Does the structure of Orthodox Chruches imply a Pope?

[josephback]

Hi y’all. I was reading a wikipedia article about the Armenian Orthodox Church, and it said there was a church ruler or patriarch. This man has real responsibilities that affect the whole Armenian Church. So I was thinking: does not the existence of Orthodox patriarchs imply a Church wide papacy? If every individual Orthodox Church has its own ‘head’(for instance the patriarch of Moscow), does it not follow that the whole Church would have a head shepherd with some degree of authority? Does not the Orthodox heirarchy imply a needed Pope? The priests are responsible over the people, and the bishops have responsibility over the priests. Is not the next logical progression to have a Pope over the bishops? Why or why not? Please advise.

 

[Rawb]

The Patriarchs do not have much authority over other bishops. They are honored as the first among equals in their jurisdiction’s council of Bishops. They don’t have any authority to make any other bishop do anything, they don’t get to unilaterally assign a bishop to a different diocese, and they have no right of “infallibility”. They act as an organizer and have a tie-breaker vote at the council.

In that sense you are correct - the next logical step is for there to be one bishop with those duties among all bishops. That is what the Orthodox believe The Roman Pope is supposed to be. Obviously, this is not the case.

We hold to what St. Cyprian of Carthage said in his Council at Carthage in 258:

For neither does any one of us set himself up as a bishop of bishops, nor by tyrannical terror does any compel his colleague to the necessity of obedience; since every bishop, according to the allowance of his liberty and power, has his own proper right of judgment, and can no more be judged by another than he himself can judge another. But let all of us wait for the judgment of our Lord Jesus Christ, who is the only one that has the power both of preferring us in the government of His Church, and of judging us in our conduct there

 

[PbloPicasso]

This is why I chose to be Catholic while studying Orthodoxy. The hierarchy implies an understanding of the whole Church of Christ. Combine this with early church fathers speaking about the primacy of the bishop of Rome, which was understood as the See of Peter as head bishop over the Church. The Holy See may not have taken such a strong role as we see today, but it was in fact the case he was considered “the first among many”.

 

[ConstantineTG]

As Rawb said, the Orthodox do believe in the Primacy of the Bishop of Rome. The question is how this Primacy is viewed. They disagree with the current Catholic view of the Pope.

 

[josephback]

The Patriarchs do not have much authority over other bishops. They are honored as the first among equals in their jurisdiction’s council of Bishops. They don’t have any authority to make any other bishop do anything, they don’t get to unilaterally assign a bishop to a different diocese, and they have no right of “infallibility”. They act as an organizer and have a tie-breaker vote at the council.

In that sense you are correct - the next logical step is for there to be one bishop with those duties among all bishops. That is what the Orthodox believe The Roman Pope is supposed to be. Obviously, this is not the case.

We hold to what St. Cyprian of Carthage said in his Council at Carthage in 258:

For neither does any one of us set himself up as a bishop of bishops, nor by tyrannical terror does any compel his colleague to the necessity of obedience; since every bishop, according to the allowance of his liberty and power, has his own proper right of judgment, and can no more be judged by another than he himself can judge another. But let all of us wait for the judgment of our Lord Jesus Christ, who is the only one that has the power both of preferring us in the government of His Church, and of judging us in our conduct there

I once read a Church history that stated the early Popes held universal dogmatic teaching authority, but not universal canonical(jurisdictional) authority. It occurred to me that universal teaching authority wouldn’t make much sense without some authority to enforce that teaching. They rise together or they fall together.

Interesting comment on the patriarchs. So is the patriarch of Moscow like the Archbishop of Cantebury, having pride of place but very little to no real authority? Is it fair to say the Orthodox churches are more democratic or at least aristocratic, as opposed to the somewhat authoritarian RCC?

 

[Rawb]

I once read a Church history that stated the early Popes held universal dogmatic teaching authority, but not universal canonical(jurisdictional) authority.

The Popes never, so far as I can see/understand/read had “universal dogmatic” anything. No Bishop has a right to unilaterally declare a teaching.

UNLESS by that you mean that many times the Pope of Rome was appealed to out of recognition for that patriarchate’s history of fidelity to the the Orthodox Faith. That happened, and would’ve kept happening. Still, the only authority behind those appeals being carried out was the love of his brother bishops and the uniting faith we all have to maintain the Truth.

If you have a bunch of bishops who aren’t interest in Truth but their own promotion then you need a dogmatic, hammer-blow sort of ruling bishop. If you recognize that all your brother bishops and you are working towards the same goal of Faith and act in charity then councils and appeals to one another works fine, in union with a laity who know they too are entrusted with guardianship for the deposit of faith. In Orthodoxy if a bishop is teaching a falsehood the Laity are generally the ones who throw that bishop out, unless the laity are corrupted as well in which case there is a council.

It’s worked fine for us in 2,000 years.

So is the patriarch of Moscow like the Archbishop of Cantebury, having pride of place but very little to no real authority?

I’m afraid I don’t know much about the Archbishop of Canterbury, so I couldn’t answer.

Is it fair to say the Orthodox churches are more democratic or at least aristocratic, as opposed to the somewhat authoritarian RCC?

Orthodoxy is democratic in the sense that everyone has a voice, from the laity to the bishops. Orthodoxy is not democratic in a sense of voting on truth. In that second case we’re probably more authoritarian than the RCC. We are firm in what is Orthodox and what is not, and we don’t tolerate much variation from that path of true Orthodoxy.

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Josephback,

I once read a Church history that stated the early Popes held universal dogmatic teaching authority, but not universal canonical(jurisdictional) authority. It occurred to me that universal teaching authority wouldn’t make much sense without some authority to enforce that teaching. They rise together or they fall together.

This is correct. Recall St. Cyprian’s statement quoted by Rawb. St. Cyprian was actually referring to canonical matters. On such matters, St. Cyprian felt the different Churches had freedom. But on matters of doctrine, he acknowledged that the bishop of Rome had the final say, for the sake of the unity of the Faith. He had written to Pope St. Cornelius that in matters of doctrine, the Church of Rome *COULD NOT *err, and that Rome was the seat of priestly unity for the entire Church. He even appealed to the bishop of Rome to correct heretical bishops in Gaul and Spain, even though those countries had their own primates.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

No Bishop has a right to unilaterally declare a teaching.

That’s not what the Pope does when declaring a matter ex cathedra. I don’t know where you get the idea that such an action by the Pope is unilateral. Certainly not Vatican 1. So don’t worry about it, and come back to Catholic unity already.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Rawb]

That’s not what the Pope does when declaring a matter ex cathedra. I don’t know where you get the idea that such an action by the Pope is unilateral. Certainly not Vatican 1. So don’t worry about it, and come back to Catholic unity already

I’m not going by what the Roman Catholic Church teaches, I’m going by what she believes, and Papal Infallbility is just one of many issues.

 

[mardukm]

Hi y’all. I was reading a wikipedia article about the Armenian Orthodox Church, and it said there was a church ruler or patriarch. This man has real responsibilities that affect the whole Armenian Church.

The Armenians are members of the Oriental Orthodox Church, and OO ecclesiology is a bit different from that of the Eastern Orthodox. Functionally, they are very similar, but theoretically, they are different.

I can express the OO position by giving a statement similar to Rawb’s explanation for the EO, and you can compare the two:
A Patriarch has authority over other bishops. He has the honor of being first among equals both within and outside a council of bishops, but he has more than mere honor - he has real jurisdiction in his entire Patriarchate over his brother bishops. He exercises this real authority, this real jurisdiction, in Council, and with the approval of the Synod, he can assign a bishop to a different diocese. He does not have singular infallibility, but is regarded as the Father and supreme head of the Patriarchate.

Here’s Rawb’s statement for convenient comparison:
The Patriarchs do not have much authority over other bishops. They are honored as the first among equals in their jurisdiction’s council of Bishops. They don’t have any authority to make any other bishop do anything, they don’t get to unilaterally assign a bishop to a different diocese, and they have no right of “infallibility”. They act as an organizer and have a tie-breaker vote at the council.

So I was thinking: does not the existence of Orthodox patriarchs imply a Church wide papacy? If every individual Orthodox Church has its own ‘head’(for instance the patriarch of Moscow), does it not follow that the whole Church would have a head shepherd with some degree of authority? Does not the Orthodox heirarchy imply a needed Pope? The priests are responsible over the people, and the bishops have responsibility over the priests. Is not the next logical progression to have a Pope over the bishops? Why or why not? Please advise.

You are correct. This is one of the reasons why I joined the Catholic communion from Oriental Orthodoxy. It no longer made sense to me that a head bishop could exist on the metropolical and patriarchal levels, but that there is no head bishop on a universal level.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother PbloPicasso,

This is why I chose to be Catholic while studying Orthodoxy. The hierarchy implies an understanding of the whole Church of Christ. Combine this with early church fathers speaking about the primacy of the bishop of Rome, which was understood as the See of Peter as head bishop over the Church. The Holy See may not have taken such a strong role as we see today, but it was in fact the case he was considered “the first among many”.

Thank you for sharing. This is also one of the reasons I joined the Catholic communion from Oriental Orthodoxy.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

Dear Rawb,

I’m not going by what the Roman Catholic Church teaches, I’m going by what she believes,

Can you please explain the differentiation between what the CC teaches, and what she believes? Thanks.

and Papal Infallbility is just one of many issues.

Well, when you stated that the Pope UNILATERALLY declares a teaching, I get the impression you might not understand what “papal infallibility” actually is.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Rawb]

What I say I’m just saying. I don’t mean to put any malice behind it, honestly. I think the tone might come across as belligerent and it’s not supposed to. Please keep that in mind.

I mean the RCC says she believes one thing, then acts in a completely different manner. If this was one or two oddball parishes that would be one thing - when it’s that way in almost every parish in the Western hemisphere it’s a different manner. You tell me the Liturgy is this beautiful and ancient thing that is the center of your faith? Awesome. You have a horrible translation that goes 40 years without your bishops correcting it? You allow shameful liturgical abuses everywhere? Your hymns are 60’s folk songs? You don’t believe what you said then.

You say you believe Contraception is intrinsically evil? Fine, I can get the logic behind that. I attend Mass every Sunday and Holy Day of Obligation, and often daily Mass for over five years and at what is considered an “orthodox” parish and I hear one homily that mentions it in passing? Even though it’s regularly and widely known that the vast majority of Roman Catholics use ABC? You don’t believe what you said.

You teach marriage is insoluble, that it is a holy and sacred union that cannot be ended by divorce? Beautiful. You have 30,968 annulments granted in one year, in North America alone? Divorce by a different name, you don’t believe what you said.

There’s a host of other issues. Your catechism says one thing but your actions say another. I will judge you based off your actions - talk is cheap. Actions speak louder than words. That’s what I mean when I say I judge you based off your beliefs, and not your teachings.

 

[josephback]

What I say I’m just saying. I don’t mean to put any malice behind it, honestly. I think the tone might come across as belligerent and it’s not supposed to. Please keep that in mind.

I mean the RCC says she believes one thing, then acts in a completely different manner. If this was one or two oddball parishes that would be one thing - when it’s that way in almost every parish in the Western hemisphere it’s a different manner. You tell me the Liturgy is this beautiful and ancient thing that is the center of your faith? Awesome. You have a horrible translation that goes 40 years without your bishops correcting it? You allow shameful liturgical abuses everywhere? Your hymns are 60’s folk songs? You don’t believe what you said then.

You say you believe Contraception is intrinsically evil? Fine, I can get the logic behind that. I attend Mass every Sunday and Holy Day of Obligation, and often daily Mass for over five years and at what is considered an “orthodox” parish and I hear one homily that mentions it in passing? Even though it’s regularly and widely known that the vast majority of Roman Catholics use ABC? You don’t believe what you said.

You teach marriage is insoluble, that it is a holy and sacred union that cannot be ended by divorce? Beautiful. You have 30,968 annulments granted in one year, in North America alone? Divorce by a different name, you don’t believe what you said.

There’s a host of other issues. Your catechism says one thing but your actions say another. I will judge you based off your actions - talk is cheap. Actions speak louder than words. That’s what I mean when I say I judge you based off your beliefs, and not your teachings.

Never saw it as malice. Yes there are a lot of bad Catholics. I can only hope I’m not among them.

30,968 annulments seems like a small number considering that 25% of America(75 million people!) is Catholic. Then again maybe most don’t bother with an annulment. I know at least two couples that have gotten a civil (aka non-sacramental) ceremony for the second time.