Pope's role today and yesterday

[rben20]

Hello Catholics,

I’ve been hearing a lot about the Pope’s role the first 1000 years and afterwards. What is the main difference? Many orthodox say they will consider reuniting with the pope if it was like the first thousand years. Exactly what was the pope’s role and how did it develop? Was the Pope always the bishop of the* universal *church?

Thanks

 

[malphono]

To start things off, let me say that in the 1st millennium, the “High Petrine view” was the reality. Both the “Absolute Petrine view” espoused (some insist it is de jure, while other say it is merely de facto, but either way it is what is espoused) by Rome, and the “Low Petrine view” (the famous “primus inter pares”) commonly held by the EO are subsequent developments. That’s as much as I will say, and I’ve probably made a mistake even saying that.

 

[PJD1987]

I highly reccommend reading One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church by Kenneth Whitehead. It explains all these questions in depth and much better than I could.

 

[KathleenGee]

You then have to look at history of Western civilization, the temporal rulers who at times put themselves over the Church…very disordered times.

Spiritual monarchy was set up not for the Church’s sake, but that the Law of God Himself was to oversee man, this developing from the period of Pope Gregory VII to Innocent III.

What this did was put a rein feudalism and anarchy in temporal life which state law in Truce of God’ and enforcement. Where would the Christian world be if not the Church had declared that man was to be ruled by God?

The Church exists to form us in Christ, and to help show us the way to eternal life. It is not a church for itself, but a sign of Christ’s light to the world.

 

[Cider]

Hello Catholics,

I’ve been hearing a lot about the Pope’s role the first 1000 years and afterwards. What is the main difference? Many orthodox say they will consider reuniting with the pope if it was like the first thousand years. Exactly what was the pope’s role and how did it develop? *Was the Pope always the bishop of the universal ***church?

Thanks

The Orthodox do not believe that the Pope was ever the Bishop of the universal Church. The Bishop of Rome was the first among equals in honor. But had no more authority than any other Bishop.

If you want to know the history according to the Orthodox then you need to seek out Orthodox sources, not just Catholic ones.

Check out The First Seven Ecumenical Councils (325-787): Their History and Theology by Leo Davis and The Orthodox Church by Timothy Ware ( aka Kallistos Ware aka Kallistos of Diokleia)

 

[The_Old_Medic]

The two sides involved have VERY different versions of the history involved.

There is likely some untruth, and some truth, on BOTH sides. As is usual, whenever humans are involved, things get messy. Both sides have done some wrong things, and both sides have done some right things since the breakup of the Eastern and Western Churches.

Part of the problem was that the Roman Empire effectively split in two, with a Western Emperor and an Eastern Emperor. The Church officials tended to support THEIR civil authorities, and over time differences in opinions and practices led to a split.

In the earlier days of the Church, the Pope was NOT as decisive a leader as he later became. While technically, he may have had the inherent authority, they tended to utilize Church Councils for major decisions, and NOT make unilateral decisions that they then tried to impose on everyone.

It was the issue of the Filoque that really brought a lot of issues to their heads. The East simply could not accept the Filoque, the West insisted that all HAD to accept it.

The interesting thing is that most of the Eastern Catholic Churches DO NOT state the filoque in their version of the Creed, but state that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father (see this weeks “Our Sunday Visitor” for a more detailed explanation of this issue).

The bottom line that most divides the Orthodox from the Catholics is the issue of the Supremacy of the Pope. They see the Pope as “First among equals”, but NOT as THE ULTIMATE AUTHORITY AND LEADER.

Until, and unless, the Catholic Church can adopt that premise, there is virtually no hope of the majority of Orthodox joining back into one Universal and Catholic Church.

It is truly a shame, because the Catholic and orthodox Churches have so much more in common than they do in opposition. The Catholic Church accepts all Sacraments and Orders of the orthodox Churches as being valid in their entirety (sadly, not all Orthodox do the same with the Catholics), and our basic beliefs are essentially identical (with the one exception of the Holy Spirit proceeding either from the Father alone, or from both the Father and the Son)

The following is MY OPINION:

I believe that the leaders of BOTH sides are in a state of Mortal Sin, because their pride and human stupidity will not allow them to compromise, and rejoin what Christ wanted to never see sundered. Both sides could give, both could compromise, and bring those two great Christian Religions back together again. There has to be a compromise that both sides could live with, some “middle ground”.

 

[mardukm]

Was the Pope always the bishop of the* universal *church?

Does the Pope even use such a title?

I understand that the Pope is the head bishop of the universal Church, not the bishop of the universal Church. There is a big difference.

“Head bishop of the universal Church” would be an acceptable title from the High Petrine perspective.

“Bishop of the universal Church” is something Absolutist Petrine advocates would probabaly find acceptable, but I think Pope St. Gregory explicitly rejected such a title.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Montalo]

I highly reccommend reading One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church by . It explains all these questions in depth and much better than I could.

if you advocate that piece of literature, then it is only right that they read from both sides, in which case i suggest The Orthodox Church, by + Bp. Kallistos Ware

 

[josephback]

Hello Catholics,

I’ve been hearing a lot about the Pope’s role the first 1000 years and afterwards. What is the main difference? Many orthodox say they will consider reuniting with the pope if it was like the first thousand years. Exactly what was the pope’s role and how did it develop? Was the Pope always the bishop of the* universal *church?

Thanks

The Pope was always the Pope to my knowledge, but his temporal power began to grow and increase with the fall of Rome. It’s a topic worthy of great study. What’s interesting is that even the Orthodox admit that Peter was the first of the apostles and had a special place. Could he truly be first without some authority?

 

[George_G]

I believe that the leaders of BOTH sides are in a state of Mortal Sin …]

I don’t think any of us can make that determination. Also, it’s a rather ugly thought, because then pretty much all of the leaders of the churches since the various schisms have been condemned, literally.

 

[Hesychios]

…The Bishop of Rome was the first among equals in honor. But had no more authority than any other Bishop.

He was always understood to be the Metropolitan in his synod, so that is a bit more than being just any bishop.

He also had a lot of prestige and respect.

The Pope was always the Pope to my knowledge,

The modern Papacy is an Ultramontanist invention.

… What’s interesting is that even the Orthodox admit that Peter was the first of the apostles and had a special place. Could he truly be first without some authority?

There is nothing to admit.

Simon Peter was first among the apostles. The question is how that translates into the modern papacy. Now from the perspective of Orthodox the Papacy has been submerged in heresy for the greater portion of 1000 years, so it just does not have the kind of credibility it needs to impose it’s novelties and opinions on others.

If that had not been the case the Orthodox could take it more seriously.

 

[Hesychios]

…The Bishop of Rome was the first among equals in honor. But had no more authority than any other Bishop.

He was always understood to be the Metropolitan in his synod, so that is a bit more than being just any bishop.

He also had a lot of prestige and respect.

The Pope was always the Pope to my knowledge,

The modern Papacy is an Ultramontanist invention.

… What’s interesting is that even the Orthodox admit that Peter was the first of the apostles and had a special place. Could he truly be first without some authority?

There is nothing to admit.

Simon Peter was first among the apostles. The question is how that translates into the modern papacy. Now from the perspective of Orthodox the Papacy has been submerged in heresy for the greater portion of 1000 years, so it just does not have the kind of credibility it needs to impose it’s theology on others.

If that had not been the case the Orthodox could take it more seriously.

 

[Bluegoat]

You might find this book helpful:

Papal Primacy

It is a Catholic book, but it also doesn’t buy into some of the myths that you commonly hear around the papacy, and is a good scholarly reliable book.

 

[mark_a]

The Bishop of Rome was the first among equals in honor.

After seeing this for many years at CAF, I still don’t know what that it means. Is there a similar position anywhere in the world that we could compare it to?

Is it a position like maybe the leader of Al Qaeda, where he is respected among peers but really has an unenforcable quasi-authority?

 

[Montalo]

After seeing this for many years at CAF, I still don’t know what that it means. Is there a similar position anywhere in the world that we could compare it to?

Is it a position like maybe the leader of Al Qaeda, where he is respected among peers but really has an unenforcable quasi-authority?

it is the authority that the Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople +Bartholomew has over the Orthodox Church in the modern day, since Rome left communion

 

[mark_a]

it is the authority that the Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople +Bartholomew has over the Orthodox Church in the modern day, since Rome left communion

Thank you for the thoughtful reply.

Evidently, there is a hierarchy within the OC.

Could you describe the Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople +Bartholomew’s responsibilities that set him apart from other Orthodox bishops?

 

[Montalo]

Thank you for the thoughtful reply.

Evidently, there is a hierarchy within the OC.

Could you describe the Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople +Bartholomew’s responsibilities that set him apart from other Orthodox bishops?

here is the orthodox wiki article on it, I will not attempt to explain it myself, for fear of speaking wrongly on a topic that I have no researched in depth

orthodoxwiki.org/Prerogatives_of_the_Ecumenical_Patriarchate

 

[mark_a]

here is the orthodox wiki article on it, I will not attempt to explain it myself, for fear of speaking wrongly on a topic that I have no researched in depth

orthodoxwiki.org/Prerogatives_of_the_Ecumenical_Patriarchate

Thanks again.

Best wishes!

 

[josephback]

The modern Papacy is an Ultramontanist invention.

Ultramontanist? Say what? What does Montanism have to do with the Papacy?

 

[PJD1987]

if you advocate that piece of literature, then it is only right that they read from both sides, in which case i suggest The Orthodox Church, by + Bp. Kallistos Ware

fair enough…was just trying to be helpful