The Ancient Pentarchy

[Hesychios]

Interesting. So Rome was not doing this from the beginning? Does that fact give any strength to the argument that Antioch is the true See of Peter–the Protos? How did Rome claim that title/position/role from Antioch?

I wouldn’t read too much into it.

 

[Vico]

I don’t have any sources to back this up, only reiterating what I’ve heard a thousand times, which is that the title “Pope” started in Alexandria and was later adopted by Rome. It was not used by Rome for at least 300-400 years if not more if I remember correctly. Today the Coptic “Miaphysite” Patriarch as well as the Eastern (Greek) Orthodox Patriarch of Alexandria both retain the title “Pope.” Rome grants no such honor to its various titular heads of Alexandria.

That is true, the Catholic Church does not use that title except for The Supreme Pontiff. There is only one Catholic Church* titular* patriarchal see of Alexandria.

The Coptic Catholic Patriarchal See of Alexandria includes the diocese of Alexandria.
HBE Patriarch (Cardinal) Antonios Naguib
The Melkite Catholic Patriarchal See of Alexandria is Titular only.
HB Patriarch Gregorios III Laham

 

[Aramis]

Interesting. So Rome was not doing this from the beginning? Does that fact give any strength to the argument that Antioch is the true See of Peter–the Protos? How did Rome claim that title/position/role from Antioch?

Rome was the second… Rome’s other metropolitans always looked to Rome for guidance… but Rome and her fellow Roman Church Metropolitians, were an underground religion for a century, while the Coptic Church was more in the open.

Heck, the second and third of the Roman Popes still exercised interference in other local churches BEFORE the first council. (Read their epistles!) They’re as much busybodies as St Paul and St Peter…

 

[JSSebastianoP]

It’s the first patriarchate to extend ordinary authority to the patriarch over the individual bishops outside his own metropolia.

So, in essence, an “arch-bishop”?

Pax,

Sebastiano

 

[Aramis]

So, in essence, an “arch-bishop”?

Pax,

Sebastiano

Yep. Three of the great traditions document it as being near equivalent: Roman, Alexandrian, and Assyrian. The thing is, the Byzantine tradition doesn’t give metropolitans ordinary authority over their suffragans in the second millenium… it gives that authority to the assembled synod, rather than the protos of the synod.

And the Assyrians note that the Pope is to patriarchs as Patriarchs are to bishops…

 

[JSSebastianoP]

Yep. Three of the great traditions document it as being near equivalent: Roman, Alexandrian, and Assyrian. The thing is, the Byzantine tradition doesn’t give metropolitans ordinary authority over their suffragans in the second millenium… it gives that authority to the assembled synod, rather than the protos of the synod.

And the Assyrians note that the Pope is to patriarchs as Patriarchs are to bishops…

Sorry for the questions but I’m interested in Church structure & hierarchy…
So, when the word “pope” was first used in reference to the bishop of Alexandria and meant something like “Metropolitan” who wielded authority over nearby sees. And when the title (meaning “father”) later was applied to the Bishop of Rome, it meant in that case what it means today more or less… So for a Catholic to call the Bishop of Alexandria “pope” is to respect an ancient traditional name for the metropolitan, rather than claiming he has the authority of Peter’s chair? I think?

Thanks,

Pax,

Sebastiano

 

[Hesychios]

Sorry for the questions but I’m interested in Church structure & hierarchy…
So, when the word “pope” was first used in reference to the bishop of Alexandria and meant something like “Metropolitan” who wielded authority over nearby sees. And when the title (meaning “father”) later was applied to the Bishop of Rome, it meant in that case what it means today more or less… …

No.

There are plenty of Catholic sources that will say that the term Pope, as a term of endearment, was more widely used in the early church (I have even read somewhere that it was a generally applied to any priest, I don’t know how strongly that argument can be made), and later (late 11th century, after the great schism) became reserved to the Metropolitan of Rome in the west. I don’t think one will find any canons from the early days of Christianity on the subject of restricting the term, but I am interested to find out.

Anyway, the office of ‘Pope’ in the west, as the office of the bishop of Rome, has evolved. So of course the meaning of the term as we use it has also evolved.

Originally the bishop of Rome was a greatly esteemed Metropolitan in central Italy, but he did not have ordinary jurisdiction as far as Milan, for example (probably not as far as Naples either).

In modern days he not only has ordinary jurisdiction in Milan, he names the Metropolitan of Milan and all of Milan’s suffragan and surrounding bishops, codifies the canons for the church of Milan and regulates it’s liturgy, it’s calender, it’s monastic houses and it’s seminaries, and can remove anyone involved.

So there is a big difference over time.

 

[josephdaniel29]

Originally the bishop of Rome was a greatly esteemed Metropolitan in central Italy, but he did not have ordinary jurisdiction as far as Milan, for example (probably not as far as Naples either).

Case in point. St John Chrysostom’s famous “appeal” was addressed not only to the bishop of Rome, but also to the bishop of Milan and the bishop of Aquileia.

 

[Aramis]

Sorry for the questions but I’m interested in Church structure & hierarchy…
So, when the word “pope” was first used in reference to the bishop of Alexandria and meant something like “Metropolitan” who wielded authority over nearby sees. And when the title (meaning “father”) later was applied to the Bishop of Rome, it meant in that case what it means today more or less… So for a Catholic to call the Bishop of Alexandria “pope” is to respect an ancient traditional name for the metropolitan, rather than claiming he has the authority of Peter’s chair? I think?

Thanks,

Pax,

Sebastiano

No. Not exactly. It was used informally for beloved bishops.

It came early to mean a Metropolitan with authority over other metropolitans.

In the Roman, Alexandrian, and Assyrian traditions, a Metropolitan had ordinary authority over his suffragans, and a patriarch or catholicos over his suffragan metropolitans.

Note that in the Byzantine East, the Synods had that authority, but the primate of the synod did not, even on the metropolitan level in most cases.

 

[Alexander_Roman]

Case in point. St John Chrysostom’s famous “appeal” was addressed not only to the bishop of Rome, but also to the bishop of Milan and the bishop of Aquileia.

In fact, when the Milanese Liturgy refers to the “Pope” it originally intended to mean the . . . Archbishop of Milan as head of that ecclesiastical province.

Alex