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

  • Thread starter Thread starter Jimmy_B
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Bluegoat said:
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.
Click to expand...
Thank you, good point.

Secular rulers and secular culters have created challenges for the Church over the centuries, both East and West… that’s for sure.
 
Hesychios said:
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.
Click to expand...
This is, IMHO, perfectly expressed…👍

Correct me if I’m wrong, but it seems that the east and west have maintained a fairly common arrangement in a general sense, but the emphasis, or balance, in each moved differently as a result of the struggle between spiritual and secular. In the East, the councilior model has been maintained as preeminent but as you note above governmental interference has been a problem. In the West, this struggle with the secular government resulted in a stronger papacy (Patriarch in Rome) and less reliance on councils.

Of course this is grossly oversimplified - Books and books have been written on these subjects.

Peace
James
 
=Bluegoat;8273143]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.
Click to expand...
In light of What Christ choose to do and accomplished in Mt. 16:18-19 and John 20:19-22, this is an accord with God’s Will and protection. Is it not?

God Bless Pat
 
PJM said:
In light of What Christ choose to do and accomplished in Mt. 16:18-19 and John 20:19-22, this is an accord with God’s Will and protection. Is it not?

God Bless Pat
Click to expand...
Certainly some people argue that. Clearly large parts of the Church didn’t agree though.
 
Bluegoat said:
PJM;8276381:
In light of What Christ choose to do and accomplished in Mt. 16:18-19 and John 20:19-22, this is an accord with God’s Will and protection. Is it not?
Click to expand...
Certainly some people argue that. Clearly large parts of the Church didn’t agree though.
Click to expand...
I suppose the suggestion here with Matthew has something to do with the Papacy in Rome as derived in some special way from Peter. The problem with the suggestion is that the early Councils never once elucidated any such theory on behalf of the bishop of Rome.

They were very specific about everything else, taking care to reiterate the role of the Metropolitans and the synod of bishops, appealing to longstanding tradition.

In the canons I cited above not one word is given over to a papacy-like role in Rome nor any other place, precisely where we would have expected it. Bishops are selected locally, and their election is confirmed by the local archbishop, issues are to be addressed in the synod of assembled bishops twice a year. Nicea refers to itself as the ‘great synod’, laying out the ground rules. There is no higher authority.

The whole collection of the Apostolic Canons is a very interesting read, it addresses all kinds of concerns that had already faced the church and how to deal with them, almost like Wisdom literature for churches. Not one mention of a special higher church authority.

Likewise the Didache, full of useful and important directives for churches. In all of these documents there isn’t even a hint of some sort of special role for the bishop of Rome. It looks for all the world like these Fathers did not make any connection between Peter as the Rock and any one bishop specifically, not the one at Rome nor any other.

It seems for all the world to me as though the papacy was a growing phenomenon, and the supporters were digging back, mining scripture for justification upon which to base the new claims they were making. So the process was reversed: it was not the naming of Peter as the Rock that initiated the Papacy, it was the growing episcopal See at Rome which was reinterpreting scripture to serve as justification for it’s claims and actions.

Although these ideas [Peter as Rock = Pope in Rome] came to be popular eventually, and useful in the Investiture Controversy, they are not Apostolic … they are not received teaching.
 
Hesychios said:
I suppose the suggestion here with Matthew has something to do with the Papacy in Rome as derived in some special way from Peter. The problem with the suggestion is that the early Councils never once elucidated any such theory on behalf of the bishop of Rome.

They were very specific about everything else, taking care to reiterate the role of the Metropolitans and the synod of bishops, appealing to longstanding tradition.

In the canons I cited above not one word is given over to a papacy-like role in Rome nor any other place, precisely where we would have expected it. Bishops are selected locally, and their election is confirmed by the local archbishop, issues are to be addressed in the synod of assembled bishops twice a year. Nicea refers to itself as the ‘great synod’, laying out the ground rules. There is no higher authority.

The whole collection of the Apostolic Canons is a very interesting read, it addresses all kinds of concerns that had already faced the church and how to deal with them, almost like Wisdom literature for churches. Not one mention of a special higher church authority.

Likewise the Didache, full of useful and important directives for churches. In all of these documents there isn’t even a hint of some sort of special role for the bishop of Rome. It looks for all the world like these Fathers did not make any connection between Peter as the Rock and any one bishop specifically, not the one at Rome nor any other.

It seems for all the world to me as though the papacy was a growing phenomenon, and the supporters were digging back, mining scripture for justification upon which to base the new claims they were making. So the process was reversed: it was not the naming of Peter as the Rock that initiated the Papacy, it was the growing episcopal See at Rome which was reinterpreting scripture to serve as justification for it’s claims and actions.

Although these ideas [Peter as Rock = Pope in Rome] came to be popular eventually, and useful in the Investiture Controversy, they are not Apostolic … they are not received teaching.
Click to expand...
This is the most problematic barrier for me ever believing in the papacy. If the papacy truly existed with all of its modern day prerogatives in the Church of the first millennium, why do we not see canons regulating its specific functions or the papacy exercising its extraordinary powers during the councils? That Church Fathers, who were so specific in laying out how a Metropolitan should relate to his metropolis, would somehow overlook the fact that they never formally established how the papacy related to the entire Church is a rather hard blow to the idea of universal jurisdiction.
 
Hesychios said:
Although these ideas [Peter as Rock = Pope in Rome] came to be popular eventually, and useful in the Investiture Controversy, they are not Apostolic … they are not received teaching.
Click to expand...
Are they teaching that derived from the evil one?
 
jam070406 said:
Are they teaching that derived from the evil one?
Click to expand...
As a Roman Catholic, loyal to Christ, the Holy Father and the Magisterium, I will answer:

NO

The view expressed by Hesychios comes from a sound and logical examination of the early councils of The Church, which were Spirit guided and therefore correct - at least in so far as they defined matters.
The conclusions drawn and questions raised are likewise sound and worthy of consideration and charitable discussion between the Churches, both formally and informally, in order to eventually come to a correct understanding.

Peace
James
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top