C
commenter
Guest
What would be the purpose of having the Pope, or any other “patriarch” granted (only) a “special place of honor”? How would that “special place of honor” arrangement benefit the Church? Honor without jurisdiction seems like an obvious source of confusion.I don’t disagree with anything you wrote, but this does not vindicate nor explain why the See of Peter must be accorded with anything more than a supreme primacy of honour, as existed in the early Church. The Pope was consulted on an as-needed basis as the last arbiter of disputes, while each individual church and its bishops maintained authority and pastoral care of his own church (all of which maintained full communion with Rome). The Pope, as Patriarch of the West, never wielded influence over the other churches, and it was well-understood that he enjoyed a special place of honour - not jurisdiction - among the other Patriarchs.
These aren’t opinions, they are historical realities. We really need to ask ourselves as Catholics whether post-Schism papal claims were truly made for the betterment - or the detriment - of the Church.
If you lop off jurisdiction at the universal (papal) level, the next logical step is to make each patriarch “honor only” with no jurisdiction outside his own diocese; or perhaps, no jurisdiction outside his own parish. Or you might say every parish council or local synod in a given Eastern Rite is equal, and the Eastern Rite overall or chief “Synod” is in effect just equal to a parish council; so outside their own patriarchal parish or community the “Synod” should have no jurisdiction (just honor) over an Eastern Rite as a whole. If you argue every patriarch is equal to a pope, then every pastor is in effect a patriarch in terms of jurisdiction - with no other “patriarch” over them other than “in honor”.
I realize the argument that the jurisdiction of patriarchs and Synods is established by centuries of practice and Tradition, and I respect that. But then, so is the jurisdiction aspect of the papacy.