Protestant deciding between Catholic & Eastern Orthodox

[Johnsmith316]

Thank you to everyone who answered my last question. As a evangelical Protestant I am trying to learn more about the Catholic Faith. My question is, “ was the pope a patriarch or just bishop of Rome prior to the 1054 schism or has he always been called the pope. What separates him from the rest of the patriarchs? Iam on the fence between Eastern Orthodoxy & Catholicism but do not know which is right. It seems like Eastern Orthodoxy is more ancient & traditional because they still use the liturgy of St James and St. John Chrysostom. I do not want to start any fights here. Iam just trying to learn more about the faith

Thank you

 

[ReaderT]

Has he always been called the pope

He has always been called “Pope”, but to us (Orthodox) it’s just a title that means “Bishop of Rome”, implying honor but not more power.

Iam on the fence between Eastern Orthodoxy & Catholicism but do not know which is right.

Out of courtesy it may be difficult for the Orthodox members to say “Go Orthodox!” because we are on a Catholic forum and want to be respectful of our hosts

 

[Genesis315]

When it comes to the Patriarchates, Rome had primacy by divine right. It was the original “special” See. Alexandria and Antioch were elevated later (see canon 6 of the Council of Nicea) in imitation of Rome and based on their Petrine ties as described below.

As early as the First Council of Constantinople, the emperor tried to get the bishop of his city to replace Alexandria as the Eastern primate. This was opposed by Pope St. Damasus, who reiterated the traditional ordering.

Although all the Catholic churches spread abroad throughout the world comprise but one bridal chamber of Christ, nevertheless, the holy Roman church has been placed at the forefront not by the conciliar decisions of the churches, but has received the primacy by the evangelic voice of our Lord and Savior, Who says: “You are Peter …(Matt 16:18-19).” In addition to this, there is also the companionship of the vessel of election, the most blessed Apostle Paul who, along with Peter in the city of Rome in the time of Caesar Nero, equally consecrated the above-mentioned holy Roman Church to Christ the Lord; and by their own presence and by their venerable triumph, they set it at the forefront over the others of all the cities of the world. The first see, therefore, is that of Peter the Apostle, that of the Roman church, which has neither stain nor blemish, nor anything like that. The second see is that of Alexandria, consecrated on behalf of the blessed Peter by Mark, his disciple and an Evangelist, who was sent to Egypt by the Apostle Peter, where he preached the word of truth and finished his glorious martyrdom. The third see is that of Antioch, which belonged to the most blessed Peter, where first he dwelled before he came to Rome, and where the name “Christians” was first applied, as to a new people.

This was tried again at Chalcedon, but again, the Roman Pope (St. Leo the Great) vetoed it. However, when Alexandria rejected the definitions of Chalcedon and separated from the Church (leaving only Rome and Antioch), Constantinople filled the void and the Greek Patriarchate of Alexandria was instituted and was essentially a vassal of Constantinople. Jerusalem was also separated from the jurisdiction of Antioch at Chalcedon and fell more under the influence of Constantinople, especially when the emperor later made it a patriarchate. The rise of Islam also significantly weakened Antioch to the point where it became significantly reliant on Constantinople. This essentially ended the special roles of Antioch and Alexandria that had developed alongside Rome. But Rome remained fixed like a rock.

So by the time of the schism, the only other one of the original three besides Rome, Antioch, was inconsequential compared to Constantinople. The others were politically created vassals of Constantinople.

I understand and share the appreciation of the ancient rites among the various EO Churches–which, it bears pointing out, are also still celebrated in the Catholic Church alongside newer and other ancient rites. However, if the Church in the past could judge, develop, modify, and institute rites (which it did), then so can the Church now if it is indeed the same Church.

 

[KMC]

My question is, “ was the pope a patriarch or just bishop of Rome prior to the 1054 schism or has he always been called the pope. What separates him from the rest of the patriarchs?

I think it might be helpful to go to a very foundational view of the difference between the successors to Peter, and the successors to the rest of the apostles:

1. Jesus founded His Church upon Peter, and promised the gates of the netherworld would never prevail against it. To ensure this, Peter given the “keys to the kingdom” by Jesus, along with the power to bind and loose (Mt.16:13-20). A first century Jew would have known the “keys” were a reference to Isaiah 22:20-22, and were a symbol of authority. When the king was away, his prime minister had the king’s authority to act on his behalf. ONLY Peter had the keys.
2. Peter was commanded to feed and tend Christ’s sheep (John 21:15-17). Peter always heads the list of Apostles in Scripture (Mt 10:2, Mk 3:16-19, Lk 6:14-16, Acts 1:13). Peter spoke for the Apostles: Mt 18:21, Mk 8:29, Lk 8:45, Lk 12;41, Jn 6:69.
3. Peter’s name appears 191 times in the NT, more than all the rest put together. Except Christ, no other person receives as much attention as Peter
4. The Apostles have authority as well, but not the level of authority given Peter (Mt 18:18, John 20:23, Lk 10:16)

My point: The Catholic Church has both the successor to Peter and the successors to the apostles. Only the Church that has both has all of what Christ set up, not part of what He set up. Only the Catholic Church can resolve disputes, convene a council, and has the unity that Christ called for.

Certainly our Orthodox brothers and sisters have valid sacraments, valid ordination, but they can’t resolve disputes. Think of the very first Council…the Council of Jerusalem in Acts 15. After debate, Peter pronounced the first dogmatic decision as the leader of Christ’s Church in Acts 15:19…in other words…there was debate, Peter spoke, gave a decision, and the issue was settled. You need the Church with the successor to Peter.

 

[Johnsmith316]

Very well explained thank you