Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
The pope is basically just the final word when there is a dispute over doctrine. He's not ruler of all the land.
Please forgive the intrusion, but I wish to ask a question. Ignoring titles (which are often more hyperbole than precision), I'm curious as to what role the posters here do envision for the bishop of Rome.
I understand that the Orthodox find in St. Gregory's quote an argument against the modern papacy (and I don't wish to further explain why, if you're interested in our replies please post in TAW and I'll supply them there), and that the RCC says we are misundestanding what is meant by "universal bishop."
In the RCC today, the Pope has the only authority to call councils, to approve councils, to deliver or decide on official doctrine, to settle disputes, and is the final word on the appointment or removal of bishops, priests, deacons, and orders. Forgive my ignorance, but the above is correct, yes?
To me, and this is where I (sincerly) need your help - as I hate anything approaching a strawman and wish to avoid committing one - how is that different from a universal bishop? I am admittedly bias, but I see that as the role of a bishop (overseer / teacher), but over the entire universal (oecumene) church. I'm certain there is a counter-explanation, and am wondering if one of the posters here could supply the RCC understanding of "universal bishop" and how it differs from the modern RCC understanding.
Thank you in advance, and forgive me if I offend.
In Christ,
Macarius
in rabbinic terms
Can I just ask in what "light" is this statement applied?
thanks
Macarius said:I am wondering if one of the posters here could supply the RCC understanding of "universal bishop" and how it differs from the modern RCC understanding.
What do you mean by the "modern RCC understanding?" The most modern understanding of the Pontiff is written in the Code of Canon Law, and refers to him as the Bishop of the Roman Church. Are we on the same page?
THE ROMAN PONTIFF
Can. 331 The bishop of the Roman Church, in whom continues the office given by the Lord uniquely to Peter, the first of the Apostles, and to be transmitted to his successors, is the head of the college of bishops, the Vicar of Christ, and the pastor of the universal Church on earth. By virtue of his office he possesses supreme, full, immediate, and universal ordinary power in the Church, which he is always able to exercise freely.
BINGO!and if we understood the role of the pope and bishop properly, then we would understand why so many things are the way they are and we wouldn't be as confused.
Each one, preist, bishop, pope have a certain anatomy that none of us fully understand. "Why don't the bishop just do this, or why don't the pope just do that.." well, becuase it's not that easy.
The pope is basically just the final word when there is a dispute over doctrine. He's not ruler of all the land.
He's our visible spiritual head, or "front man" who represents Christ to us but he's not King of the Catholics.
Macarius said:So to rephrase my question - how is his role as pastor of the universal church (with full, immediate and universal ordinary power) different from saying he is a universal bishop? I'm understanding that you consider those to be different things, and I'm wondering what the difference is (as I'm currently not understanding it).
This is a good discussion to have right now, for me, at least.
I am taking a church history course (Catholic) and we have obviously been following the development of the office of the papacy. It has become very clear to me that the issue is not as cut and dry as I used to think (and was told, as a Catholic). I'm not sure how it makes me feel. Confused, I suppose.
I think oftentimes that we as Catholics due the complexity of this issue a great injustice by suggesting that everything is and has always been so clear-cut.
The other key thing to remember is that the Pope is not in hostile territory. The Pope is able to travel freely, he has the beautiful St. Peter's Basilica to celebrate the Mass in, and to can greet his faithful.
I don't know if any of you saw the 60 Minutes interview with His All Holiness Bartholomew, but his headquarters are not anything spectacular. He cannot travel freely, he lives in a country that is hostile to his faith, and basically wants him dead.
So politically speaking, the Ecumenical Patriarch is weaker because Constantinople is not the great power that she once was.
Not only is the EP in hostile territory, but so is the Jeruselum Patriarch, the Patriarch of Alexandria, and Antioch. And it is only within the past 20 years that the Moscow Patriarch has come out of hostile territory.
So I think that because the Patriarchs of Orthodoxy are in these situations, and the current Pope of Rome is politically strong, people assume it was always that way.
Constantinople was once the powerhouse of all of Christendom and the world (prior to the schism). There used to be over 80 clergy to serve communion on Sunday at the Church of Hagia Sophia during the time of St. John Chrysostom because so many people came for Divine Liturgy. They had to have two choirs take turns singing during the Liturgy so that one would not get too worn out. The Emperor Himself used to ride in on a horse.
But alas, those are days gone by.
The Church of Hagia Sophia was turned into a Mosque after the fall of Constantinople and is currently a Museum.
Could it be a matter of semantics that causes misunderstanding?
In reality, the Pope is/was, first of all, a Bishop who has been elevated by election to the office of Pope, and is now by virtue of that office, is the Head of the College of Bishops. In reality, he is still the universal Bishop of bishops, so to speak, with the proper title of Pope.
Could it be a matter of semantics that causes misunderstanding?
In reality, the Pope is/was, first of all, a Bishop who has been elevated by election to the office of Pope, and is now by virtue of that office, the Head of the College of Bishops. In reality, he is still the universal Bishop of bishops, so to speak, with the proper title of Pope.
Macarius said:Wait, so he is a universal bishop (a Bishop of bishops)? Then why isn't St. Gregory's theology problematic / concerning?
I mean, I also see a link here (I see the pope's role in the RCC today as, essentially, that of a universal bishop), but other poster's in this thread have distinguished the two, and that's what I'm still not understanding.
The epistle [Epp v:44], which is far too long to give in detail, may be summarized as follows -- [Pope Gregory the Great to John the Faster]
"You pretended to be anxious to avoid the patriarchate, but now you have got it you act as though you had canvassed for it. Having confessed yourself unworthy to be called a bishop, you now seek to be called the only bishop. [...]
"My brother, love humility, and do not try to raise yourself by abasing your brethren. Abandon this rash name, this word of pride and folly, which is disturbing the peace of the whole Church. How will you face Christ at the judgment, when by this sinful title you have tried to subject His members to yourself? 'Universal Bishop,' indeed! Why, you imitate Lucifer, who said: 'I will exalt my throne above the stars of God: I will be like the Most High' [Isa 14]."
"By this unspeakable title the Church is rent asunder and the hearts of all the faithful are offended. It is written 'Charity seeketh not her own'; but your Fraternity seeks far more than your own. Again, it is written: 'In honor preferring one another'; but you strive to take away the honor of all when you unlawfully seek to usurp it for yourself alone. Already more than once I have reproved your sin through my representative, and now I write myself. If you despise this reproof, I must have recourse to the Church, as the precept of the Gospel commands (Matt 18:15-17)."
[FONT=Times New Roman, Times]Now what is the precise meaning of "universal bishop?"[/FONT]
[...]
In the second place, it might signify a bishop who "held the primacy of the whole world" as chief of all bishops. If such is taken to be the meaning, then the assumption of the title by John amounted to claiming for the See of Constantinople the primacy hitherto enjoyed by Rome. Such a claim could not, of course, be tolerated by the Pope. But to Gregory the title meant even more than this.
For, in the third place, it might be argued that the word "Universalis" was equivalent in meaning to the word "UNICUS," and the designation "universal Bishop" might thus be interpreted as sole or only true bishop in the world. It must not be thought that John himself ever really professed to be in this way the sole bishop, the source of the episcopate. Nothing was further from his intentions.
But Gregory believed that his claim was capable of this interpretation, and this accounts for much of the violence of his language with respect to it. Had the Patriarch of Constantinople been indeed acknowledged as the sole bishop, then it would have been true to say that the rest were not really bishops --
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?