fisheaters.com/easternfathers.html

 

[prodromos]

Catholicism was first.

We can rest assured of this fact by reading the words of many early eastern patriarchs who acknowledge the primacy of Peter and the Pope. The Orthodox later rejected this teaching, but it was held by their precursors.

Some examples:

There is a particular “blind spot” Catholics seem to have when reading Church Fathers. Whenever they read something said of Peter, they automatically understand it to be saying the same of the Pope, despite the context clearly showing otherwise. It baffles me how intelligent people offer up these quotes as evidence of the Papacy.

John

 

[Arandur]

That last letter was actually correspondence on Pope Stephen. He declared Pope Stephen a heretic and schismatic for having broken away from the what he called elsewhere the Unity of Faith. He also didn’t like it when they intruded in the African jurisdiction on the matter (Augustine also resisted Rome’s attempts to arbitrate a dispute and even threw out a text Rome claimed was part of Nicea but was part of a disputed council).

If you caught the reference in the letter, Stephen was already citing the Matthew text as being the (unique) successor of Peter. So even though Cyprian was departing from this view (at least in the Pope Stephen period), it is implicit evidence that as far back as the Cyprian/Stephen dispute, Rome was using it as a proof text for the papal authority. Cyprian, by stating that John and the other apostles were equal in authority, seems to be taking an alternate view, essentially that the bishops of the church are successors of Peter as well. This is the Quasten’s interpretation of Cyprian’s views. His deference to Rome indicates a primacy, but of honour, not of jurisdiction, as "first among equals. The author of “His broken body”, in citing Quasten, called Cyprian “proto-Orthodox.”

The bit about episcopal unity and democracy isn’t as cut and dried on the Orthodox side of the fence. It seems from my reading that there were times when the bishops came together and agreed to things which weren’t accepted by a minority of bishops nor by the faithful (the sensus fidelium so to speak). And then there’s the role of the Holy Spirit in keeping everything together to prevent the church from falling into error. The Orthodox view of the Great Schism essentially places the pope of the day in the same position that Cyprian placed Stephen, for departing from the unity of the church.

I suspect it is a mistranslation or a commentary on the second version of the Unity of the Catholic Church. I was scanning the Latin yesterday. It appears to be an interpretive comment, not an actual Cyprian quote.

I agree with Dr. Hahn (and against Augustine of Hippo) that the semantic differences for Rock in Greek don’t exist in Aramaic, so Augustine’s argument simply doesn’t apply. Augustine’s view of the Matthew text is in essence the Reform view.

This is an interesting issue, and I have done some more research. My initial reaction to the quotes posted was the that the tone of Cyprian’s letter was rather extreme, perhaps driven more by passion than consistency with his previous positions. That seems to be the assessment of others, as well.

Sensitive to the disdain for large copy-pastes, and also to those comments here to the effect of accepting the wider body someone’s work rather than small excerpts, I offer these:
bringyou.to/apologetics/num44.htm
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyprian
cfpeople.org/Books/Pope/POPEp23.htm
newadvent.org/cathen/04583b.htm

In the first link, we see a wider array of Cyprian’s commentary supporting the primacy of Peter not just in honor, but in some degree of function. They also support his high view of bishops, which is also appropriate.

In that link, though, look particularly at the sections “St. Cyprian and the Primacy of Rome” and "More on Cyprian’s “Theory of the Episcopate” in the second half of the article. These assert the view that Cyprian appears to have contradicted himself on other matters, carving an exception for the matter of heretical baptisms because he so vehemently disagreed with Stephen. Further, the logical application of such a “Theory of the Episcopate” was not logically applicable to wider or more general matters–as I pointed out before in reference to the Arians, Montanists, Monophysites, and Donatists. Indeed, we can see the fruits of Cyprian’s position on heretical baptism as a foundational predecessor and support for the heresy of Donatism, demonstrating that on this matter Cyprian was clearly in error. It is normal for powerful men to be tainted to some degree by pride in their own views; this can happen from priests to popes, and must be kept in mind, I think, when we see quarrels over authority, particularly those in submission to the Pope.

In the second (Wikipedia) link, I see again that the context of Cyprian’s chief disagreement with Rome was strictly on the matter of heretical baptisms. The exception he seemingly carved out was in positing that recognizing such baptisms was a matter of discipline (and thus open to much interpretation and diverse application) and not of doctrine, and thus he had a justifiable beef with Stephen. This seems to not be out of line with Cyprian’s quotes that you provided.

The third link highlights something the others also comment on–that Cyprian seems to have believed strongly enough in the Bishop of Rome’s primacy (not just in honor, but in position and authority) that he could depose three other bishops. I don’t know for sure whether these bishops were ones appointed by Stephen or by someone else; that would matter. Nevertheless, it appears that Cyprian appeals to the Bishop of Rome to resolve disputes and rule on various matters. To regard such authority as valid only when Cyprian agrees with him is a personal weakness of Cyprian, it seems, rather than a recognition of limits of authority.

In short, it seems the disagreement with Pope Stephen I on the matter of heretical baptisms was exacerbated by personal failings of Cyprian, an exception to an otherwise consistent position of support for some degree of papal supremacy. To use the inconsistent exception (particularly when colored by a passion that violated his own guidance on free choice and lack of quarrelsomeness for bishops) to define the position is erroneous. Special pleading/selective observation?

It does seem, however, that the common Catholic understanding does have something in common with Cyprian even in the matter of the dispute with Stephen: that the greater consensus of the bishops is the primary and most authoritative body on the faith. The Bishop of Rome must simply be part of this consensus, and the few separate papal dictates must similarly be recognized by the wider body of bishops; both are subject to ultimate “ratification” in the sense of the faithful (a measure of wider Tradition) and must pass muster of consistency/lack of contradiction with Scripture as the benchmark, as I understand it.

 

[josie_L]

Nope. Augustine’s only known view of the Matthew text is the one Dr. Hahn challenged in the above link. “Thus Peter, so named by that rock (petra), would represent the person of the Church which is built upon the rock. He was not called petra but Peter, the petra was Christ.” And elsewhere “It is founded on a Stone [Petra], from which Peter took his name Stone-Founded [Peter] - for the Stone did not take its name from the Stone-Founded, but the Stone-Founded from the Stone - as Christ does not take his name from Christians, but Christians from Christ… because the stone was Christ.”

Here’s an Adventist page with extensive quotations:
omega77.tripod.com/augustineonpeter.htm

( Again, for clarification, I’m with Dr. Hahn in questioning the Reform/Augustinian view. )

Why in tarnation would you go on an Adventist page when they’re known to write horribly untrue things about the CC? And I will look into reading St. Augustine’s position as I’m pretty positive that I recall him having two perspectives on the matter.

 

[CHESTERTONRULES]

There is a particular “blind spot” Catholics seem to have when reading Church Fathers. Whenever they read something said of Peter, they automatically understand it to be saying the same of the Pope, despite the context clearly showing otherwise. It baffles me how intelligent people offer up these quotes as evidence of the Papacy.

John

Does the Orthodox Church acknowledge Peter as the head of the apostles?

The words of Theodret, above, are quite explicit with regard to the papacy, by the way.

 

[prodromos]

Does the Orthodox Church acknowledge Peter as the head of the apostles?

It depends what you mean by “head”. If you mean “has authority over and above the other Apostles”, then no. If you mean “first in respect and honor among the Apostles”, then yes.

The words of Theodret, above, are quite explicit with regard to the papacy, by the way.

Which puts him outside the patristic consensus.

John

 

[josie_L]

It depends what you mean by “head”. If you mean “has authority over and above the other Apostles”, then no. If you mean “first in respect and honor among the Apostles”, then yes.
Which puts him outside the patristic consensus.

John

What’s the point in being a head, if it’s only in respect to honour? In Sacred scripture, we see that Saint Peter was/is (through his successors) given an authority over the Church (always take in mind that he needs the body of bishops, as a head without a body is no less functional than a body without a head) that is more pronounced than the other apostles.

 

[CHESTERTONRULES]

It depends what you mean by “head”. If you mean “has authority over and above the other Apostles”, then no. If you mean “first in respect and honor among the Apostles”, then yes.

John

Your view, the Orthodox view, is clearly contradicted by the eastern patriarchs I quoted, among others. The views of the Orthodox Church were influenced by the politics of the split, not by the teachings of their patriarchs.

 

[Harpazo]

Your view, the Orthodox view, is clearly contradicted by the eastern patriarchs I quoted, among others. The views of the Orthodox Church were influenced by the politics of the split, not by the teachings of their patriarchs.

We Orthodox believe that it is the Orthodox view, as you said.

In Christ,
Andrew

 

[CHESTERTONRULES]

We Orthodox believe that it is the Orthodox view, as you said.

In Christ,
Andrew

However, the primacy and headship of Peter among the apostles is not the Orthodox view, even though it is the view of your early patriarchs.(who were Catholic, by the way!)

The rejection of the papacy is a later addition to the faith which came about due to political struggle, not theological truth.

 

[Harpazo]

However, the primacy and headship of Peter among the apostles is not the Orthodox view, even though it is the view of your early patriarchs.(who were Catholic, by the way!)

The rejection of the papacy is a later addition to the faith which came about due to political struggle, not theological truth.

I’d recommend that you read through the previous pages in this thread. Several people (Orthodox and Catholic) acknowledge that we share a common heritage in the first 1,000 years of the Church. The real question is, who has maintained it?

I also suggest that you read through the Ecumenical Councils and the writings of St. Gregory the Great and St. John VIII. These two popes rejected the view of the papacy that you hold as truth. Both were Patriarchs of Rome and held beliefs in accord with the Orthodox and not the modern Latin understanding.

In Christ,
Andrew

 

[CHESTERTONRULES]

I’d recommend that you read through the previous pages in this thread. Several people (Orthodox and Catholic) acknowledge that we share a common heritage in the first 1,000 years of the Church. The real question is, who has maintained it?

 

[Harpazo]

That is the question. Since I have demonstrated by quoting eastern patriarchs that the primacy of Peter and the Papacy were part of their beliefs, then clearly the Catholic Church has maintained this teaching while the Orthodox have not.

I disagree. I believe that you have chosen to interpret their words in this way. However, their views in no way contradict Catholic understanding of the papacy.

Two quotes from St. Gregory, for example, contradict your claim:

‘I, albeit unworthy, have been set up in command of the Church.’ As successor of St. Peter, the pope had received from God a primacy over all Churches. His approval it was which gave force to the decrees of councils or synods, and his authority could annul them. To him appeals might be made even against other patriarchs, and by him bishops were judged and corrected . . ."

“As regards the Church of Constantinople, ‘who can doubt that it is subject to the Apostolic See? Why, both our most religious lord the emperor, and our brother the Bishop of Constantinople continually acknowledge it.’”

Let’s be honest here. What have you demonstrated? That you can copy/paste quotes that suite your argument? Much of this thread has been about condemning that. Please, read the rest of the thread.

Until then, we cannot have a serious conversation.

Peace and God bless,
Andrew

 

[CHESTERTONRULES]

Let’s be honest here. What have you demonstrated? That you can copy/paste quotes that suite your argument? Much of this thread has been about condemning that. Please, read the rest of the thread.

Until then, we cannot have a serious conversation.

Peace and God bless,
Andrew

The quotes I posted directly contradict your assertion.

How is that anything but serious?

Feel free to prove me wrong with contradictory quotes. I’m willing to learn. However, for you to claim that Popes opposed the Catholic papacy is quite extreme, especially when you don’t support your claims.

I have provided several quotes that explicitly demonstrate that the current understanding of the papacy was a common understanding in the early Church.

 

[Harpazo]

The quotes I posted directly contradict your assertion.

How is that anything but serious?

Feel free to prove me wrong with contradictory quotes. I’m willing to learn. However, for you to claim that Popes opposed the Catholic papacy is quite extreme, especially when you don’t support your claims.

I have provided several quotes that explicitly demonstrate that the current understanding of the papacy was a common understanding in the early Church.

This is a grave contradiction that I see from Catholics here at CAF. They condemn Protestants for cherry-picking verses of the Bible to justify their doctrines. But it’s okay for Catholics to copy/paste cherry-picked writings of the Fathers to suit their doctrines.

Context is everything my friend. You cannot take one sentence, one paragraph or even one letter from a particular Father of the Church. Reading all of their writings together in unison with the writings of the other Fathers is a great way to get a better understanding. This is what Orthodox call the consensus patrum, as Prodromos pointed out earlier.

Many of the quotes do talk about a primacy of honor, which Orthodox have no qualms with. The problem is Papal Supremacy and Infallibility, which were completely foreign to the undivided Church. Fathers of the Church, such as John VIII and Gregory the Great reject such novelties.

In Christ,
Andrew

 

[CHESTERTONRULES]

This is a grave contradiction that I see from Catholics here at CAF. They condemn Protestants for cherry-picking verses of the Bible to justify their doctrines. But it’s okay for Catholics to copy/paste cherry-picked writings of the Fathers to suit their doctrines.

 

[John_Larocque]

Well, I scanned the links. It seems Anglicans have seized on Cyprian’s ecclesiology even before the Orthodox. There’s also an argument that’s almost exclusive to the Anglicans - to wit, from one singular Cyprian quote they are arguing that St. Peter’s leadership of the Church was something in time (temporary) and ended with his death. This seems to be more of an Anglican/Reform concern than anything I’ve come across in Orthodox circles. In any case, the Anglican/Reform case isn’t that strong, there were other quotes to suggest otherwise.

There’s also the question of the fact that because Cyprian embraced heretical notions, that his ecclesiology can be discarded. There’s a statement that because he’s a convert, that his ecclesiastical notions would not be complete as someone born into the faith such as his correspondent in Antioch. And we can discard or put aside what he said on Pope Stephen because it was said in anger. There are several charitable statements after the fact from SS. Jerome and Augustine on his rebaptism errors (along with his martyrdom), and a note that the African church ultimately held to the normal practice of not engaging in rebaptism.

Fair enough. Still, whether or not Cyprian held to heretical notions on rebaptism of heretics doesn’t address whether or not his ecclesiology was common or shared by other early Fathers of the church. Embracing faulty views doesn’t necesarilly follow that the ecclesiology is faulty. So, setting the rebaptism views aside, or his negative letters on Stephen, just how common were the notions that the other apostles were equal to Peter in the Matthew Petrine text?

Much seems to be made of the fact that he urged Cyprian to excommunicate the bishop of Arles and other bishops of Europe for heresy. Something which may be lost is that these bishops may very well have been within the territorial jurisdisction of the See of Rome, with Cyprian addressing Stephen not as a subordinate, but as his equal as the head of an ancient See. If you follow that reasoning, his resistance of the See of Rome in Africa isn’t based on pride on not sharing Stephen’s views, but because Cyprian viewed Carthage essentially as its own See (and outside the canonical territory of Rome). This is the first time I’ve ever come across anything that would essentially place Carthage as an equal alongside Rome, Jerusalem, Antioch or Alexandria.

Anyway, that’s my read of the links.

 

[Arandur]

Well, I scanned the links. It seems Anglicans have seized on Cyprian’s ecclesiology even before the Orthodox. There’s also an argument that’s almost exclusive to the Anglicans - to wit, from one singular Cyprian quote they are arguing that St. Peter’s leadership of the Church was something in time (temporary) and ended with his death. This seems to be more of an Anglican/Reform concern than anything I’ve come across in Orthodox circles. In any case, the Anglican/Reform case isn’t that strong, there were other quotes to suggest otherwise.

There’s also the question of the fact that because Cyprian embraced heretical notions, that his ecclesiology can be discarded. There’s a statement that because he’s a convert, that his ecclesiastical notions would not be complete as someone born into the faith such as his correspondent in Antioch. And we can discard or put aside what he said on Pope Stephen because it was said in anger. There are several charitable statements after the fact from SS. Jerome and Augustine on his rebaptism errors (along with his martyrdom), and a note that the African church ultimately held to the normal practice of not engaging in rebaptism.

Fair enough. Still, whether or not Cyprian held to heretical notions on rebaptism of heretics doesn’t address whether or not his ecclesiology was common or shared by other early Fathers of the church. Embracing faulty views doesn’t necesarilly follow that the ecclesiology is faulty. So, setting the rebaptism views aside, or his negative letters on Stephen, just how common were the notions that the other apostles were equal to Peter in the Matthew Petrine text?

Much seems to be made of the fact that he urged Cyprian to excommunicate the bishop of Arles and other bishops of Europe for heresy. Something which may be lost is that these bishops may very well have been within the territorial jurisdisction of the See of Rome, with Cyprian addressing Stephen not as a subordinate, but as his equal as the head of an ancient See. If you follow that reasoning, his resistance of the See of Rome in Africa isn’t based on pride on not sharing Stephen’s views, but because Cyprian viewed Carthage essentially as its own See (and outside the canonical territory of Rome). This is the first time I’ve ever come across anything that would essentially place Carthage as an equal alongside Rome, Jerusalem, Antioch or Alexandria.

Anyway, that’s my read of the links.

John, I found the much the same things–even the possibility (for which we don’t have any evidence yet for or against) that Cyprian’s requests to Stephen were to clear up matters within his own See.

However, the very existence of Sees represents an agreement in ecclesiology. I agree first off that Carthage does not anywhere seem to be seen as one of the Great Sees. Rome, Jerusalem, Antioch, and Alexandria became recognized as the Four Great Sees based on criteria of having been founded directly by Apostles and having pre-eminence in age and authority as headquarters. Constantinople was later added as the 5th See primarily due to its political prominence after Constantine created it and encouraged Christianity throughout the Empire. It had much flimsier basis for being founded by an Apostle and, obviously, in age, though its importance as a headquarter it had in spades. Thus, Constantinople became the most prominent See other than Rome–and also why, I believe, much of the dispute in the Schism is predominately political, because Constantinople was based on politics, got its authority from politics.

Of course, all Sees but Rome fell to non-Christians, which in itself gives rather interesting evidence that Rome is the only remaining See and should be recognized with authority over all Christendom, regardless of whether or not you believed Rome had pre-eminence among the Sees. It was the Roman See, after all, that “conquered” the Roman Empire (the “World”), and also saw to the political Roman Empire’s fall in a sort of penance for its own decadence. Fitting accomplishments for the successors of Peter.

But back to ecclesiology. If we accept Sees, we accept that some bishops have authority over others, regionally. Why stop there? If the Sees remain “separate but equal,” how is unity preserved? The very same logic that justifies the existence of a See in the first place justifies the pre-eminence of one See above the others in certain authoritative matters. So if Sees are accepted at all, the only objection to one See being first in authority over the others is political objection, attempts to retain one’s power and authority rather than properly submit.

We know God operates a Kingdom, and kingdoms/empires were understood and accepted from OT times through the life of the Church. No kingdom long stands and operates in great unity if its ruling council, carrying out the king’s wishes, is divided among ministers, with none having primacy. By accepting kingdoms and by accepting Sees, bishops accepted a prime member among them, whether they chafed under his authority or not.

 

[John_Larocque]

Wikipedia shoved out this claim - “In the church as a whole, the Bishop of Carthage lay within the jurisdiction of the Bishop of Rome.” Well… looked it in that way, that would mean the hated Pope Stephen was his ecclesiastical superior, and the Church of Africa (which was Latin) part of Rome’s ecclesiastical backyard. I don’t think it was ever “autocephalous” (to use Orthodox terminology).

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patriarchate_of_Carthage

And here the Alexandrians take credit for the word “Pope” to describe patriarchs and archbishop…

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_of_the_Coptic_Orthodox_Church_of_Alexandria

Pope

The local clergy of Alexandria and the Egyptian Bishops began to use the appellation of Papas when addressing the Bishop of Alexandria, St. Heraclas (the 13th Bishop of Alexandria in the middle of the 3rd Century). This was not used as a recognition of his jurisdictional authority but most essentially, as a sign of love towards their Primate. The appellation Papas was later used as a title for the Bishop of Alexandria, (sometime between the Fifth and the Seventh Century,) whose title of course, was and still is the Archbishop of Alexandria. There is a clear and distinct difference between appellation and title as mentioned above. It is to be noted that the appellation of Papas was also enjoyed by the Bishop of Carthage by the late second & early third Centuries, most probably taken from Alexandria or from the common tradition of Pentapolis (under Alexandrine Jurisdiction) as it was quite common to call the Senior Bishop of Alexandria and the Senior Bishop of Pentapolis (who, by the way, was the second in importance and command after the Bishop of Alexandria and known as the Elder of Pentapolis) Papas. This may explain how, later on, the Bishop of Rome began to use the title of Pope; the appellation was carried over from the Bishop of Carthage. The city of Carthage was part of the Latin Church of Rome (As the Church of Rome used the Latin language as its main Ecclesiastical Language). The name Papas or “Pope” was at that time only an appellation and was not considered as a title of jurisdiction or power or even an ecclesiastical rank higher than that of an Archbishop.

Blame the Egyptians. It’s their fault we have a pope.