Title of 'Pope'

[Paul_theApostle]

I read this about the title of the name ‘Pope’

Do Catholics agree with this? was there no Pope till the year 523?

The appellation of Pope has been attributed to the Bishop of Alexandria since the Episcopate of Heraclas, the thirteenth Bishop of Alexandria. All the clergy of Alexandria and Lower Egypt honored him with the appellation Papas, which means Our Father, as the Senior and Elder Bishop among all bishops, within the Egyptian Province, who are under his jurisdiction, three centuries before it was assumed by Pope John I Bishop of Rome (523- 526), who ratified the Alexandrian computation of the date of Easter. Bestowing the title on Rome’s Pontiff did not strip it from Alexandria’s, and the Roman Catholic Church recognizes this ecclesiastical fact.

Since Alexandria was the Capital of the Province, the preaching center and the place of martyrdom of Saint Mark the Evangelist and Holy Apostle, the title “Pope of Alexandria and Patriarch of all Africa on the Holy Throne of Saint Mark the Evangelist and Holy Apostle". also known as “Pope and Patriarch of Alexandria and all Africa” in short, was that of the Bishop of Alexandria.

The appellation of Pope became recognized as a title, but this did not mean that it represented a title different or higher than the title of Patriarch. Only the Patriarch of Alexandria, however, has the double title of Pope and Patriarch among the Oriental Orthodox and the Eastern Orthodox Thrones.

In the Roman Catholic viewpoint, this title does not have the same meaning as that of the Bishop of Rome, who was the only Primate in the West to be given the title of Pope in the beginning of the fifth century. The title of Pope of Rome is considered by the Roman Catholic Church as the Supreme Pontiff, holding the office of the Roman See (being one of the successors of Saint Peter). On the other hand, both the Oriental Orthodox and Byzantine Orthodox Churches respond by saying that their respective heads are equal with Rome and also note that Rome has deviated too much already from their original understanding.

From the Roman Catholic Church’s point of view, the Pope of Rome is elevated in dignity and jurisdiction above the other four Popes and Patriarchs of the Major Apostolic Thrones (Alexandria, Constantinople, Antioch and Jerusalem) or in other words, he is considered as their superior from the Catholic point of view. This view-point, however, is entirely rejected by the Coptic Orthodox Church, which is, in some respect, more conservative in its views and traditions.

 

[LoyalViews]

To put it in a nutshell, there always has been the office of the Holy Father, the Successor of St Peter, the Pope. It is only the title of “Pope” (or “papa”) which came in around the fourth and fifth centuries.

 

[Theophorus]

What you are arguing here is simply semantics, the title ‘pope’ may or may not have been used by the bishop of Rome before that point but that does not change the fact of his position as successor of Peter the rock upon which Christ built His Church.

 

[karebear92]

That is true (well like half true). It is true that in the early Church the Pope did not really play a huge role on an international scale. It was typically councils that decided things, and generally the Pope did not attend (he would simply send representatives). He really didn’t play a big role until Pope Leo I wrote the Tome. He didn’t have much political power until Pope Gregory I. It really wasn’t until Pope Gregory VII that the Pope assumed (he over-assumed) the power he has today (ie. he said he could depose kings and that every Pope is to become a Saint).

In any case, Pope Damascus I in 366 is the first Pope we have writing from, so that date and Pope John I isn’t true.

We also have Pope Leo I from 440-461 who wrote the Tome, which played a huge role in the Council of Chalcedon, so there were Popes (the Bishop of Rome).

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 really became an issue when Pope Leo IX’s ambassador to Constantinople asked the Bishop of Constantinople if he accepts the Authority of the Bishop of Rome. He said that he had respect for the Pope but that the Pope did not have authority over him, and that began the Schism with the Greek East.

It is also not clear if there was a Bishop of Rome after Peter or if there was a board of elders.
For example Clement sent a letter to Rome, and he doesn’t address the Bishop as he usually does, which implies that either he didn’t know who he was or there simply wasn’t one. It may be that Rome was such a large area that there were many little house churches rather than one large Church in which the Bishop was in control. It may also be possible that among those board of elders there was one head that just wasn’t necessarily recognized as the Bishop.

 

[Dirt]

This is from Wikipedia, so Caveat Emptor, but it is interesting.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_popes

And from New Advent:

newadvent.org/cathen/12272b.htm

As another poster stated, whether refered to as Pope or not, the Apostolic succession is unchanged. From St. Peter to H.H. Pope Benedict XVI.

 

[karaleigh]

I would guess at the announcement of the making of ‘Father House’ cited in 2Samuel. Saul, David, Joseph, Jacob, and Father are the 5 houses listed. Each one had a leader, and ‘papa’ for Father’s House works in my logic. Jesus said “I am from my His Father’s House”, sounds strangely Roman to me. :bowdown2:

 

[Filii_Dei]

‘Pope’ is derived from the Greek word páppas and/or Latin word papa, both of which mean ‘father’. As for the history of the term, there are many ways of approaching this, according to the many implications of the term ‘Pope’, so I’ll try to tackle them one by one.

One definition of ‘Pope’ refers to the actual position of the Bishop of Rome, founded by St Peter and currently held by His Holiness Pope Benedict XVI. As a position, it that has always existed with St Peter who, as first amongst the apostles, founded the See of Rome. However, at this point in time, the Bishop of Rome was referred to simply as the ‘Bishop of Rome’, and not the ‘Pope’. This brings me to the next definition.

Another definition of ‘Pope’ refers to the title that is used to refer to the Bishop of Rome. That is a relatively later development. It is not well known when the Bishop of Rome assumed the title of Pope, but it was first used in the 3rd century to refer to the Patriarchs of Alexandria, or any bishop of the West. At some point in time in the 4th century, the Bishop of Rome used it as well. From the 6th century, its use in the West was effectively reserved for the Bishop of Rome. Till now, however, it is still used in the Eastern Churches to also refer to both the Bishop of Rome as well as the Patriarch of Alexandria, which currently claimed by four different churches, two of which are in communion with Rome.

A third definition of ‘Pope’ refers to the ecclesiastical authority of the Pope as we currently recognise it to be. While the Bishop of Rome has always had primacy amongst all the other bishops and held in high regard, he did not always wield the influence he had today. Indeed, up till the East-West Schism, ecumenical councils tended to be the mainstay of how dogmas were elucidated. Furthermore, the monarchs of the various countries sometimes wielded more power over churches within their territories than the Bishop of Rome himself, and frequently used them for their own political ends. His authority as Supreme Pontiff was only really crystallized in the last few centuries as successive Popes clarified their supremacy in the church. Of course, the standardization and codifying Order of Mass into the Roman Missal was both catalyst and evidence of this, as was the formalisation of the dogma of papal infallibility.

I hope this helps.

 

[JM3]

That is true (well like half true). 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

sigh

philvaz.com/apologetics/CouncilNicaeaSixthCanon.htm

The notion, then, that the Bishops of Rome, Alexandria, and Antioch, like Jupiter and his two brothers, had divided the world among them, was not conceived at that early day, but was the offspring of schismatical brains in Constantinople. The Patriarchates did not enter into the original constitution of the Church, which existed before them, and has survived them. That interpretation of our canon, therefore, which is adopted generally by Protestants and admitted by several Catholic writers, is founded in error. The Council cannot have illustrated the powers confirmed to the Patriarch of Alexandria by referring to a similar exercise of power by the “Roman Patriarch,” because this latter personage had no existence. Whatever powers the Bishop of Rome exercised beyond the narrow boundaries of his little province – which certainly did not constitute a patriarchate – he exercised in virtue of his “primacy over all.” It ought not to be overlooked, moreover, that the Popes intervened more frequently in the East than they did in the West, because in that turbulent quarter of the globe it more frequently happened that knots were to be cut worthy of the Vicar of Christ.

 

[karebear92]

sigh

philvaz.com/apologetics/CouncilNicaeaSixthCanon.htm

That is 220 years old and one man’s opinion: a man whose opinion is admittedly superior to my own opinion but not superior to those from whom I learn.

It is pretty clear that five patriarchs did exist, however. I am not saying that they were equal to the Pope, but they did exist. The North Africans (I believe) even wrote a letter to the Pope who demanded they reinstate Appariarus (I can’t recall the Pope, and I am not entirely certain of the spelling of his name).

It is well known that there were five patriarchs and the Pope was the most Holy Patriarch. The Pope did not play much of a role in the East until the council of Chalcedon. It wasn’t that they intentionally divided it up, but rather they were all in communion with each other. It was still one church, but they all were in control of different areas. They founded new churches and by about 100 most of them had a Bishop who acted as what we would consider the priest. That Bishop was in charge of the Church. Smaller congregations did not really exist yet (except for in most likely Rome and Alexandria).

By the way, it is recognized today that the head of the Roman Catholic Church is the College of Bishops with the Pope as the head of the Bishops. Now the Pope is still the Visible head of the Church and has supreme authority of the bishops and with the bishops, but the strict Hierarchical structure that was presumed prior to Vatican II doesn’t really hold to be the belief anymore.

 

[karebear92]

Sorry, I had to keep editing what I was saying because the wording is very important. I encourage you to read all of Lumen Gentium chapter 3, but what I am trying to say in my last paragraph is this:

1. Just as in the Gospel, the Lord so disposing, St. Peter and the other apostles constitute one apostolic college, so in a similar way the Roman Pontiff, the successor of Peter, and the bishops, the successors of the apostles, are joined together. Indeed, the very ancient practice whereby bishops duly established in all parts of the world were in communion with one another and with the Bishop of Rome in a bond of unity, charity and peace,(23*) and also the councils assembled together,(24*) in which more profound issues were settled in common, (25*) the opinion of the many having been prudently considered,(26*) both of these factors are already an indication of the collegiate character and aspect of the Episcopal order; and the ecumenical councils held in the course of centuries are also manifest proof of that same character. And it is intimated also in the practice, introduced in ancient times, of summoning several bishops to take part in the elevation of the newly elected to the ministry of the high priesthood. Hence, one is constituted a member of the Episcopal body in virtue of sacramental consecration and hierarchical communion with the head and members of the body.

But the college or body of bishops has no authority unless it is understood together with the Roman Pontiff, the successor of Peter as its head. The pope’s power of primacy over all, both pastors and faithful, remains whole and intact. In virtue of his office, that is as Vicar of Christ and pastor of the whole Church, the Roman Pontiff has full, supreme and universal power over the Church. And he is always free to exercise this power. The order of bishops, which succeeds to the college of apostles and gives this apostolic body continued existence, is also the subject of supreme and full power over the universal Church, provided we understand this body together with its head the Roman Pontiff and never without this head.(27*) This power can be exercised only with the consent of the Roman Pontiff. For our Lord placed Simon alone as the rock and the bearer of the keys of the Church,(156) and made him shepherd of the whole flock;(157) it is evident, however, that the power of binding and loosing, which was given to Peter,(158) was granted also to the college of apostles, joined with their head.(159)(28*) This college, insofar as it is composed of many, expresses the variety and universality of the People of God, but insofar as it is assembled under one head, it expresses the unity of the flock of Christ. In it, the bishops, faithfully recognizing the primacy and pre-eminence of their head, exercise their own authority for the good of their own faithful, and indeed of the whole Church, the Holy Spirit supporting its organic structure and harmony with moderation. The supreme power in the universal Church, which this college enjoys, is exercised in a solemn way in an ecumenical council. A council is never ecumenical unless it is confirmed or at least accepted as such by the successor of Peter; and it is prerogative of the Roman Pontiff to convoke these councils, to preside over them and to confirm them.(29*) This same collegiate power can be exercised together with the pope by the bishops living in all parts of the world, provided that the head of the college calls them to collegiate action, or at least approves of or freely accepts the united action of the scattered bishops, so that it is thereby made a collegiate act.

Oh and I meant 130 years old. I don’t know what happened there.

 

[JM3]

That is 220 years old and one man’s opinion: a man whose opinion is admittedly superior to my own opinion but not superior to those from whom I learn.

Perhaps, you could start a thread and give your evidence, as your opinion does not appear to agree with reality.

Hence the second General Council (AD 381), in its third Canon, decreed that “the Bishop of Constantinople should rank in the Church next after the Bishop of Rome,” giving as its reason that Constantinople was a new Rome…

The Council wrote to Leo, so did the Emperor, so did the Patriarch; all begging the same favor, and all acknowledging that the validity of the act depended on his confirmation. “We make known to you furthermore,” wrote the Fathers of Chalcedon to the successor of St. Peter, “that we have made still another enactment which we have deemed necessary for the maintenance of good order and discipline, and we are persuaded that your Holiness will approve and confirm our decree… We are confident you will shed upon the Church of Constantinople a ray of that Apostolic splendor which you possess…”

 

[karebear92]

Perhaps, you could start a thread and give your evidence, as your opinion does not appear to agree with reality.

I don’t know why I wrote 220. Math isn’t my best subject, but I have no clue why I wrote that. It was 130. 2011-1880=131. Sorry. It really wasn’t 220, and I really don’t know why I put that. I agree that wasn’t reality if that was what you were talking about. I don’t really think it is necessary to start a new thread about that though. It was a simple math+typo error. I meant to type 230 and hit 220, which was still a century off. I apologize, however.

Also, nothing I wrote disputes with what you just quoted, or rather what you just quoted does not dispute what I wrote.

 

[JM3]

I don’t know why I wrote 220. Math isn’t my best subject, but I have no clue why I wrote that. It was 130. 2011-1880=131. Sorry. It really wasn’t 220, and I really don’t know why I put that. I agree that wasn’t reality if that was what you were talking about.

Also, nothing I wrote disputes with what you just quoted, or rather what you just quoted does not dispute what I wrote.

This is what I’m talking about.

It is well known that there were five patriarchs and the Pope was the most Holy Patriarch.

Start a new thread and give your evidence.

 

[karebear92]

This is what I’m talking about.

Start a new thread and give your evidence.

Oh, I was going to say, geesh it was just a math mistake.

You already proved my point with your evidence: “The Council wrote to Leo, so did the Emperor, so did the Patriarch; all begging the same favor, and all acknowledging that the validity of the act depended on his confirmation.”

If there weren’t a Patriarch, how could the Patriarch write the Bishop of Rome?

 

[Filii_Dei]

I think you might have misunderstood his post. From what I understand of his post, there was no title of Patriarch of the West at that point in time, but there was a Patriarch of Alexandria. Perhaps that is what he refers to? After all, why would the Patriarch of the West, who is the Bishop of Rome, write to himself, the Bishop of Rome?

 

[JM3]

If there weren’t a Patriarch, how could the Patriarch write the Bishop of Rome?

What the Bishop of Constantinople calls himself is irrelevant.

Where is ‘Patriarchate’ in the Council of Nicaea? Where is Constantinople?

Like I said twice before, start a new thread. This is derailing this one.

 

[karebear92]

What the Bishop of Constantinople calls himself is irrelevant.

Where is ‘Patriarchate’ in the Council of Nicaea? Where is Constantinople?

Like I said twice before, start a new thread. This is derailing this one.

Okay. Here you go.

 

[karebear92]

I think you might have misunderstood his post. From what I understand of his post, there was no title of Patriarch of the West at that point in time, but there was a Patriarch of Alexandria. Perhaps that is what he refers to? After all, why would the Patriarch of the West, who is the Bishop of Rome, write to himself, the Bishop of Rome?

Perhaps I did. If we were merely speaking of titles, then I don’t know. If we are talking about positions of authority within the Church, then I believe there were five patriarchs.

 

[MikeDunphy]

In any case, Pope Damascus I in 366 is the first Pope we have writing from, so that date and Pope John I isn’t true.

We have a letter from Pope Saint Clement I to the Church in Corinth at the end of the first or the beginning of the second century, A.D.

 

[karebear92]

We have a letter from Pope Saint Clement I to the Church in Corinth at the end of the first or the beginning of the second century, A.D.

Yes we do. I used Damascus because many dispute that Saint Clement was the Pope rather than a “presbyters of foreign affairs,” if you will, and I really didn’t want to get into an argument about that. So I just went with the first, universally accepted one.