How much authority does the Bisop of Rome has in the Estern churches?

[Fone_Bone_2001]

Have you ever heard of the “Supreme Court”? I guarantee you that no one in the U.S. understands that to mean that the Supreme Court has absolute power in the United States.

I have to wonder about the logic (or lack of it ) of American Catholics (who hold an Absolutist Petrine view) and American Orthodox (who hold a Low Petrine view) who think that saying the Pope has “supreme authority” is tantamount to him having “absolute authority.” As I’ve noted many times, my understanding is certainly colored by my upbringing as an Oriental Orthodox. Oriental Orthodox assign the term “supreme” to our head bishops (i.e. Patriarchs) all the time, but I (nor any OO) would ever say that the Supreme head of the Coptic Orthodox Church has absolute power in the COC.

Blessings,
Marduk

Great analogy, Marduk.

 

[JohnVIII]

Am I correct in assuming that your 5% difference is based on the dogmatic nature of the Catholic teaching on the papacy?

No. If it were not dogmatic the 5% wouldn’t matter. No one would be under judgment for holding differing opinions, as I’m certain the early Church tolerated differing opinions on this matter. The 5% of the High Petrine view (as you have explained it) that I do not agree with has to do with any of the “absolute” parts, for instance I would say that the Pope holds the principle part of leadership of the Church (something specifically condemned - unless redefined elsewhere), not the absolute power. In other words, not only can he not exercise this power without the assistance of all the bishops, but he doesn’t even have that power, in any way shape or form, without the assistance of the other bishops.

I did entertain the idea that he did have a form of absolute power as the successor to St Peter, but the only way that this can be so is if he is the successor to St Peter as an Apostle, not just only a bishop. But I can’t claim to hold “catholic” ideas if no one else has ever taught such a thing.

In the absence of the Pope another could take his place. Hence the 2nd Ecumenical was such before the Pope’s confirmation. If that is not the case, then we don’t have a Nicene Creed! You see if the 3rd Ecumenical actually proceeded the 2nd in terms of it’s Ecumenical character, the 3rd outlawed any additions to the Creed! The part of the Creed that was added by the 2nd would have no Ecumenical force.

Sorry for the misunderstanding. I don’t believe I ever called it a “Mystery.” My only point was that one should not take little snippets of dogmatic teachings to form one’s own caricature of that teaching. Would you agree with that? Please respond.

The little snippet you are referring to is the only place in V1 where an anathema is issued to those who do not accept it. I see how other parts of it spell out a High Petrine view, but to me this is simply a counterdiction. I can’t think of anything worse doctrinally then to dogmatize a counterdiction!!! — This is what I was referring to when I said that the whole thing was driving me crazy! You see, the only way for an anathema to be issued on a counterdiction is for the one issuing the anathema (Rome) to be condemning itself! There’s no sane way for me to take this seriously.

I am 100% positive I have never stated at any point in time that the Pope has “absolute power.” I think you are imposing a meaning on the phrase “absolute fullness of supreme power” that is not there. To be more precise, I think you are (mis)interpreting the phrase “absolute fullness of supreme power” to be “fullness of absolute power.” Am I correct in that assumption?

No. I shouln’t have tried to get away with a paraphrase. Here’s a quote and reference:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=7615730&postcount=360

Harnack highlights what I stated earlier in this thread about potestas and auctoritas. The bishop of Rome may have authority by divine right (potestas), but it is of no effect without the auctoritas admitted by the Church. Indeed, though Pope St. Victor had the authority to excommunicate the Churches of Asia, he was opposed by almost the rest of the bishops, and accordingly corrected himself. His authority was personal, but its exercise was collegial.

Blessings,
Marduk

…continued…

 

[JohnVIII]

…continued…

If so, all you have to understand is that the term “absolute power” is not equivalent to “supreme power.” Any standard dictionary will tell you that “absolute power” refers to a certain type of power that has no limits. That is very different from the concept of “supreme power.” “Supreme” simply means “highest.” It by no means denotes nor connotes, especially in the Church, the concept of “absolute.” Absolute power is able to be exercised at the mere discretion or choosing of the wielder of absolute power. “Supreme power,” on the other hand, simply means the “highest power” in relation to all other powers. For example, the Patriarch holds “supreme power” in his patriarchate, but not “absolute power.” Not even the Ecumenical Council, which has “supreme power” in the Church, has “absolute power,” for the very reason that even an Ecumenical Council is subject to the Laws of Christ, and the dogmatic Decrees of prior Ecumenical Councils. Are you beginning to see the difference between “supreme power” and “absolute power”? Absolute power has no limits, but merely supreme power is indeed limited in its exercise.

If you can see the difference, then I hope you will concede that the phrase “absolute fullness of supreme power” is by no means a statement that the Pope has “absolute power.” The “absolute fullness of supreme power” simply and concisely means that whatever prereogatives of this “supreme power” (which, by definition, has limits) the Pope possesses, he has the absolute fullness of that (delimited) power.

I do concede that the phrase “absolute fullness of supreme power” is by no means a statement that the Pope has “absolute power.”. So, to properly re-phase what I said, I will now say that I cannot accept that the Pope personally has the “absolute fullness of supreme power”. It is not enough to say that he may not exercise it except collegiality, he also may only posses it when he is together with all the bishops.

I believe you are failing to consider the historical and circumstantial contexts in which these canons were given. Would you be willing to take a look at those contexts? I would explain it right now, but I don’t have the time. I’ll do so if you are willing to consider what I would offer you on the matter.

Blessings,
Marduk

Ok. In another thread, after Holy Pascha. God bless!

 

[JohnVIII]

I can honestly say that I’m coming to the point where I believe that Rome was always accorded more than a primacy of honor by the Church, but exactly what I’m still considering

I still believe that excessive power of the Pope first started mainly by the Eastern Bishops ironically. It was at the 4th Ecumenical, when the council wanted to give Pope Leo the title of “Universal Bishop”, which Pope Leo refused.

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Don,

I can honestly say that I’m coming to the point where I believe that Rome was always accorded more than a primacy of honor by the Church, but exactly what I’m still considering

Whatever it is, you can be sure, and I (as well as many others here) can guarantee you, that it is not at all the “absolute power” that Absolutist Petrine exaggerators and Low Petrine fearmongerers like to pretend it is.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[kotim]

Mardukm, I am a latin Catholic in Australia and grew up Catholic as indeed I still am.

For all intents and purposes the laypeople believe that the Pope is like the King, he has ultiamte authority, it does not matter whether it is true or not, simply becasue to the vast majority of the faithful the Pope does not speak to them personally so to speak.

All people know is that the Church has laws rules and beliefs and that they should obey them and for their own purpose the Pope is the ultimate power in the Church.

The reality is no doubt different from this but it is only relevent to a few, as far as their lives are concerned.

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Adrian,

Thank you for such a clear explanation of your position. I hope the foregoing explanation from me will be equally clear.

No. If it were not dogmatic the 5% wouldn’t matter. No one would be under judgment for holding differing opinions, as I’m certain the early Church tolerated differing opinions on this matter.

Are you sure? The only ones who did not agree that the Church of Rome was the orthodox standard of the Faith in the first millenium were (1) those who misunderstood her doctrinal position (e.g., miaphysites, St. Photius, etc.), and (2) heretics (Arians, pneumatomachi, Eutychians, iconoclasts, etc.). At the risk of sounding sarcastic, in which group would you place yourself? Or is there another group in the first millenium that represents your position?

In other words, not only can he not exercise this power without the assistance of all the bishops, but he doesn’t even have that power, in any way shape or form, without the assistance of the other bishops.

Yes, this is one of the differences between the High Petrine view and Low Petrine view. The Low Petrine view claims that head bishops have no jurisdiction outside of their own local diocese. That’s obviously something I cannot agree with, because the first millenium Church never believed nor practiced such a novelty.

Please help me to understand your position more clearly. In the following, I use as a model the Metropolitan See. Any considerations here can be applied equally at the other levels of the episcopal hierarchy (i.e., patriarchal and universal). By saying that “he doesn’t even have that power, in any way, shape or form, without the assistance of the other bishops,” are you claiming that:
(1) The Metropolitan is purely and simply a mouthpiece of his brother bishops?
(2) The Metropolitan has no executive, legislative, nor executive powers inherent in his office?
(3) The Metropolitan has no independent thought or action, but is merely a puppet of the majority?
(4) The Metropolitan has no authority to correct a heretical bishop within his metropolitan jurisdiction? Since he has no inherent authority to judge, he cannot correct a heretical bishop, and the local Church must suffer heresy until all the opinions of the other bishops are tallied - who cares if it’s one or several years before all the bishops make their own decisions?

I did entertain the idea that he did have a form of absolute power as the successor to St Peter, but the only way that this can be so is if he is the successor to St Peter as an Apostle, not just only a bishop. But I can’t claim to hold “catholic” ideas if no one else has ever taught such a thing.

Yes, the Catholic Church has never taught such a thing. But the bad premise is not “he is an Apostle, not just a bishop.” The bad premise is the idea that the Pope has “absolute power” of any sort. If you understand this to be the actual false premise, then you no longer even have to concern yourself with determining whether or not the Pope is an Apostle or just a bishop.

In the absence of the Pope another could take his place. Hence the 2nd Ecumenical was such before the Pope’s confirmation. If that is not the case, then we don’t have a Nicene Creed! You see if the 3rd Ecumenical actually proceeded the 2nd in terms of it’s Ecumenical character, the 3rd outlawed any additions to the Creed! The part of the Creed that was added by the 2nd would have no Ecumenical force.

There are three problems with your argument here:
(1) It is an indisputable historical fact that the 3rd Ecumenical Council did not accept the 381 Constantinopolitan Council as Ecumenical. Read the Acts of the Council yourself, and you will find that the only Council admitted by Ephesus to have had an ecumenical character was the Council of Nicea.
(2) You are assuming that when the 3rd used the phrase pistin eteran, it meant “different textual Creed” (than Nicea). If you interpret it that way, then the 3rd would have condemned the 2nd Ecum for making additions to the text of the Nicene Creed. But if you understand pistin eteran to mean “different Faith,” then there is no problem, for even though the 2nd added text to the Nicene Creed (making it a different textual Creed), the additional text in no way represented a different Faith.
(3) If you are saying that the 3rd outlawed a different textual Creed, then the 4th would have condemned itself, because the Creed proposed by the 4th indeed added even more text to the Creed of Nicea-Constantinople. But if we understand that the 3rd only outlawed a different Faith, then the 4th did not violate the dogmatic decree of the 3rd.

The little snippet you are referring to is the only place in V1 where an anathema is issued to those who do not accept it. I see how other parts of it spell out a High Petrine view, but to me this is simply a counterdiction. I can’t think of anything worse doctrinally then to dogmatize a counterdiction!!! — This is what I was referring to when I said that the whole thing was driving me crazy! You see, the only way for an anathema to be issued on a counterdiction is for the one issuing the anathema (Rome) to be condemning itself! There’s no sane way for me to take this seriously.

But you admit that the Canon does not teach that the Pope has absolute power. So what contradiction are you talking about? Please explain.

.Ok. In another thread, after Holy Pascha. God bless!

Agreed.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

Mardukm, I am a latin Catholic in Australia and grew up Catholic as indeed I still am.

For all intents and purposes the laypeople believe that the Pope is like the King, he has ultiamte authority, it does not matter whether it is true or not, simply becasue to the vast majority of the faithful the Pope does not speak to them personally so to speak.

All people know is that the Church has laws rules and beliefs and that they should obey them and for their own purpose the Pope is the ultimate power in the Church.

The reality is no doubt different from this but it is only relevent to a few, as far as their lives are concerned.

Thanks for the explanation. I guess we are on the same page after all.

Btw, you used the terms “ultimate authority.” Does the word “ultimate” denote “absolute” in Austrialian? I mean, in terms of power or authority, does saying “ultimate authority/power” mean the same thing as saying “absolute authority/power,” keeping in mind that the latter is defined as something that has no limits.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Alfonsus]

Btw, the understanding of “primacy” as espoused by the Orthodox Church (although there is no unanimous understanding what primacy should be), is this a specific Byzantine understanding?

Marduk said that the multi-tier hierarchical governance of the church is also exists in the OO communion. So that means the church governance in the Catholic communion is simmilar or closer to the OO way of governance.
Can you elaborate that brother Marduk?
For instance, what is the relation between Coptic Patriarch with the Etiopian Church or Armenian Church for instance.

What of other Eastern Church, say, the Assyrian for instance?

I have a guess that in the Orthodox Church, the highest tier (universal) was actually held by the Emperor. The absence of the Byzantine Emperor made the universal level defunct and make patriarchates independent islands.

 

[Aramis]

Btw, the understanding of “primacy” as espoused by the Orthodox Church (although there is no unanimous understanding what primacy should be), is this a specific Byzantine understanding?

Pretty much, yes. Until the 20th C, the Eastern Orthodox Churches (note the plural - there really isn’t ONE Orthodox Church), were exclusively Byzantine Rite; in the 20th, the Russians and Antiochians both added support for a syncretic Romano-byzantine rite as well.

 

[Fone_Bone_2001]

Mardukm, I am a latin Catholic in Australia and grew up Catholic as indeed I still am.

For all intents and purposes the laypeople believe that the Pope is like the King, he has ultiamte authority, it does not matter whether it is true or not, simply becasue to the vast majority of the faithful the Pope does not speak to them personally so to speak.

All people know is that the Church has laws rules and beliefs and that they should obey them and for their own purpose the Pope is the ultimate power in the Church.

The reality is no doubt different from this but it is only relevent to a few, as far as their lives are concerned.

Kotim, I disagree. I’m not saying you’re wrong, but I am saying that this is not my experience growing up as a Latin Catholic in the United States.

I was always taught that all the Church’s bishops are successors to Christ’s Apostles, and that each bishop possesses and exercises true headship in his particular church/diocese.

Furthermore, “the reality as far as my life is concerned” has actually also corresponded in a practical way with what I was taught. I often noticed growing up just how many decisions - significant ones - were and are consistently regarded as being genuinely in the hands of our local bishop.

Anyway, I’m not really arguing with you - we’ve just had different experiences of the Latin Church, that’s all. But I am confident that your experience is not the norm. I always felt, even as a child, that my bishop was truly running my diocese and not simply handing down orders from the pope. I always felt that the pope respected my bishop’s proper authority.

 

[kotim]

Everybody knows that their is a hierarchy, with the bishops being in charge etc, BUT what I am saying is that when it comes to what view people have of the pope, they see him as the ultimate boss, with ultimate power. I have had such a discussion with numeorus people and they mostly have that impression becasue the knowledge of the lay faithful is very limited, so they do not see the differences.

It is the logical extension of having a high Petrine view of the Church, it means that you have to have extnesive knowledge to actually see the difference and understand why High Petrine view is not the sam eas absolute Petrine view.

It is much easier for humans to identify with a principal point of contact than for them to identify with a group of rulers, its as simple as that. That is why we always have a leader.

I agree with the view that the Pope has a lot of power and authroity, but he does not have all and absolute power and authority .

 

[Alexander_Roman]

Well, I don’t what all the fuss is about. If the Pope really did have the kind of power our Roman Catholic friends have been talking about, the Ukrainian Catholic Church would have no problem procuring recognition of its patriarchate and would also have no problem expanding its work throughout Ukraine.

Since Rome defers to the feelings of the Russian Orthodox Church (and in so doing, tacitly accepts that the ROC has jurisdiction over Ukraine as a hold-over from the Stalinist and Tsarist times), this shows that Rome is not the ultimate power in the Catholic Church - the Moscow Patriarch is.

UGCC people are very tired of the papal supremacist views of Roman Catholics. We want to tell our RC friends to get with the new program! What you believe belongs to yesteryear.

I will, however, join with you in pining after the “good old days” when Popes acted as plenipotentiaries and especially favoured those who suffered for union with Rome.

Ah, yes, the good old days . . .

Alex

 

[JohnVIII]

Having the Pope as a last resort is a “critical part of this apparatus”? I take it that you would disagree with the decision that the local church of Carthage made in 419 AD:

Canon #134 of the Regional Council of Carthage, 419 AD:
“It has pleased the Counsel to decree that if Presbyters, Deacons, and other lower Clerics in whatever causes they may have are not satisfied with the decision of their own Bishops, the shall be heard and the differences between them shall be adjusted by those whom they may appoint with the consent of their own Bishop to review their case. But if they want to take an appeal even from the decision rendered by these men, they shall have no right to an appeal, except to the votes of the African Council or to the Primates of their own provinces, As for anyone that insists upon carrying an appeal across the sea [Rome], let him not be received in communion by anyone in Africa.”

Dear brother Adrian…

I believe you are failing to consider the historical and circumstantial contexts in which these canons were given. Would you be willing to take a look at those contexts? I would explain it right now, but I don’t have the time. I’ll do so if you are willing to consider what I would offer you on the matter.

Blessings,
Marduk

Ok. In another thread, after Holy Pascha. God bless!

Agreed.

Blessings,
Marduk

I started a new thread to address this issue:

… new thread

 

[Cecilianus]

At the risk of using a distinction sometimes considered overworn and chliched, may I suggest the underlying difficulty here is that all of us - Roman Catholics, Eastern Catholics, and Eastern Orthodox - are using the legal or forensic model of authority in the Church without taking a step back and looking at the nature of this model itself?

As I understand both the Eastern (a la Fr. Stephen Freeman) and Thomistic position, all theological language is used analogically. In the West, the predominant or prevailing model is what Fr. Freeman calls the “forensic metaphor” - applying legal terminology from Roman law as the set of vocabulary with which to express theological language. I do not accept the next logical step the Orthodox make, that because Roman Catholic theology is “legal” and “rational” it is therefore “legalistic” and “rationalistic”. But I do think we need to remember that the whole notion of the Pope having “authority” and “jurisdiction” is (a) an analogous use of language, and (b) one metaphor among several possible manners of description. As has been noted above, the Pope cannot change or add to or alter the deposit of Faith. His authority comes not from himself but from the Holy Spirit; he is the “vicar of Christ”, not a ruler in his own right.

Developing its theology further, the Roman Catholic Church has expressed a connection between jurisdiction and service. The Pope’s most often-used title is “Servant of the Servants of God”. His jurisdiction consists in his service to the Church, not his lordship over it.

Service in the Biblical sense means conforming oneself to the likeness of Christ, and therefore becoming deified by Him. It is no accident that the Holy Eucharist and the sacred priesthood were instituted at the Last Supper after the washing of feet - when Christ ordered His disciples to also serve each other and wash each other’s feet. Christ was giving them the authority or “jurisdiction” of the priesthood (as He also did when He breathed on them and said “whose sins you forgive, etc.”, and when He said “Do this in memory of Me,” etc).

This is why the Ultramontane Roman Catholic view of the Pope’s ordinary and universal jurisdiction, applying the forensic model, is in harmony with the Eastern view of the episcopacy. In the East, the bishop is primarily thought of not in terms of authority but in terms of (a) his ontological status as head of his church, and (b) his function as guardian of Orthodoxy. Guardianship of Orthodoxy is only achieved through grace or sanctity or theosis - according to Protopresbyter Romanides in The Ancestral Sin, the reason why an Ecumenical Council speaks infallibly and with authority is not because of the approval of the Pope but because the Fathers were deified by grace. (Explaining the ultramontane position as I did above, though, this is a false disjunction between equivalent expressions.)

Every bishop is a Pope of his eparchy, strengthened by the grace of Holy Orders to serve and defend the Orthodoxy of his eparchy or diocese, and it is this service and guardianship that constitutes what Roman Catholic terminology calls “jurisdiction”. In the East, bishops conduct the charges entrusted to them with admirable pastorship and fatherly care, and consequently there is relatively little function for the Pope to perform - hence one can say no jurisdiction. The Pope just can’t arbitrarily wake up one day and meddle in another bishop’s affairs for no reason. In the West, the Pope has traditionally taken a much stronger role in the overall governing of the Western Church and bishops have been usually off-the-wall lunatics, especially in the last two centuries. This is explained in part by political causes (Babylonian Captivity leading to the problems that caused the Protestant Revolt which caused the secular “Enlightenment” and the subsequent dialectic of conflict between the Church and the world, ergo a Church full of heretic bishops like the sort you find in America today), in part by the Western desire to explain everything rationally and analytically and experiment in the liturgy and in theology (once the “bare minimum” for transubstantiation has been defined, for example, the rest of the Canon is available for dicking around with), and in part by the very hierarchical legal model governing theology.

So the Pope needs to step in and perform his function as guardian of Orthodoxy, and just as in his function as local primate he appoints bishops, in his function of guardian of Orthodoxy he occasionally (frequently) needs to sack them. If Western bishops sometimes look like middle-management in a big corporation, then it’s because they’re acting like middle-management and failing to govern their flocks - not because the Pope is infringing on their rights.

In the end, everything works out fine (post-Vatican II chaos excepted). If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.

 

[Alexander_Roman]

Btw, the understanding of “primacy” as espoused by the Orthodox Church (although there is no unanimous understanding what primacy should be), is this a specific Byzantine understanding?

Marduk said that the multi-tier hierarchical governance of the church is also exists in the OO communion. So that means the church governance in the Catholic communion is simmilar or closer to the OO way of governance.
Can you elaborate that brother Marduk?
For instance, what is the relation between Coptic Patriarch with the Etiopian Church or Armenian Church for instance.

What of other Eastern Church, say, the Assyrian for instance?

I have a guess that in the Orthodox Church, the highest tier (universal) was actually held by the Emperor. The absence of the Byzantine Emperor made the universal level defunct and make patriarchates independent islands.

The highest tier in the Eastern Church in the days of the Emperor was really that of Old Rome itself and the Patriarch of New Rome. The Emperor was a guardian of the Church, did exercise real control over it and helped support it by calling Ecumenical Councils and the like. Twenty Byzantine Emperors and Empresses figure in the Eastern calendar.

However, the role of the Emperor was never like that of a patriarch or pope. Emperors lost the respect of their people when they fell into heresy. Emperors tried to exercise control over the Church simply to unite their people so ruling them would be more fluid. Christians could and would rebel against the emperors in defence of orthodoxy.

The Eastern Churches have always governed themselves with their patriarchs and primates internally on the basis of the Church canons. The Pope or Ec Patriarch could intervene if the canons, held as binding by all, were broken. And the Pope would have a “first among equals” status, especially at the table of an Ec. Council.

This collegial model of church unity and government existed in the first millennium of the united Church. It continues to exist within Orthodoxy.

And I would venture to say it exists within Roman Catholicism today. The national conferences of Latin Bishops tend to act as particular Churches. The Pope’s directives also tend to “trickle down” and are subject to how those episcopal conferences interpret and implement them - or choose to ignore them altogether.

There is greater “orthodoxy” of faith and practice in this regard within Orthodoxy and Eastern Catholicism today than within Roman Catholicism.

The fact that a pope today will agree that an EC Church should be a patriarchate, but will defer to what a lowly Cardinal will say shows that the papacy is not the papacy it used to be, nor is it anything resembling the monarchical structure it used to be.

The fact that a pope today would be constrained in his dealings with his loyal Eastern Catholics on the basis of what, say, the Moscow Patriarchate will say about his actions underlines this.

If I were a Roman Catholic, I would be concerned about how papal authority has become watered down to an ipso facto collegial context, even involving non-Catholic political influences.

The question then becomes - what is the real (or imagined) authority of the papacy in contemporary times?

Alex

 

[Fone_Bone_2001]

At the risk of using a distinction sometimes considered overworn and chliched, may I suggest the underlying difficulty here is that all of us - Roman Catholics, Eastern Catholics, and Eastern Orthodox - are using the legal or forensic model of authority in the Church without taking a step back and looking at the nature of this model itself?

As I understand both the Eastern (a la Fr. Stephen Freeman) and Thomistic position, all theological language is used analogically. In the West, the predominant or prevailing model is what Fr. Freeman calls the “forensic metaphor” - applying legal terminology from Roman law as the set of vocabulary with which to express theological language. I do not accept the next logical step the Orthodox make, that because Roman Catholic theology is “legal” and “rational” it is therefore “legalistic” and “rationalistic”. But I do think we need to remember that the whole notion of the Pope having “authority” and “jurisdiction” is (a) an analogous use of language, and (b) one metaphor among several possible manners of description. As has been noted above, the Pope cannot change or add to or alter the deposit of Faith. His authority comes not from himself but from the Holy Spirit; he is the “vicar of Christ”, not a ruler in his own right.

Developing its theology further, the Roman Catholic Church has expressed a connection between jurisdiction and service. The Pope’s most often-used title is “Servant of the Servants of God”. His jurisdiction consists in his service to the Church, not his lordship over it.

Service in the Biblical sense means conforming oneself to the likeness of Christ, and therefore becoming deified by Him. It is no accident that the Holy Eucharist and the sacred priesthood were instituted at the Last Supper after the washing of feet - when Christ ordered His disciples to also serve each other and wash each other’s feet. Christ was giving them the authority or “jurisdiction” of the priesthood (as He also did when He breathed on them and said “whose sins you forgive, etc.”, and when He said “Do this in memory of Me,” etc).

This is why the Ultramontane Roman Catholic view of the Pope’s ordinary and universal jurisdiction, applying the forensic model, is in harmony with the Eastern view of the episcopacy. In the East, the bishop is primarily thought of not in terms of authority but in terms of (a) his ontological status as head of his church, and (b) his function as guardian of Orthodoxy. Guardianship of Orthodoxy is only achieved through grace or sanctity or theosis - according to Protopresbyter Romanides in The Ancestral Sin, the reason why an Ecumenical Council speaks infallibly and with authority is not because of the approval of the Pope but because the Fathers were deified by grace. (Explaining the ultramontane position as I did above, though, this is a false disjunction between equivalent expressions.)

Every bishop is a Pope of his eparchy, strengthened by the grace of Holy Orders to serve and defend the Orthodoxy of his eparchy or diocese, and it is this service and guardianship that constitutes what Roman Catholic terminology calls “jurisdiction”. In the East, bishops conduct the charges entrusted to them with admirable pastorship and fatherly care, and consequently there is relatively little function for the Pope to perform - hence one can say no jurisdiction. The Pope just can’t arbitrarily wake up one day and meddle in another bishop’s affairs for no reason. In the West, the Pope has traditionally taken a much stronger role in the overall governing of the Western Church and bishops have been usually off-the-wall lunatics, especially in the last two centuries. This is explained in part by political causes (Babylonian Captivity leading to the problems that caused the Protestant Revolt which caused the secular “Enlightenment” and the subsequent dialectic of conflict between the Church and the world, ergo a Church full of heretic bishops like the sort you find in America today), in part by the Western desire to explain everything rationally and analytically and experiment in the liturgy and in theology (once the “bare minimum” for transubstantiation has been defined, for example, the rest of the Canon is available for dicking around with), and in part by the very hierarchical legal model governing theology.

So the Pope needs to step in and perform his function as guardian of Orthodoxy, and just as in his function as local primate he appoints bishops, in his function of guardian of Orthodoxy he occasionally (frequently) needs to sack them. If Western bishops sometimes look like middle-management in a big corporation, then it’s because they’re acting like middle-management and failing to govern their flocks - not because the Pope is infringing on their rights.

In the end, everything works out fine (post-Vatican II chaos excepted). If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.

Well said.

 

[DoctorAngelicus]

The Pope exercises absolute authority in the Catholic Church, this includes the Latin Church and all other Churches in communion with Rome. These particular churches are given a degree of autonomy according to their own laws and customs, but the Bishop of Rome still exercises supreme Papal authority, for he is the Vicar of Christ.

 

[Alfonsus]

My own opinion seems to gravitate to understand that collegiality in the Orthodox Church is a nice concept but not practical. The most troubling is because there is yet no one agreed understanding what primacy means.

That is why Emperor came to my mind. History shows he can raise and dispose bishops, even patriarchs within his kingdom.

He may serve the church by ordering a council to gather. Current pan-orthodox meeting would be a reality by an Emperor order.

But seems like the OO have different church governance, different from the Byzantine way of governance. That is why I’m very interested to hear from Marduk, the way it is exercised in the OO communion.

 

[Alfonsus]

The Pope exercises absolute authority in the Catholic Church, this includes the Latin Church and all other Churches in communion with Rome. These particular churches are given a degree of autonomy according to their own laws and customs, but the Bishop of Rome still exercises supreme Papal authority, for he is the Vicar of Christ.

Supreme, we can agree. Absolute, no he is not.