Isn't Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew, essentially a "pope" like figure in the Orthodox Church?

[Jimmy_B]

Isn’t Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew, essentially a “pope” like figure in the Orthodox Church? He is, after all “first among equals”.

What’s the differences between his role in the Orthodox Church and the Pope’s role in the Roman Catholic Church?

Some titles of the Roman Catholic Popes

· Bishop of Rome
· Vicar of Jesus Christ
· Successor of the Chief of the Apostles
· Supreme pontiff of the Universal Church
· Roman Pontiff
· Patriarch of the West
· The Primate of Italy
· Archbishop and Metropolitan of the Roman Province

Some titles of the top Patriarch

· His All-Holiness the Archbishop of Constantinople New Rome and Ecumenical Patriarch
· First among equals
· His All Holiness
· The Spiritual Leader of the Orthodox Church
· Bartholomew I
· Archbishop of Constantinople - New Rome
· Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople
· First in Honour among all the Eastern Orthodox Bishops

 

[ConstantineTG]

Not really. I don’t think he has something like the Roman Curia which essentially governs the Orthodox Churches.

 

[StrawberryJam]

Isn’t Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew, essentially a “pope” like figure in the Orthodox Church? He is, after all “first among equals”.

What’s the differences between his role in the Orthodox Church and the Pope’s role in the Roman Catholic Church?

Some titles of the Roman Catholic Popes

· Bishop of Rome
· Vicar of Jesus Christ
· Successor of the Chief of the Apostles
· Supreme pontiff of the Universal Church
· Roman Pontiff
· Patriarch of the West
· The Primate of Italy
· Archbishop and Metropolitan of the Roman Province

Some titles of the top Patriarch

· His All-Holiness the Archbishop of Constantinople New Rome and Ecumenical Patriarch
· First among equals
· His All Holiness
· The Spiritual Leader of the Orthodox Church
· Bartholomew I
· Archbishop of Constantinople - New Rome
· Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople
· First in Honour among all the Eastern Orthodox Bishops

I cant figure out if he was or was not present for the current Pope’s innaguration ceremony. So many were from the Eastern Chuch, I just can’t make out who they all were and why they even wanted to be there to begin with.

 

[Jimmy_B]

Not really. I don’t think he has something like the Roman Curia which essentially governs the Orthodox Churches.

Good point but I meant, more in the context of how Orthodox Christians view him and his position within the Orthodox Church. In other words, is he viewed the same way that we (Roman Catholics) view Bishops or how we view the Pope?

 

[StrawberryJam]

Good point but I meant, more in the context of how Orthodox Christians view him and his position within the Orthodox Church. In other words, is he viewed the same way that we (Roman Catholics) view Bishops or how we view the Pope?

Are you serious? He has no Popemoblie. The public at large could care less what he does.

 

[Jimmy_B]

Are you serious? He has no Popemoblie. The public at large could care less what he does.

Ok thanks… didn’t know. I always thought that he, or anyone in his position had a prominent role within the Orthodox Church, at a very minimum, their head spokesperson, or head representative. Am I wrong?

 

[Cavaradossi]

Ok thanks… didn’t know. I always thought that he, or anyone in his position had a prominent role within the Orthodox Church, at a very minimum, their head spokesperson, or head representative. Am I wrong?

His position is a bit more complicated than that. He is held in high esteem, and he is a representative in some ways, but he’s not quite like the Pope. He doesn’t have the same teaching authority in the Orthodox Church as the Pope does in the Roman Catholic Church. If he says something, it’s really more of a personal opinion, and it may or may not reflect how the Church as a whole feels (this is most obvious when the Church is divided on issues, like on the issue of ecumenism). Fortunately, it just so happens that his opinion is usually reflective of the Church’s opinion.

 

[StrawberryJam]

His position is a bit more complicated than that. He is held in high esteem, and he is a representative in some ways, but he’s not quite like the Pope. He doesn’t have the same teaching authority in the Orthodox Church as the Pope does in the Roman Catholic Church. If he says something, it’s really more of a personal opinion, and it may or may not reflect how the Church as a whole feels (this is most obvious when the Church is divided on issues, like on the issue of ecumenism). Fortunately, it just so happens that his opinion is usually reflective of the Church’s opinion.

Government sponsored religion usually helps keep the thing going. Times have changed for both sides of the fence. Neither will end up in a place they were in the past.
They will fight against each other rather than try to survive.
Both hurting each other in the process.
Neither will end up unscathed.

 

[Cavaradossi]

Government sponsored religion usually helps keep the thing going. Times have changed for both sides of the fence. Neither will end up in a place they were in the past.
They will fight against each other rather than try to survive.
Both hurting each other in the process.
Neither will end up unscathed.

I’m not sure what that has to do with my post.

 

[Jimmy_B]

His position is a bit more complicated than that. He is held in high esteem, and he is a representative in some ways, but he’s not quite like the Pope. He doesn’t have the same teaching authority in the Orthodox Church as the Pope does in the Roman Catholic Church. If he says something, it’s really more of a personal opinion, and it may or may not reflect how the Church as a whole feels (this is most obvious when the Church is divided on issues, like on the issue of ecumenism). Fortunately, it just so happens that his opinion is usually reflective of the Church’s opinion.

Thank you.

 

[FabiusMaximus]

His position is a bit more complicated than that. He is held in high esteem, and he is a representative in some ways, but he’s not quite like the Pope. He doesn’t have the same teaching authority in the Orthodox Church as the Pope does in the Roman Catholic Church. If he says something, it’s really more of a personal opinion, and it may or may not reflect how the Church as a whole feels (this is most obvious when the Church is divided on issues, like on the issue of ecumenism). Fortunately, it just so happens that his opinion is usually reflective of the Church’s opinion.

Would it be accurate to say, though, that in the past, the Ecumenical Patriarch at least claimed to have a wide authority over the Church? I recall there were significant disputes over the Russian Orthodox Church’s autocephaly, as well as the other Eastern European churches, primarily because it was unilateral and without the EP’s permission. The same would go, if I’m correct, concerning the Orthodox Church in America, which was granted autocephaly by the Russian Church but not recognized by Constantinople because they didn’t approve it first.

 

[Bluegoat]

No, there are powers the Pope claims which the EP does not have.

For example, while Orthodoxy would say the Church can at times speak infallibly, that power doesn’t belong to the EP. He can’t make or enforce a decision on the whole of the OC. He doesn’t have the kind of control over other bishops or patriarchs the Pope does, he doesn’t get to decide who is a bishop, and I don’t believe he has any say over who other bishops and patriarchs recognize as Orthodox. He can’t decide to remove a bishop on his own or appoint one in another patriarch’s area. It is theoretically entirely possible for a counsel to make a decision against what he decides, or even I think to remove him.

 

[Defender1]

Good point but I meant, more in the context of how Orthodox Christians view him and his position within the Orthodox Church. In other words, is he viewed the same way that we (Roman Catholics) view Bishops or how we view the Pope?

I am not quite clear on Orthadox leaders yet , I am aware the the Coptics base their foundation on St. Mark who founded the Coptic church in Egypt . I would assume that their main leader is a successor of St. Mark as the Pope is successor of ST. Peter (I mean no disrespect I love the Coptic church please correct me if I am wrong )

 

[JRKH]

Interesting Thread. Learning a lot.

If my understanding is correct the answer to the OP’s question is yes AND no.

There are fundamental differences in the development of the Church in the East and West that have driven very different views of what the papacy means.
One very fundamental difference is the relationship of the Pope/Patriarch to the Emperor/civil ruler.
In the Roman Empire in the west after the fall of the the Pope became very much of a civil “King” in his own right as well as "Bishop of Rome, Vicar of Christ etc. In the East, specifically Constantinople, the development was different with the Emperor exercising civil authority and the Patriarch exercising spiritual authority. (I’m over-simplifying here).

A second difference grew out of this. The East has maintained a more councilior model when it comes to developing and defining doctrine. The west has moved away from this to an extent. I believe this has occurred due to the “dual role” of the papal office in Rome for so many centuries.
I’m not saying that the Pope has become a “dictator” or that the Patriarch(s) are powerless, but simply that the relationship between “council” and “chair of Peter” (ex Cathedra) are viewed very differently in the two Churches.

So in short the answer to the OP’s question is complicated by some very deep and fundamental differences in how the East and West govern themselves.

The above is understandings I have comet to from my observations. I am open to correction on any of them.

Peace
James

 

[Volkov]

With all due respect to the OP, I think you’re thinking in Latin terms and transplanting these into places they don’t fit at all.

In a word: No, he is not the equivalent of the Pope. The Patriarch of Constantinople doesn’t have the temporal or ecclesiastical power of the Pope, nor does he claim to.

First among equals means primacy of honor, which is what the Pope would have were he in communion with the Orthodox. It does not mean jurisdictional supremacy or supremacy over the affairs of autonomous national churches. He is like an older brother in the family who may be appealed to for guidance or looked up to by younger siblings, but he is still a sibling, not a parent.

We hold the Patriarch in this place of honor because of his historic See. But that does not preclude disagreements, as have been ongoing for some time between Moscow and Constantinople over various issues, mostly related to canonical territory. Yet despite the disagreements, neither side is less Orthodox. There is no chairman of the board in Orthodoxy equivalent to the Pope of the Catholic Church, nor does the Patriarch of Constantinople possess the power to proclaim anything infallibly. Conciliarity is a big thing for the Orthodox. There is no figurehead equivalent to the Pope, despite Western media efforts which often make it seem thus. This is the most common misunderstanding about the Orthodox I think you will encounter.

 

[fred_conty]

With all due respect to the OP, I think you’re thinking in Latin terms and transplanting these into places they don’t fit at all.

In a word: No, he is not the equivalent of the Pope. The Patriarch of Constantinople doesn’t have the temporal or ecclesiastical power of the Pope, nor does he claim to.

First among equals means primacy of honor, which is what the Pope would have were he in communion with the Orthodox. It does not mean jurisdictional supremacy or supremacy over the affairs of autonomous national churches. He is like an older brother in the family who may be appealed to for guidance or looked up to by younger siblings, but he is still a sibling, not a parent.

We hold the Patriarch in this place of honor because of his historic See. But that does not preclude disagreements, as have been ongoing for some time between Moscow and Constantinople over various issues, mostly related to canonical territory. Yet despite the disagreements, neither side is less Orthodox. There is no chairman of the board in Orthodoxy equivalent to the Pope of the Catholic Church, nor does the Patriarch of Constantinople possess the power to proclaim anything infallibly. Conciliarity is a big thing for the Orthodox. There is no figurehead equivalent to the Pope, despite Western media efforts which often make it seem thus. This is the most common misunderstanding about the Orthodox I think you will encounter.

Hi,
So the Orthodox church does not have a head in cases of important disagreement.
Then how would these be resolved, especially if there was equal disagreement?
Thank you.

 

[Volkov]

I’m honesty a bit baffled by this insistence on the Church needing an individual temporal “head” (“the buck stops here!”) in cases of disagreement. The Patriarch of Constantinople does enjoy some canonical prerogatives, such as calling and presiding at pan-Orthodox councils (synods). If issues were serious enough, I suppose a council of bishops would be called and the matter would be decided there. Otherwise, problems tend to be worked out informally, perhaps with the assistance of other brother Patriarchs as mediators.

But the implication is that somehow the Church wouldn’t function well without a Pope-like figure (with the current array of prerogatives accorded that position) seems misguided. After all, it’s worked for us for some two thousand years. (And a thousand or so since the Schism and gradual break of communion with Rome.)

Peace.

 

[PJM]

=Jimmy B;8267318]Isn’t Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew, essentially a “pope” like figure in the Orthodox Church? He is, after all “first among equals”.

What’s the differences between his role in the Orthodox Church and the Pope’s role in the Roman Catholic Church?

Some titles of the Roman Catholic Popes

· Bishop of Rome
· Vicar of Jesus Christ
· Successor of the Chief of the Apostles
· Supreme pontiff of the Universal Church
· Roman Pontiff
· Patriarch of the West
· The Primate of Italy
· Archbishop and Metropolitan of the Roman Province

Some titles of the top Patriarch

· His All-Holiness the Archbishop of Constantinople New Rome and Ecumenical Patriarch
· First among equals
· His All Holiness
· The Spiritual Leader of the Orthodox Church
· Bartholomew I
· Archbishop of Constantinople - New Rome
· Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople
· First in Honour among all the Eastern Orthodox Bishops

Through a USURPTION of Powers not given or granted by Christ; yes.

 

[Volkov]

Through a USURPTION of Powers not given or granted by Christ; yes.

I’m amazed at the level of polemical ignorance displayed on this board. By the way, the word you’re looking for is “usurpation.”

I came here to learn more about Roman Catholicism and share my own tradition, but I’m beginning to think that was a mistake. . .

 

[JRKH]

** I’m honesty a bit baffled by this** insistence on the Church needing an individual temporal “head” (“the buck stops here!”) in cases of disagreement. The Patriarch of Constantinople does enjoy some canonical prerogatives, such as calling and presiding at pan-Orthodox councils (synods). If issues were serious enough, I suppose a council of bishops would be called and the matter would be decided there. Otherwise, problems tend to be worked out informally, perhaps with the assistance of other brother Patriarchs as mediators.

But the implication is that somehow the Church wouldn’t function well without a Pope-like figure (with the current array of prerogatives accorded that position) seems misguided. After all, it’s worked for us for some two thousand years. (And a thousand or so since the Schism and gradual break of communion with Rome.)

Peace.

This really speaks to what I mentioned in an earlier post about how the East and the West developed differently, with the East sticking with the more “councilior” model and the West going more to the curial/papal model.

It is my belief that much of this difference evolved from the fact that in the East, where the empire continued for many centuries, there was no need for the Patriarch to assume the sort of temporal authoritarian “civil” ruler roles that the Pope took on after the Fall of “western” empire.

It also gradually caused greater and greater friction between east and west as various popes/patriarchs came and went - some good, some not so good.

Peace
James