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

[Cavaradossi]

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.

You have to understand thatp “being approved by Constantinople” means approved by the synod of the Patriarchate of Constantinople. The Ecumenical Patriarch does not possess the authority to give that approval by himself. The entire Patriarchate must approve, not just its leader.

 

[Cavaradossi]

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

Yes, I do believe that is how your patriarch obtained his powers.

 

[pablope]

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 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.

Thanks for your info, Volkov. If you are well versed with this, I would appreciate your (name removed by moderator)ut, or any of our OC brethen.

I think this is related to the discussion. I just read of a issue regarding the Patriarch of Jerusalem, in that he was either deposed, removed or suspended, and the issue is still ongoing or not resolved yet (I am not sure how old the article is).

So, how was he deposed or removed/suspended? And how is the issue being dealt with?

peace…

 

[Cavaradossi]

Thanks for your info, Volkov. If you are well versed with this, I would appreciate your (name removed by moderator)ut, or any of our OC brethen.

I think this is related to the discussion. I just read of a issue regarding the Patriarch of Jerusalem, in that he was either deposed, removed or suspended, and the issue is still ongoing or not resolved yet (I am not sure how old the article is).

So, how was he deposed or removed/suspended? And how is the issue being dealt with?

peace…

He was deposed the same way that all patriarchs have been deposed, by a synod. The reason, so we are told, for his deposition is that he created some sort of deal to sell some Church land holdings to the state of Israel. Had the deal gone through, it could have potentially endangered the lives of many Christians who live in areas of Israel or Palestine with a Muslim majority.

 

[Jimmy_B]

Thanks for your info, Volkov. If you are well versed with this, I would appreciate your (name removed by moderator)ut, or any of our OC brethen…peace…

 

[PJM]

=Cavaradossi;8269406]Yes, I do believe that is how your patriarch obtained his powers.

OK, I’m listening…

Just how is this to have taken place?

God Bless you my Brother,

Pat

 

[JRKH]

=Cavaradossi;8269406]Yes, I do believe that is how your patriarch obtained his powers.

Lets keep it charitable…(a little “preemptive” reminder)

Peace
James

 

[PJM]

=JRKH;8271238]Lets keep it charitable…(a little “preemptive” reminder)

Peace
James

My First post deserved this rebuke, but this is a sincere inquiry

I’d really like to understand the though process leading to such a conclusion [minus the irony of course].

God Bless,
Pat

 

[JRKH]

My First post deserved this rebuke, but this is a sincere inquiry

I’d really like to understand the though process leading to such a conclusion [minus the irony of course].

God Bless,
Pat

Fair enough.
I just wanted to remind both sides that this is an opportunity to grow in our understanding of the other guy’s position.

Peace
James

 

[Hesychios]

Hi Pat,

I’d really like to understand the though process leading to such a conclusion [minus the irony of course].

God Bless,
Pat

Originally, the powers to install bishops was in the hands of the Metropolitan synods. That was where the real power in the church was focused,

Later, as pagan kings were converted and new dynasties arose in places the lines of kings, dukes and other nobles tended to dominate the churches in their areas. They used their considerable influence to dominate the local churches and influence episcopal appointments. This was a blight on the church in the east as well as the west.

The western solution to this problem was to promote the papacy, and this line of argument ran that the bishop of Rome should be making episcopal appointments, not the kings. And so the papacy has the same powers over the local churches that the local monarchs once enjoyed.

In the east, the solution tended to be more of a local one, freeing the church from the grip of the local kings and returning the power to govern the church and name the bishops to the local synods.

In both cases the history has been messy, a lot of embarrassing moments and false starts. Today, when we discuss the issue of the Papacy and the eastern churches we are still trying to resolve how to order the church after those hundreds of years of political domination.

Oftentimes we read from Roman Catholic literature that the Orthodox “left obedience to the Pope” as some kind of shorthand explanation of why we are separated. Historically that is not the case for two reasons:

1. 
   *]The bishop of Rome never had any actual administrative authority over any part of the east, and he shared but did not dominate the moral authority of the church.
   *]The Papacy is an anachronism, in that the full flowering of the office and our modern understanding of it comes from recent times. It was unknown in the west and the east during the first millenium.
   
   For the eastern churches to have been obedient to the Pope would presumably have meant that they were taking instructions from him and assignments from him. In fact they always had the metropolitans working in the synods for that purpose. Church obedience was to Christ, but in a practical sense was always to the church as the Synod and it’s Metropolitan, with the various ‘patriarchs’ (Metropolitans of the senior oldest churches) carrying a certain moral authority to which one could appeal, the precedent setters and sometime arbiters in disputes that might spill over now and again. These men would use their moral suasion to affect a settlement. In the first ten centuries the bishops of Rome sometimes participated in this.
   
   Ultimately, there is the ability of the church to meet in council. Members of more than one synod could meet together to agree on canons and address problems. In the western church today only the bishop of Rome can call councils and synods, but in the early centuries this was not the case, and in the eastern church it has never been so.
   
   Hopefully this in some small way helps explain why the Orthodox Catholic perspective differs from the Roman Catholic perspective.

 

[dvdjs]

For the eastern churches to have been obedient to the Pope would presumably have meant that they were taking instructions from him and assignments from him.

Not really.

Church obedience was to Christ, but in a practical sense was always to the church as the Synod and it’s Metropolitan, with the various ‘patriarchs’ (Metropolitans of the senior oldest churches) carrying a certain moral authority to which one could appeal, the precedent setters and sometime arbiters in disputes that might spill over now and again. These men would use their moral suasion to affect a settlement. In the first ten centuries the bishops of Rome sometimes participated in this.

This is much more to the point.
I think that the oftentimes read statement refers to Constaninople’s rejection of the* auctoritas* of Rome, not a claim about Rome’s potestas.

 

[PJM]

=Hesychios;8271758]Hi Pat, Originally, the powers to install bishops was in the hands of the Metropolitan synods. That was where the real power in the church was focused,

Later, as pagan kings were converted and new dynasties arose in places the lines of kings, dukes and other nobles tended to dominate the churches in their areas. They used their considerable influence to dominate the local churches and influence episcopal appointments. This was a blight on the church in the east as well as the west.

The western solution to this problem was to promote the papacy, and this line of argument ran that the bishop of Rome should be making episcopal appointments, not the kings. And so the papacy has the same powers over the local churches that the local monarchs once enjoyed.

In the east, the solution tended to be more of a local one, freeing the church from the grip of the local kings and returning the power to govern the church and name the bishops to the local synods.

In both cases the history has been messy, a lot of embarrassing moments and false starts. Today, when we discuss the issue of the Papacy and the eastern churches we are still trying to resolve how to order the church after those hundreds of years of political domination.

Oftentimes we read from Roman Catholic literature that the Orthodox “left obedience to the Pope” as some kind of shorthand explanation of why we are separated. Historically that is not the case for two reasons:

1. 
   *]The bishop of Rome never had any actual administrative authority over any part of the east, and he shared but did not dominate the moral authority of the church.
   *]The Papacy is an anachronism, in that the full flowering of the office and our modern understanding of it comes from recent times. It was unknown in the west and the east during the first millenium.

1. 
   

   For the eastern churches to have been obedient to the Pope would presumably have meant that they were taking instructions from him and assignments from him. In fact they always had the metropolitans working in the synods for that purpose. Church obedience was to Christ, but in a practical sense was always to the church as the Synod and it’s Metropolitan, with the various ‘patriarchs’ (Metropolitans of the senior oldest churches) carrying a certain moral authority to which one could appeal, the precedent setters and sometime arbiters in disputes that might spill over now and again. These men would use their moral suasion to affect a settlement. In the first ten centuries the bishops of Rome sometimes participated in this.

   Ultimately, there is the ability of the church to meet in council. Members of more than one synod could meet together to agree on canons and address problems. In the western church today only the bishop of Rome can call councils and synods, but in the early centuries this was not the case, and in the eastern church it has never been so.

   Hopefully this in some small way helps explain why the Orthodox Catholic perspective differs from the Roman Catholic perspective.

   Thanks Michael,
   
   Truly appreciate the responce,
   
   God’s Continued Blessings be with you
   
   Pat

 

[Jimmy_B]

Hi Pat, Originally, the powers to install bishops was in the hands of the Metropolitan synods. That was where the real power in the church was focused,

Later, as pagan kings were converted and new dynasties arose in places the lines of kings, dukes and other nobles tended to dominate the churches in their areas. They used their considerable influence to dominate the local churches and influence episcopal appointments. This was a blight on the church in the east as well as the west.

The western solution to this problem was to promote the papacy, and this line of argument ran that the bishop of Rome should be making episcopal appointments, not the kings. And so the papacy has the same powers over the local churches that the local monarchs once enjoyed.

In the east, the solution tended to be more of a local one, freeing the church from the grip of the local kings and returning the power to govern the church and name the bishops to the local synods.

In both cases the history has been messy, a lot of embarrassing moments and false starts. Today, when we discuss the issue of the Papacy and the eastern churches we are still trying to resolve how to order the church after those hundreds of years of political domination.

Oftentimes we read from Roman Catholic literature that the Orthodox “left obedience to the Pope” as some kind of shorthand explanation of why we are separated. Historically that is not the case for two reasons:

1. 
   *]The bishop of Rome never had any actual administrative authority over any part of the east, and he shared but did not dominate the moral authority of the church.
   *]The Papacy is an anachronism, in that the full flowering of the office and our modern understanding of it comes from recent times. It was unknown in the west and the east during the first millenium.
   
   For the eastern churches to have been obedient to the Pope would presumably have meant that they were taking instructions from him and assignments from him. In fact they always had the metropolitans working in the synods for that purpose. Church obedience was to Christ, but in a practical sense was always to the church as the Synod and it’s Metropolitan, with the various ‘patriarchs’ (Metropolitans of the senior oldest churches) carrying a certain moral authority to which one could appeal, the precedent setters and sometime arbiters in disputes that might spill over now and again. These men would use their moral suasion to affect a settlement. In the first ten centuries the bishops of Rome sometimes participated in this.
   
   Ultimately, there is the ability of the church to meet in council. Members of more than one synod could meet together to agree on canons and address problems. In the western church today only the bishop of Rome can call councils and synods, but in the early centuries this was not the case, and in the eastern church it has never been so.
   
   Hopefully this in some small way helps explain why the Orthodox Catholic perspective differs from the Roman Catholic perspective.

1. 
   What does “The western solution to this problem was to promote the papacy” mean?

 

[Bluegoat]

What does “The western solution to this problem was to promote the papacy” mean?

I believe it means that in order to get the appointment of bishops out of the hands of secular rulers, they began to give that power to the Pope, rather than give it back to the synod where it had previously resided. My guess would be that this approach appealed because the Pope had enough secular power to wield against the secular rulers, though that is just a guess on my part.

 

[JRKH]

I believe it means that in order to get the appointment of bishops out of the hands of secular rulers, they began to give that power to the Pope, rather than give it back to the synod where it had previously resided. My guess would be that this approach appealed because the Pope had enough secular power to wield against the secular rulers, though that is just a guess on my part.

My guess is that you are correct.

If I recall correctly in the very early days the Bishop of Rome was selected by the people, In one case I seem to recall there being much ado about selecting the Bishop of Rome and a young priest came into the city and a Dove landed on his head. Everyone immediately proclaimed him as Bishop (and of course, Pope)
I heard this a long time ago - I’m quite open to correction on it…

Anyway much later there DID develop the situation where the Pope and the secular rulers struggled mightily for control of the Church in the various lands. The issue went back and forth about who would get to select the bishops.
It was a real mess for a while.

Peace
James

 

[pablope]

Hi Pat, Originally, the powers to install bishops was in the hands of the Metropolitan synods. That was where the real power in the church was focused

,

Hi, H…some questions…What is the composition of a Metropolitan synod? Which is higher in rank, a Patriarch or Metropolitan?

Is the Patriarch the equivalent of a cardinal? and a Metropolitan?

In the east, the solution tended to be more of a local one, freeing the church from the grip of the local kings and returning the power to govern the church and name the bishops to the local synods.

]

Could you explain more on the bolded part?

Hopefully this in some small way helps explain why the Orthodox Catholic perspective differs from the Roman Catholic perspective.

[/QUOTE]

 

[Hesychios]

I believe it means that in order to get the appointment of bishops out of the hands of secular rulers, they began to give that power to the Pope, rather than give it back to the synod where it had previously resided. My guess would be that this approach appealed because the Pope had enough secular power to wield against the secular rulers, though that is just a guess on my part.

Actually, that is exactly what I meant.

It was (among other things) the focus of the Gregorian Reformation, the early phase of which coincided with Cardinals Humbert and Frederic’s trip to Constantinople and the famous faked Papal Bull.

 

[Hesychios]

Hi, H…some questions…What is the composition of a Metropolitan synod? Which is higher in rank, a Patriarch or Metropolitan?

The Metropolitan originally would be the bishop of the church in the largest city in the Roman province (or smaller kingdom, or client state). Roman main provinces were called dioceses at the time. The leading city would have a bishop we would come to call Metropolitans. Some of the more prominent cities had Metropolitans that would later be addressed as Patriarchs, but the patriarchs are essentially the same thing as a Metropolitan, normally with no more real authority (but with more prestige, they could perhaps be more persuasive and their known opinions more influential). There is no distinction of sacramental order, they are all bishops (the very highest sacramental order). There are several reasons for the distinction of title, one being that their churches were early centers of Christianity which supported missions and were considered ‘mother churches’. Their early influence can still be seen in the various liturgical traditions as worship was standardized regionally.

http://www.roman-empire.net/maps/empire/extent/rome-empire-constantine-02.jpg

The bishops of every nation must acknowledge him who is first among them and account him as their head, and do nothing of consequence without his consent…but neither let him (who is head) do anything without the consent of all.
Apostolic Canon 34/35

It is by all means proper that a bishop should be appointed by all the bishops in the province; but should this be difficult, either on account of urgent necessity or because of distance, three at least should meet together, and the suffrages of the absent[bishops] also being given and communicated in writing, then the ordination should take place. But in every province the ratification of what is done should be left to the Metropolitan.
Council of Nicea Canon 4

Concerning those, whether of the clergy or of the laity, who have been excommunicated in the several provinces, let the provision of the canon be observed by the bishops which provides that persons cast out by some be not readmitted by others. Nevertheless, inquiry should be made whether they have been excommunicated through captiousness, or contentiousness, or any such like ungracious disposition in the bishop. And, that this matter may have due investigation, it is decreed that in every province synods shall be held twice a year, in order that when all the bishops of the province are assembled together, such questions may by them be thoroughly examined, that so those who have confessedly offended against their bishop, may be seen by all to be for just cause excommunicated, until it shall seem fit to a general meeting of the bishops to pronounce a milder sentence upon them. And let these synods be held, the one before Lent, (that the pure Gift may be offered to God after all bitterness has been put away), and let the second be held about autumn.
Council of Nicea Canon 5

I note that the individual synods of bishops were thought (at the time) to be organized in close enough proximity that they all could meet meet together twice a year, hardship was apparently no impediment.]

Is the Patriarch the equivalent of a cardinal? and a Metropolitan?

Actually the office of Cardinal is not a sacramental order, a Cardinal is an assistant to the Pope and there is no equivalent in Apostolic Christianity outside of the Roman Catholic church.

---

Let the ancient customs in Egypt, Libya and Pentapolis prevail, that the Bishop of Alexandria have jurisdiction in all these, since the like is customary for the Bishop of Rome also. Likewise in Antioch and the other provinces, let the Churches retain their privileges. And this is to be universally understood, that if any one be made bishop without the consent of the Metropolitan, the great Synod has declared that such a man ought not to be a bishop. If, however, two or three bishops shall from natural love of contradiction, oppose the common suffrage of the rest, it being reasonable and in accordance with the ecclesiastical law, then let the choice of the majority prevail.
Council of Nicea Canon 6

The fact that three Metropolitans were specifically identified in Canon 6 above probably had a lot to do with the fact that these three were to eventually be considered the first patriarchs (later expanded to five). But the canon does specifically also state that the ‘other provinces’ are to likewise organize themselves. And we see that historically, the churches of all the Roman provinces (as well as churches elsewhere outside the empire) did just that.

It should be noted that these bishops had all been through the persecutions, they came together as an empire-wide assembly of bishops for the first time openly and legally. The assembled fathers at Nicea were not introducing anything new, they were affirming and documenting what they knew the underground (pre-emancipation) church was organized like. They were appealing to ‘ancient customs of the church’ as their authority, and it seems no one challenged them on the point.

Same question…who or what would the makeup of a local synod be? Would it include the laity?

The synod is the bishops of a province.

 

[Hesychios]

Hi, H…some questions…What is the composition of a Metropolitan synod? Which is higher in rank, a Patriarch or Metropolitan?

The Metropolitan originally would be the bishop of the church in the largest city in the Roman province (or smaller kingdom, or client state). Roman main provinces were called dioceses at the time. The leading city would have a bishop we would come to call Metropolitans. Some of the more prominent cities had Metropolitans that would later be addressed as Patriarchs, but the patriarchs are essentially the same thing as a Metropolitan, normally with no more real authority (but with more prestige, they could perhaps be more persuasive and their known opinions more influential). There is no distinction of sacramental order, they are all bishops (the very highest sacramental order). There are several reasons for the distinction of title, one being that their churches were early centers of Christianity which supported missions and were considered ‘mother churches’. Their early influence can still be seen in the various liturgical traditions as worship was standardized regionally.

http://www.roman-empire.net/maps/empire/extent/rome-empire-constantine-02.jpg

The bishops of every nation must acknowledge him who is first among them and account him as their head, and do nothing of consequence without his consent…but neither let him (who is head) do anything without the consent of all.
Apostolic Canon 34/35

It is by all means proper that a bishop should be appointed by all the bishops in the province; but should this be difficult, either on account of urgent necessity or because of distance, three at least should meet together, and the suffrages of the absent[bishops] also being given and communicated in writing, then the ordination should take place. But in every province the ratification of what is done should be left to the Metropolitan.
Council of Nicea Canon 4

Concerning those, whether of the clergy or of the laity, who have been excommunicated in the several provinces, let the provision of the canon be observed by the bishops which provides that persons cast out by some be not readmitted by others. Nevertheless, inquiry should be made whether they have been excommunicated through captiousness, or contentiousness, or any such like ungracious disposition in the bishop. And, that this matter may have due investigation, it is decreed that in every province synods shall be held twice a year, in order that when all the bishops of the province are assembled together, such questions may by them be thoroughly examined, that so those who have confessedly offended against their bishop, may be seen by all to be for just cause excommunicated, until it shall seem fit to a general meeting of the bishops to pronounce a milder sentence upon them. And let these synods be held, the one before Lent, (that the pure Gift may be offered to God after all bitterness has been put away), and let the second be held about autumn.
Council of Nicea Canon 5

I note that the individual synods of bishops were thought (at the time) to be organized in close enough proximity that they all could meet meet together twice a year, the hardship of travel was apparently no impediment.]

Is the Patriarch the equivalent of a cardinal? and a Metropolitan?

Actually the office of Cardinal is not a sacramental order, a Cardinal is an assistant to the Pope and there is no equivalent in Apostolic Christianity outside of the Roman Catholic church.

---

Let the ancient customs in Egypt, Libya and Pentapolis prevail, that the Bishop of Alexandria have jurisdiction in all these, since the like is customary for the Bishop of Rome also. Likewise in Antioch and the other provinces, let the Churches retain their privileges. And this is to be universally understood, that if any one be made bishop without the consent of the Metropolitan, the great Synod has declared that such a man ought not to be a bishop. If, however, two or three bishops shall from natural love of contradiction, oppose the common suffrage of the rest, it being reasonable and in accordance with the ecclesiastical law, then let the choice of the majority prevail.
Council of Nicea Canon 6

The fact that three Metropolitans were specifically identified in Canon 6 above probably had a lot to do with the fact that these three were to eventually be considered the first patriarchs (later expanded to five). But the canon does specifically also state that the ‘other provinces’ are to likewise organize themselves. And we see that historically, the churches of all the Roman provinces (as well as churches elsewhere outside the empire) did just that.

It should be noted that these bishops had all been through the persecutions, they came together as an empire-wide assembly of bishops for the first time openly and legally. The assembled fathers at Nicea were not introducing anything new, they were affirming and documenting what they knew the underground (pre-emancipation) church was organized like. They were appealing to ‘ancient customs of the church’ as their authority, and it seems no one challenged them on the point.

Same question…who or what would the makeup of a local synod be? Would it include the laity?

The synod is the bishops of a province.

 

[Hesychios]

In both cases the history has been messy, a lot of embarrassing moments and false starts. Today, when we discuss the issue of the Papacy and the eastern churches we are still trying to resolve **how to order the church after those hundreds of years of political domination. **

Well, I was trying to say that the Roman Catholic church and the Orthodox eastern churches have not agreed on the proper organization of the church, the ecclesiology of modern times.

The politics of former days in the east and the west did a lot of damage. (Emperors, kings and nobles got involved in the church almost everywhere, and had their own relatives and cohorts appointed bishops. States supported, and controlled, the churches in their zones of influence, the early synods lost their independence and their integrity.) I do not think that either communion has come up with a perfect model for church governance, nor can anyone today replicate the early church structure precisely.

The empire is gone, borders shift over time, new nations arise. The question seems to be “what was the intent of the early church Fathers?”, how would they have us govern our churches if they were here with us today?

Clearly the two communions have very different formal views on how to proceed. So we dialog.