Patriarchs: from the thread "Title of the 'Pope'"

[karebear92]

JM3 and I were having a discussion on the thread “Title of the Pope,” and JM3 asked that I begin a new thread. I guess I don’t really have a question but more of a statement, and then hopefully JM3 will find this, but you are all free to post as well.

I don’t know if I understand JM3 correctly, but it seems as though he/she does not accept that there were 5 Patriarchs. I happen to disagree. I believe there were 5 patriarchs,(the pope being one of them, and the most superior, or most holy, if you will). JM3 asked me to provide evidence, and I supported that with the fact that the Pope in the early Church generally did not play a large role in the Eastern Church until Pope Leo I, and that it is clear that their were five large Bishops, if you will, which had control over a large region and a large or important city.

I also used the fact that the Catholic Church today recognizes that there is a college of Bishops with the Pope as the head Bishop who has authority over them, but they are one with him and he one with them. I supported this with Vattican II document Lumen Gentium.

Sorry, if that wasn’t clear. Here is the link if you want to read the whole thing, which is truly only a few posts each.

 

[Aelred_Minor]

I think we have to avoid oversimplifying Church history and structure.

The West has a different everyday relationship to the Pope than the East does because the Pope is in the West, and because the West, unlike the East, has no other major sees particularly connectable to Peter (and of course because of other historical factors that have developed over the centuries of often rocky East-West relations).

The similarities between the Papacy and the Eastern Patriarchs are therefore primarily on two levels. First, the connection to Peter (albeit extremely indirectly in the case of newer Eastern Patriarchies.) And second, the practical, everyday reality of a particular see being a center of Christianity for a region. It’s not surprising then that the Pope was occasionally called a Patriarch even before the Counter-Reformation era, and even more during and after that when the comparison to a Patriarch helped bluster the Pope’s authority over the liturgy and such in the West during that time of centralization of Papal power, culminating in the title “Patriarch of the West” finally being added to the list of official titles of the Pope in the 19th Century.

The problem is that the Papacy and the Eastern Patriarchs actually hold very different roles in the life of the Church. The most fundamental structure of the Universal Church’s hierarchy is the college of bishops with the successor of St. Peter as their visible head and point of unity, and in this sense the Patriarchs fall under the category of all the other bishops under the Pope.

Calling the Pope a Patriarch and speaking of their having been “five Patriarchs” (earlier, “three Patriarchs”) casts the issue of Papal authority in terms of superiority of one Patriarch over others rather than a college of bishops (including Patriarchs) with the Pope as their visible head. That’s a distinctly unhelpful way to frame the issue.

It is, I believe, largely because of this that “Patriarch of the West” has been removed from the list of Papal titles. We need to focus on the role of the Pope as Supreme Pontiff, not ways the Pope’s practical everyday role in the West could be compared analogously to the way the Patriarchates developed in the East.

 

[JM3]

JM3 asked me to provide evidence, and I supported that with the fact…
I also used the fact…

Making a statement of your opinion does not make your opinion fact.

You have not addressed my question, ‘Where is ‘Patriarchate’ in the Council of Nicaea? Where is Constantinople?’.

philvaz.com/apologetics/CouncilNicaeaSixthCanon.htm

Let our adversaries prove that our interpretation is false; for the burden of proof is upon them.

So, prove it false.

 

[karebear92]

Making a statement of your opinion does not make your opinion fact.

You have not addressed my question, ‘Where is ‘Patriarchate’ in the Council of Nicaea? Where is Constantinople?’.

philvaz.com/apologetics/CouncilNicaeaSixthCanon.htm

So, prove it false.

Sorry, I haven’t had time to read the whole thing yet, so I honestly don’t know his point. That’s my fault. I will read the entire thing and get back to you because I honestly don’t understand why the Council of Nicaea is coming into play.

Just to clarify however, are you saying that you don’t believe they are patriarchs, you don’t believe they were equal with the pope, or you don’t believe they were called patriarchs?

If it is the second one I agree with you. I believe it was, as it is in Lumen Gentium, only that the “patriarchs” or whatever you want to call them, had more power than the bishop of smaller places within a certain location.

 

[Phillip_Rolfes]

Making a statement of your opinion does not make your opinion fact.

You have not addressed my question, ‘Where is ‘Patriarchate’ in the Council of Nicaea? Where is Constantinople?’.

If memory serves me correctly, Constantinople was not elevated to the status of Patriarchate until the First Council of Constantinople (the Second Ecumenical Council). Incidentally this Council was the one that gave us the final formation of the Creed written at Nicaea I (sans the “filioque” of course).

As to the authority of the Popes and Patriarchs, that is really a topic for another thread, I’d say. Check out the Eastern Catholic forums. There have been numerous threads on the authority of the Popes and Patriarchs in relation to one another, collegiality, “supreme, universal and immediate jurisdiction,” etc.

 

[Filii_Dei]

Can we first define if we are talking about the Patriarchs as titles, or the positions that would later come to be referred to as Patriarchs?

 

[JM3]

If memory serves me correctly, Constantinople was not elevated to the status of Patriarchate until the First Council of Constantinople (the Second Ecumenical Council). Incidentally this Council was the one that gave us the final formation of the Creed written at Nicaea I (sans the “filioque” of course).

As to the authority of the Popes and Patriarchs, that is really a topic for another thread, I’d say. Check out the Eastern Catholic forums. There have been numerous threads on the authority of the Popes and Patriarchs in relation to one another, collegiality, “supreme, universal and immediate jurisdiction,” etc.

Can we first define if we are talking about the Patriarchs as titles, or the positions that would later come to be referred to as Patriarchs?

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=8704850&postcount=4

It is true that in the early Church the Pope did not really play a huge role on an international scale.

It is also true that the Pope is only 1 of the 5 patriarchs, but as successor of St. Peter he is the most Holy Patriarch. I am pretty sure this is held by other Catholic Rites. The problem arose when the Pope started handling issues that other patriarchs felt were their responsibility.

It is also not clear if there was a Bishop of Rome after Peter or if there was a board of elders.

 

[karebear92]

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=8704850&postcount=4

Well that is a little bit unfair, as I said Pope Leo I did, which technically would be considered the early Church.

In the second quote I said the real schism occurred when Humbert of Silva Candida (I may have said ambassador of the Pope) went to Constantinople and tried to excommunicate the Bishop (Patriarch) because he did not fully accept the authority of Peter

And the last part: I said that it was most likely many house churches and there may have been a leader among the house Churches that was the leader and descendant of Peter. That point was simply stating that in Rome, where Christianity was illegal, they did not have large churches where one Bishop was head with a board of presbyters and deacons below him. It seems like it may have been a board of elders.

 

[JM3]

Well that is a little bit unfair

How is it unfair? I linked to your post, so that anyone can read the whole post in context. I only quoted those parts that lacked, in my opinion, an true understanding of history. That is why I asked for your ‘proof’.

 

[karebear92]

How is it unfair? I linked to your post, so that anyone can read the whole post in context. I only quoted those parts that lacked, in my opinion, an true understanding of history. That is why I asked for your ‘proof’.

I know, but as they were quoted, it was easy for someone to take them out of context a little bit. But as for the part about the Pope playing a large role in the early Church, the burden of proof is on you. I can’t prove three centuries of people did not do something.

As for the Patriarchs, it is clear that there were “leader Bishops” in certain areas of the world that had control over much more than simply their city. Whether they were called “Patriarchs” at any particular time other than our current term for them is irrelevant. They gathered in councils to make much of the decisions, and they gathered in their areas rather than in Rome, and the Pope generally did not attend. He did often send a representative, but as far as I know the Pope’s claim that his representative was superior to all others in his name did not appear until Pope Gregory VII. They had control over their area in unison, but it was always with the Pope until the schism. I don’t know what other proof you need. They called councils and attended councils. They had more power than the bishops and presbyters in smaller parishes. I never said they had more power than the pope. I said they had pretty much the same thing (though probably not recognized) as we have today: the technical head of the Church is the college of Bishops with the Pope as the visible head and authority as successor of Peter. A poster earlier said this better.

As I said, if you look at the letters of Clement, he does not necessarily appear to be Bishop but rather an ambassador presbyter or a presbyter who dealt with foreign affairs, though this isn’t clear. I also mentioned that when Ignatius wrote letters he usually commends the Bishop, but he didn’t when he wrote to Rome. As I said though, this is not entirely clear. There also may have been a technical Bishop at all times, but since the Church in Rome did not follow the typical Pauline version, it is unclear.

 

[karebear92]

Also, I do admit that I do not have a very full understanding of Church History. I don’t have a doctorate in Church History. All I have is the knowledge passed down to me from those who do have doctorates in Church History, who have read much more early writings than I, who have published more books than I, and who frankly are superior to me in every way regarding Church history.