Popes and bishops

[mardukm]

I’m starting this thread to refute the following grossly inaccurate misconception of the relationship of the Pope to his brother bishops:

ematouk:

There needs to be a primacy of servitude/honour/authority - nobody denies this. But Peter was not ABOVE the rest of the disciples but AMONG them. He confirmed them as brother does to his brother, he did not confirm them as a king does to slaves. The difference is the first is in a relationship sense, while the second is seen in “legal” terms.

The refutation consists of the manner in which the Pope officially addresses or refers to bishops in his letters to the Church:
Pope St. Leo to the Fourth Ecumenical Council:
“And so, dearest brothers, let all attempts to call in question the divinely inspired faith be entirely put down”

Pope St. Leo to Theodoret of Cyrus:
“On the return of our brothers and fellow priests whom the see of blessed Peter sent to the Holy Council…”

St. Gregory the Great (540 – 604) to Childebert, King of the Franks:
“Wherefore, greeting your Excellency with the affection of paternal charity, we beg that all things which we have enjoined on our above-named brother and fellow bishops to be done and observed, may be carried out under the protection of your favor.”

Pope St. Gregory VII (1073 – 1085) to Bishop Hermann of Metz:
“Bishop Gregory, servant of the servants of God, to his beloved brother in Christ, Hermann, bishop of Metz, greeting and apostolic benediction.

Clement XI (1700-21) to the Church in France:
“Clement XI, bishop, servant of the servants of God…being stirred up as well by the motives of our Pastoral Care…but chiefly by the letters and entreaties of many venerable brothers, especially the Bishops of France…

Benedict XIV (1740-58), Quod provinciale:
“What heightens our sorrow is that some of you, Venerable Brothers [bishops], and some of you dear sons, pastors and missionaries…are not ashamed of admitting almost without qualms of conscience such people to the sacraments…”

Pius VI (1775-99) to the Church in France:
“Venerable brothers, constantly preserve your steadfast resolution; not your project for fear of danger.”

Pius IX (1846-78), Quanta Cura:
“It is well known unto all men, and especially to you, Venerable Brothers, with what great care and pastoral vigilance Our Predecessors the Roman Pontiffs have discharged the Office entrusted by Christ our Lord to them in the Person of the Most Blessed Peter, Prince of the Apostles.”

Leo XIII (1878-1903), Rerum Novarum:
“Therefore, Venerable Brothers, as on former occasions when it seemed opportune to refute false teaching, We have addressed you in the interests of the Church and of the commonweal…

Etc., etc. etc., etc. ,etc.

This idea that the Pope is a tyrant over his brother bishops, or some sort of king over slaves, is completely devoid of reason, source, foundation, and proof.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Antonius_Lupus]

I’m starting this thread to refute the following grossly inaccurate misconception of the relationship of the Pope to his brother bishops:

The refutation consists of the manner in which the Pope officially addresses or refers to bishops in his letters to the Church:
Pope St. Leo to the Fourth Ecumenical Council:
“And so, dearest brothers, let all attempts to call in question the divinely inspired faith be entirely put down”

Pope St. Leo to Theodoret of Cyrus:
“On the return of our brothers and fellow priests whom the see of blessed Peter sent to the Holy Council…”

St. Gregory the Great (540 – 604) to Childebert, King of the Franks:
“Wherefore, greeting your Excellency with the affection of paternal charity, we beg that all things which we have enjoined on our above-named brother and fellow bishops to be done and observed, may be carried out under the protection of your favor.”

Pope St. Gregory VII (1073 – 1085) to Bishop Hermann of Metz:
“Bishop Gregory, servant of the servants of God, to his beloved brother in Christ, Hermann, bishop of Metz, greeting and apostolic benediction.

Clement XI (1700-21) to the Church in France:
“Clement XI, bishop, servant of the servants of God…being stirred up as well by the motives of our Pastoral Care…but chiefly by the letters and entreaties of many venerable brothers, especially the Bishops of France…

Benedict XIV (1740-58), Quod provinciale:
“What heightens our sorrow is that some of you, Venerable Brothers [bishops], and some of you dear sons, pastors and missionaries…are not ashamed of admitting almost without qualms of conscience such people to the sacraments…”

Pius VI (1775-99) to the Church in France:
“Venerable brothers, constantly preserve your steadfast resolution; not your project for fear of danger.”

Pius IX (1846-78), Quanta Cura:
“It is well known unto all men, and especially to you, Venerable Brothers, with what great care and pastoral vigilance Our Predecessors the Roman Pontiffs have discharged the Office entrusted by Christ our Lord to them in the Person of the Most Blessed Peter, Prince of the Apostles.”

Leo XIII (1878-1903), Rerum Novarum:
“Therefore, Venerable Brothers, as on former occasions when it seemed opportune to refute false teaching, We have addressed you in the interests of the Church and of the commonweal…

Etc., etc. etc., etc. ,etc.

This idea that the Pope is a tyrant over his brother bishops, or some sort of king over slaves, is completely devoid of reason, source, foundation, and proof.

Blessings,
Marduk

Thank you brother Marduk.

 

[jimmy]

The problem I have with this is when you look at the practice in the west. Take for example the fact that the American bishops can not even promulgate a translation of the liturgy until Rome approves it. It seems that the bishops can do nothing without the approval of Rome. Every little move they make must be approved. This seems to me like it implies that a bishop has no authority except that which is given by Rome.

 

[Genesis315]

Of course, a Pope could abuse his position of service and act like a tyrant. Our Lord told a parable to St. Peter warning of just such a thing (and giving the consequence of it):

Luke 12:42 And the Lord said: Who (thinkest thou) is the faithful and wise steward, whom his lord setteth over his family, to give them their measure of wheat in due season? 43 Blessed is that servant, whom when his lord shall come, he shall find so doing. 44 Verily I say to you, he will set him over all that he possesseth. 45 But if that servant shall say in his heart: My lord is long a coming; and shall begin to strike the menservants and maidservants, and to eat and to drink and be drunk: 46 The lord of that servant will come in the day that he hopeth not, and at the hour that he knoweth not, and shall separate him, and shall appoint him his portion with unbelievers.

This principle of service and authority extends to all segments of the Church. Bishops should be servants, not tyrants of their Churches as should abbots, parish priests, lay fathers of families, etc. Our Lord Jesus Christ Himself rules by this principle.

In regards to the Pope approving things, this is still in the spirit of service to the People of God. If bishops do not demonstrate an ability to do their job sufficiently, the Pope can and does help them.

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Jimmy,

The problem I have with this is when you look at the practice in the west. Take for example the fact that the American bishops can not even promulgate a translation of the liturgy until Rome approves it. It seems that the bishops can do nothing without the approval of Rome. Every little move they make must be approved. This seems to me like it implies that a bishop has no authority except that which is given by Rome.

This should come as no surprise because the West is normally regarded as the jurisdiction of the Patriarch of the West. The Holy Father has only very recently and very magnanimously given up the title (strangely, with protests from our EO brethren), which will no doubt allow for greater autonomy in the area of the West.

Think about the situation in the early Church. When a person crossed into the territory of another Patriarch, or even another bishop, the LOCAL bishop is expected to take care of that person (though that person is a member of another jurisdiction), and the person is likewise expected to conform to the practice of the local Church. If a group of people come into the territory, the local bishop is supposed to provide for that person’s spiritual needs, which may include an accomodation of Rite (e.g., the controversy over the date of Easter) if there are enough people who have need of it. In the early Church, when the Church was united, I seriously don’t think this was an issue at all.

But with regard to American bishops in particular, the United States is not a sui juris Church. The Patriarch of the United States is the bishop of Rome. So it should come as no surprise that American bishops submit their Liturgies to the bishop of Rome. Perhaps our concerns should be kept in abeyance until we find out the fruits of the Holy Father’s magnanimous decision to give up the title of Patriarch of the West. The action is too recent for anyone to make a judgment, but I expect good things to come from it.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[adstrinity]

As explained in Peter Kreeft’s Upon This Rock; when the President makes a speech he says, “My fellow Americans.” Yes, he is an American, but, he’s not only an American, he is the leader of all of us. He doesn’t say, “My subjected Americans,” or, “My subordinates,” no, he says, “My fellow Americans.” The Pope, in the same way (this was expressed via Peter himself) is not going to come out all pompous and say, “I AM THE POPE, THE SERVANT OF THE SERVANTS OF GOD, LOOK ON MY CHURCH YE MIGHTY AND DISPAIR!” but rather, in humility, address his fellow Bishops as such, even though, he has more authority than they do.

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother adstrinity,

As explained in Peter Kreeft’s Upon This Rock; when the President makes a speech he says, “My fellow Americans.” Yes, he is an American, but, he’s not only an American, he is the leader of all of us. He doesn’t say, “My subjected Americans,” or, “My subordinates,” no, he says, “My fellow Americans.” The Pope, in the same way (this was expressed via Peter himself) is not going to come out all pompous and say, “I AM THE POPE, THE SERVANT OF THE SERVANTS OF GOD, LOOK ON MY CHURCH YE MIGHTY AND DISPAIR!” but rather, in humility, address his fellow Bishops as such, even though, he has more authority than they do.

Your last statement makes Eastern and Oriental Catholics very uncomfortable. We don’t view the Pope as Pope in terms of the authority he has, but rather in terms of the love and care he has for the entire Church. The word “authority” seems to flow from the pens and mouths of Latin Catholics so easily. I can admit that is understandable because he is YOUR Patriarch, but it is sometimes objectionable, and ALWAYS strange, when you come into an Eastern Catholic forum and say/write such things. I hope you can appreciate and respect your fellow Catholics’ perspective

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[adstrinity]

Dear brother adstrinity,

Your last statement makes Eastern and Oriental Catholics very uncomfortable. We don’t view the Pope as Pope in terms of the authority he has, but rather in terms of the love and care he has for the entire Church. The word “authority” seems to flow from the pens and mouths of Latin Catholics so easily. I can admit that is understandable because he is YOUR Patriarch, but it is sometimes objectionable, and ALWAYS strange, when you come into an Eastern Catholic forum and say/write such things. I hope you can appreciate and respect your fellow Catholics’ perspective

Blessings,
Marduk

Thank you for this. I will take this into account should I ever go on an Eastern Catholic forum…and in the future on this forum.

And, yes, that is probably true, that, “authority,” is mentioned a lot by the Church in the West because that IS how we view things. View of the West: Jesus gave His authority to the Office of Peter. Peter dies. Authority is still in his Office. BUT, the authority is from Jesus, AND, it is not raw power. It is not force, but, we see, as I am sure you know, that the Church, has Jesus’ protection and consent in Her decisions, but, not the ability nor the desire to make up new, out of the blue, doctrine or dogma.

This is how the West sees it, but, from now on, I will be more cautious when I mention, “authority,” in this folder.

But do you see how the Pope is not tyranical nor compromising when he is viewed as the Patriarch of the entire Church? I made my first post to explain why the Pope isn’t viewed as equal to the other Bishops just because of the language he uses.

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother adstrinity,

Thank you for this. I will take this into account should I ever go on an Eastern Catholic forum…and in the future on this forum.

And, yes, that is probably true, that, “authority,” is mentioned a lot by the Church in the West because that IS how we view things. View of the West: Jesus gave His authority to the Office of Peter. Peter dies. Authority is still in his Office. BUT, the authority is from Jesus, AND, it is not raw power. It is not force, but, we see, as I am sure you know, that the Church, has Jesus’ protection and consent in Her decisions, but, not the ability nor the desire to make up new, out of the blue, doctrine or dogma.

This is how the West sees it, but, from now on, I will be more cautious when I mention, “authority,” in this folder.

Thank you for your response.:bowdown2:

For my part, I also find it necessary to have recourse to the use of the word “authority” when it comes to the Pope, but I always have in mind matters that REQUIRE an exercise of authority (such as when disputes arise). In the regular and ordinary understanding of Eastern and Oriental Catholicism, however, (which is 95% of the time), the Pope’s relationship to us is one of love and care.

Instead of authority, I more often use the word “prerogative” or “responsibility.”

As brother ChaldeanRite wrote, we love the Holy Father.

But do you see how the Pope is not tyranical nor compromising when he is viewed as the Patriarch of the entire Church?

Amen!!! The Pope is definitely not tyrannical, but exercises his prerogatives in holy service to the Church, truly the servant of the servants of God. And we can only consider ourselves blessed that the Petrine office does not and cannot compromise.

But a minor correction - the Holy Father is not the Patriarch of the entire Church. He is the Pope of the entire Church, but he is only the Patriarch of the Latins.

I made my first post to explain why the Pope isn’t viewed as equal to the other Bishops just because of the language he uses.

I do not say this by way of disagreement, but it must be said. The Pope as the head bishop is the elder brother of his brother bishops. He is obeyed not out of fear and submission, but out of love and respect. In normal circumstances (95% of the time), the Holy Father is indeed equal to other bishops. and the other bishops are equal to him. Even moreso the Patriarchs. So I hope you understand that when Easterns and Orientals say our Patriarchs are equal to the Pope, it is simply because the very great majority of the time, the Pope is not exercising his unique Petrine ministry. If there was a time, say, that required the promulgation of an ex cathedra pronouncement or the calling of an Ecumenical Council, we will indeed give heed and cognizance to the fact that the Pope is undoubtedly the head bishop and has a SPECIAL and IRREPLACEABLE role among his brother bishops. But seriously - how often does THAT happen?

And given all this, rest assured that despite our belief that our Patriarchs are equal to the Pope in their day-to-day ministry to the Church, we all recognize that none of our Patriarchs has or claims to have, a universal jurisdiction in the Church, which we fully recognize is invested uniquely in the office of the papacy.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Aramis]

It should be noted that the Coptic Orthodox Pope of Alexandria is seen (from the outside) as a close parallel to Rome in descriptions of the Miaphysite Orthodox union; not just a leadership of Honor, but having a duty to shepherd all his churches in union, including other patriarchates.

It is very much a parallelism between the Alexandrian and Roman papacies.

 

[TLara]

Dear brother adstrinity,

Thank you for your response.:bowdown2:

For my part, I also find it necessary to have recourse to the use of the word “authority” when it comes to the Pope, but I always have in mind matters that REQUIRE an exercise of authority (such as when disputes arise). In the regular and ordinary understanding of Eastern and Oriental Catholicism, however, (which is 95% of the time), the Pope’s relationship to us is one of love and care.

Instead of authority, I more often use the word “prerogative” or “responsibility.”

As brother ChaldeanRite wrote, we love the Holy Father.

Amen!!! The Pope is definitely not tyrannical, but exercises his prerogatives in holy service to the Church, truly the servant of the servants of God. And we can only consider ourselves blessed that the Petrine office does not and cannot compromise.

But a minor correction - the Holy Father is not the Patriarch of the entire Church. He is the Pope of the entire Church, but he is only the Patriarch of the Latins.

I do not say this by way of disagreement, but it must be said. The Pope as the head bishop is the elder brother of his brother bishops. He is obeyed not out of fear and submission, but out of love and respect. In normal circumstances (95% of the time), the Holy Father is indeed equal to other bishops. and the other bishops are equal to him. Even moreso the Patriarchs. So I hope you understand that when Easterns and Orientals say our Patriarchs are equal to the Pope, it is simply because the very great majority of the time, the Pope is not exercising his unique Petrine ministry. If there was a time, say, that required the promulgation of an ex cathedra pronouncement or the calling of an Ecumenical Council, we will indeed give heed and cognizance to the fact that the Pope is undoubtedly the head bishop and has a SPECIAL and IRREPLACEABLE role among his brother bishops. But seriously - how often does THAT happen?

And given all this, rest assured that despite our belief that our Patriarchs are equal to the Pope in their day-to-day ministry to the Church, we all recognize that none of our Patriarchs has or claims to have, a universal jurisdiction in the Church, which we fully recognize is invested uniquely in the office of the papacy.

Blessings,
Marduk

Brother Marduk I think this is the humblest thing that I have seen on this forum in along time. If we could all take note to your response I think the east and west divide could be overcome. I agree with your response 100%.

 

[adstrinity]

I don’t know how the salutation escaped me before, but, I am a female.

 

[anthony022071]

This should come as no surprise because the West is normally regarded as the jurisdiction of the Patriarch of the West. The Holy Father has only very recently and very magnanimously given up the title (strangely, with protests from our EO brethren), which will no doubt allow for greater autonomy in the area of the West.

The pope dropped the title is because it is inaccurate,and the Church of Rome never adopted the patriarchal structure of the East. The pope has a responsibility for the whole Church,not just the West.

vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20000630_chiese-sorelle_en.html
< 3. In Christian literature, the expression begins to be used in the East when, from the fifth century, the idea of the Pentarchy gained ground, according to which there are five Patriarchs at the head of the Church, with the Church of Rome having the first place among these patriarchal sister Churches. In this connection, however, it needs to be noted that no Roman Pontiff ever recognized this equalization of the sees or accepted that only a primacy of honour be accorded to the See of Rome. It should be noted too that this patriarchal structure typical of the East never developed in the West. >

That is why the Orthodox protested.
It won’t allow for more autonomy of Western bishops.
Many Western bishops since Vatican 2 have already been acting as if they did have greater autonomy,and it has led to the undermining of the liturgy and Catholic teaching. Pope John Paul 2 sought to strengthen the centralized authority of the Church of Rome,and the “progressive” clergy recognized that and criticized him for it.

 

[Peter_J]

As explained in Peter Kreeft’s Upon This Rock; when the President makes a speech he says, “My fellow Americans.” Yes, he is an American, but, he’s not only an American, he is the leader of all of us. He doesn’t say, “My subjected Americans,” or, “My subordinates,” no, he says, “My fellow Americans.” The Pope, in the same way (this was expressed via Peter himself) is not going to come out all pompous and say, “I AM THE POPE, THE SERVANT OF THE SERVANTS OF GOD, LOOK ON MY CHURCH YE MIGHTY AND DISPAIR!” but rather, in humility, address his fellow Bishops as such, even though, he has more authority than they do.

Hi adstrinity,

I find the analogy between the Pope and the President of the United States to be a very strange analogy. For example, the President is elected for a four-year term, then has to run again if he wants to remain in office; he doesn’t have the power in and of himself to make laws; and he doesn’t appoint either legislators or the electors who will choose his successor.

 

[JMJ_coder]

Hello,

ematouk:

There needs to be a primacy of servitude/honour/authority - nobody denies this. But Peter was not ABOVE the rest of the disciples but AMONG them. He confirmed them as brother does to his brother, he did not confirm them as a king does to slaves. The difference is the first is in a relationship sense, while the second is seen in “legal” terms.

Perhaps he’s never known the type of large, ethnic families that some of us have. With a large group of brothers the eldest speaks for the lot. He is head of the family in the absence of the father. He decides the general direction of the family, makes the major decisions (usually with the counsel of his brothers) and takes care to correct his brothers, too. For a visual of this structure, watch “Seven Brides For Seven Brothers”.

The Pope acts as the elder brother of the bishops. He confirms them, guides them, seeks counsel from them, etc. And sometimes, like a big brother, he has to put his foot down.

 

[JMJ_coder]

The problem I have with this is when you look at the practice in the west. Take for example the fact that the American bishops can not even promulgate a translation of the liturgy until Rome approves it. It seems that the bishops can do nothing without the approval of Rome. Every little move they make must be approved. This seems to me like it implies that a bishop has no authority except that which is given by Rome.

If you’ve seen some of the junk coming out of ICEL, you’d know that Rome is being very, very lenient.

Also, an individual Bishop (and even a conference/synod of Bishops) has very limited authority over the Liturgy. This shouldn’t surprise you - the East has even less authority. Could you imagine an Eastern Bishop deciding on his own to alter the text or translation of the Liturgy. They nearly had rioting when the Serbian Bishops as a synod did that (I think it was in Serbia).

Or, could you imagine a Byzantine or Oriental Bishop getting away with telling his flock that they will now receive Communion in the hand and receive from the Chalice separately (if they chose to partake of the Blood). And that this is to be normative in their jurisdiction. But, in the West every Bishop retains the right to decide such normative postures and such. Seems very flexible and unimposing to me, comparatively speaking.

 

[Isa_Almisry]

It should be noted that the Coptic Orthodox Pope of Alexandria is seen (from the outside) as a close parallel to Rome in descriptions of the Miaphysite Orthodox union; not just a leadership of Honor, but having a duty to shepherd all his churches in union, including other patriarchates.

It is very much a parallelism between the Alexandrian and Roman papacies.

Actually the Syriac and Armenian and Indian Churches operate without any reference to the Coptic Pope of Alexandria. Ethiopia (and now Eritrea) is a different story, as she is a daughter Church.

 

[Isa_Almisry]

The pope dropped the title is because it is inaccurate,and the Church of Rome never adopted the patriarchal structure of the East.

It is only within the context of the patriarchal system of the Church as whole that the primacy of Rome developed. That the East remains in that context doesn’t make it the “patriarchal structure of the East.” If you doubt this, look at the history of North Africa, Milan and the Venetian Patriarchate and Rome.

The pope has a responsibility for the whole Church,not just the West.

And that makes him unique how? The canons specify that the Pope of Alexandria determines the date of Pascha (which Rome announces), Constantinople acts as a court of appeal, etc.

 

[Peter_J]

The canons specify that the Pope of Alexandria determines the date of Pascha (which Rome announces),

Interesting. When was that canon written?

 

[8eofilos]

What we say or write have nothing to do with what we actually do. The Popes throughout the years and even today our treated like they are the only connection to God. Popes should be Humble as all Christians should be. He is nothing above me as a man but just is a servant. He is not Holy and not a Saint…God is the only Holy One. The Pope is not God. So I wish people stop calling him Holy. Just because the Pope wrote brothers doesn’t mean he meant it. History tells us otherwise.
Jesus though said Brothers and died for His Brothers.
And today Orthodox follow Jesus teaching and only. Decisions are made by the ecumenical synod that represent the Church United (catholic) Not roman Catholic that separates itself from the others giving orders to the rest. The Orthodox Church never added anything to any Creed or Word of God as the Vatican did by the Popes. The “additions to you accusing” is nothing but clearifying what was said by Lord because others would use them for manipulation of the Bible. And everything written is from the Bible itself.