the same thing

[dzheremi]

Originally Posted by dvdjs

The Pope in Alexandria had considerable authority and power attached to it in the first millennium. Ditto for the Pope of Rome in the West. IN the universal church the Pope of Rome enjoyed considerable authority in the first millennium.

Careful, though; the question is does the title come with authority of its own? I do not think it can be so, especially historically. Surely the bishops of Alexandria had the same authority on account of their Orthodox faith before St. Pope Heraclas.

In modern terms, of course we say "the Pope" (meaning for us, the bishop of Alexandria) has authority, because "Pope" is the title of the holder of the office of highest-ranked bishop of the Orthodox Church of Alexandria. But if we look beyond that, and ask ourselves "well, why then is he the highest-ranking bishop?", we see that it is not essentially different than why any lesser bishop, or priest, or other person holds the rank that they do in the church: He holds the Orthodox faith. The difference in authority comes in what he is called to do with it, as a representative of the church on a larger scale than the average person. It does not come by virtue of the title, because indeed the office was not always thought to be one with the title (as is even more so the case in Rome, since the bishops there did not take up this title until several centuries after it was bestowed upon the Bishop of Alexandria).

Where is the authority? With the Orthodox bishops, priests, monks, etc. How do they get to have that authority vested in them? On account of their Orthodoxy which is tested and proven so as to make them worthy candidates to be bishops, priests, monks, etc. in the first place. So it has been at some times in history that the Alexandrian Pope has been deposed, same as in the case of the Roman Pope, for his infidelity to the Orthodox faith. The faith is paramount, and next to it the title is nothing.

[dvdjs]

Originally Posted by dzheremi

Careful, though; the question is does the title come with authority of its own? I do not think it can be so, especially historically. Surely the bishops of Alexandria had the same authority on account of their Orthodox faith before St. Pope Heraclas.

Titles or positions don't have authority or power; people holding the positions and titles do - power is attached to the position/title.

How far back did the Bishop of Alexandria have the centralized papal perogatives? THis question is very interesting, many EO claim that a collegial model was the rule in ancient times.

[dzheremi]

I am not sure that the question is as interesting as you think it is, since the EO were latecomers to the Egyptian scene (sensible, as there was no EO/OO division until hundreds of years after the See had been established, and in those early days there was one bishop for all the Orthodox). The first bishop in their line was in fact a bishop who had been deposed by the Copts for his acceptance of Chalcedon. So I am not sure how much any evidence from the Coptic church can be used to counter EO claims.

It is important to remember, too, that what centralized Papal claims exist for the Coptic Pope are of an entirely different nature than RC claims for the Roman Pope. So there are some cases in which of course the Alexandrian Pope is appealed to as the direct authority, but they are generally only the cases in which it makes sense to appeal to him because of his direct dealings in the matter at hand, such as when the Ethiopians appealed for (and were granted) autocephaly in the middle of the last century. They appealed to HH Pope Kyrillos VI because it had been the Alexandrian Bishop who had ordained their leaders for centuries, as they were within his traditional territory. Outside of that territory, of course, he does not have any such authority. For instance, in the various intrigues that go on among the Syriac Orthodox Christians in India (some of whom apparently do not consider themselves an integral part of the Syriac Orthodox Church, but rather autocephalous), the Alexandrian Pope has not been appealed to to definitively settle the matter, though of course his opinion may be sought in order to form a kind of concensus among the head bishops of the various churches, as was the case with the recent unacceptable deposing of Abune Antonios, Patriarch of Eritrea, who also appealed to Council of the Monasteries of the Eritrean Tewahedo Orthodox Church (why would he have done this if HH Pope Shenouda III could have ended the whole matter?). The Coptic Orthodox Church continues to recognize Abune Antonios as the legitimate Bishop of the Eritrean Tewahedo Orthodox Church.

Another way to put it is that it is by virtue of his authority that he is appealed to (Aubne Antonios obviously didn't write to me), but this centralized authority is not viewed in the same way as in the RCC. The Coptic Orthodox, like all Oriental Orthodox, still believe in collegiality, and any centralization of Papal prerogatives is with reference to the Coptic Church only, and even then is not absolute (or else we would have never deposed Proterius of Alexandria under the Synod of Timothy II, which certainly proves the antiquity of the collegial model).

[Cavaradossi]

There is an enormous difference between the pope of Alexandria and of Rome. The pope of Alexandria's wide jurisdictional authority was formally established at Nicaea, and it was done with the consent of those sees (Libya, Pentapolis and all Africa) over which the Pope of Alexandria was given jurisdiction. By contrast, the claims of Rome to immediate and universal jurisdiction were never established by an ecumenical council of the first millennium, and its claims were made unilaterally. The comparison is faulty.

[Nine_Two]

Originally Posted by Cavaradossi

There is an enormous difference between the pope of Alexandria and of Rome. The pope of Alexandria's wide jurisdictional authority was formally established at Nicaea, and it was done with the consent of those sees (Libya, Pentapolis and all Africa) over which the Pope of Alexandria was given jurisdiction. By contrast, the claims of Rome to immediate and universal jurisdiction were never established by an ecumenical council of the first millennium, and its claims were made unilaterally. The comparison is faulty.

And in both cases, the title of pope has nothing to do with any of it.

[steve b]

Originally Posted by dzheremi

Careful, though; the question is does the title come with authority of its own? I do not think it can be so, especially historically. Surely the bishops of Alexandria had the same authority on account of their Orthodox faith before St. Pope Heraclas. In modern terms, of course we say "the Pope" (meaning for us, the bishop of Alexandria) has authority, because "Pope" is the title of the holder of the office of highest-ranked bishop of the Orthodox Church of Alexandria. But if we look beyond that, and ask ourselves "well, why then is he the highest-ranking bishop?", we see that it is not essentially different than why any lesser bishop, or priest, or other person holds the rank that they do in the church: He holds the Orthodox faith. The difference in authority comes in what he is called to do with it, as a representative of the church on a larger scale than the average person. It does not come by virtue of the title, because indeed the office was not always thought to be one with the title (as is even more so the case in Rome, since the bishops there did not take up this title until several centuries after it was bestowed upon the Bishop of Alexandria).
Where is the authority? With the Orthodox bishops, priests, monks, etc. How do they get to have that authority vested in them? On account of their Orthodoxy which is tested and proven so as to make them worthy candidates to be bishops, priests, monks, etc. in the first place. So it has been at some times in history that the Alexandrian Pope has been deposed, same as in the case of the Roman Pope, for his infidelity to the Orthodox faith. The faith is paramount, and next to it the title is nothing.

• assuming proper order is kept in the ordination process, if one is validly elevated to an office/rank/title whichever term is preferred, they also possess the authority that goes with that rank........automatically. Otherwise, rank is meaningless, and authority is relative.
• Re: the Catholic Church, anti popes, were not popes. Antipopes by definition base their claims on defiance of proper Church authority. They falsely claim the title while a duly elected Pope is in office.
• The pope of Rome is [o]rthodox, NOT [O]rthodox.
• There is no point in such intrugue over office/title, that we've seen in history, if the office/title has no authority that automatically comes with the office. This is a pretty good indicator when looking at this subject historically, that the office/title always carried the authority the office called for. Which is why Clement of Rome, in settling sedition among the bishops in Corinth, (~ 90 a.d. during apostolic time) reminded the Church in Corinth “Our apostles also knew, through our Lord Jesus Christ, that there would be strife on account of the office of the episcopate”. One can ask, if there is no authority that automatically comes with an office, why would Jesus say there would be strife for the office?

[dvdjs]

Originally Posted by Cavaradossi

There is an enormous difference between the pope of Alexandria and of Rome. The pope of Alexandria's wide jurisdictional authority was formally established at Nicaea, and it was done with the consent of those sees (Libya, Pentapolis and all Africa) over which the Pope of Alexandria was given jurisdiction. By contrast, the claims of Rome to immediate and universal jurisdiction were never established by an ecumenical council of the first millennium, and its claims were made unilaterally. The comparison is faulty.

There is also an enormous difference between the collegial model, often claimed as the authentic model of the early church by EOs, and the Alexandrian model. There is nothing faulty about that point, and it is a telling one.

And when did the idea of immediate and universal jurisdiction of the Popoe of Rome - whatever that means in practice - arise? Was that centuries before the schism, or many centuries after? If the latter, why were we really divided for all those centuries?

Finally, given the ecclesiastical mess of the EOC in the US, why the constant interest with Catholic ecclesiology when there is so much to do at home?

[rciadan]

Originally Posted by steve b

The CCC uses the word 5 times
http://ccc.scborromeo.org.master.com...it=Search&s=SS

I checked encyclicals also. None of the sources I checked, did integration mean losing one's identity or have a negative conotation.

These days, though, it seems to be generally thought that in order to integrate, one must compromise. How do you compromise Truth? Take the dialogue between the Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church for example. Neither should expect the other to compromise on known Truths of the faith, nor should they be willing to do so. The purpose of ecumenism, as i see it, is for the two to dialogue with the purpose of reaching an understanding of these Truths that both agree on, without actually changing the Truth. A tall order, I know; but capitulation or compromise are not tools that should be used to accomplish the goal.

[Cavaradossi]

Originally Posted by dvdjs

There is also an enormous difference between the collegial model, often claimed as the authentic model of the early church by EOs, and the Alexandrian model. There is nothing faulty about that point, and it is a telling one.

The metropolitan bishop of a metropolis has always had special privileges over his metropolis, such as having the power to refuse to allow for the ordination of a certain candidate for bishop. I think calling Orthodox ecclesiology collegial is making a caricature here. There is balance of power between the primate and the body in Orthodoxy that is not being acknowledged. The model is not purely collegial, except on an ontological level because all bishops have equal power given to them by the Spirit, but some have extra powers given to them by man for good governance.

Originally Posted by dvdjs

And when did the idea of immediate and universal jurisdiction of the Popoe of Rome - whatever that means in practice - arise? Was that centuries before the schism, or many centuries after? If the latter, why were we really divided for all those centuries?

By immediate and universal jurisdiction, I mean the ability to act in a location without the consent of its local bishop or synod. The answer to your question depends on what you mean by arise. Rome tried to intervene in the affairs of other churches almost from the beginning. We see that in the late second century Easter controversy, when Victor of Rome tried to tell Polycrates of Ephesus when he should celebrate Easter. Polycrates would have none of it, and so Victor attempted to cut Polycrates and his supporters off from the common union. As Eusebius recounts, this did not please the other bishops, who rebuked Victor and forced him to settle for peace with Polycrates.

Now if by by arise you mean when it was accepted by other Churches, particularly in the East, I would have to answer probably never ecclesiologically (hence the lack of canons detailing it). Rome's claim to immediate and universal jurisdiction seems only to have been accepted in the East whenever political convenience and imperial meddling was involved (funny that those Catholic historians who took a critical view of the East, criticizing it for its caesaropapism, seemed to have forgotten that caesaropapism provided some of the best lip service for the papacy ever). And it was almost always the case that the imperial attitude towards Rome changed when a new emperor came into power (compare Justin I to Justinian).

Originally Posted by dvdjs

Finally, given the ecclesiastical mess of the EOC in the US, why the constant interest with Catholic ecclesiology when there is so much to do at home?

This question could be turned the other way around. Why are Catholics so obsessed with our "disobedience" towards Rome, when there is much to do at home? I don't see how it benefits your position any more than it benefits mine. We of course have our own ecclesiological questions to take care of, but since Rome is constantly asking in talks what needs to be done for reconciliation, we must offer an honest answer of how we understand ecclesiology and what in our understanding prevents us from reconciling with Rome.

[dvdjs]

Originally Posted by Cavaradossi

The metropolitan bishop of a metropolis has always had special privileges over his metropolis, such as having the power to refuse to allow for the ordination of a certain candidate for bishop. I think calling Orthodox ecclesiology collegial is making a caricature here. There is balance of power between the primate and the body in Orthodoxy that is not being acknowledged. The model is not purely collegial, except on an ontological level because all bishops have equal power given to them by the Spirit, but some have extra powers given to them by man for good governance.

Sorry but there are just too many Orthodox posters who hold to the collegial model to suggest that it is a caricature. Many even hold to a congregational model. When did the office of metropolitan begin, and where are the powers - beyond those of other bishops spelled out. I think that is still an issue within the EOC to this day Ditto on Patriarchs.

By immediate and universal jurisdiction, I mean the ability to act in a location without the consent of its local bishop or synod. The answer to your question depends on what you mean by arise. Rome tried to intervene in the affairs of other churches almost from the beginning.

Tried and did, with some disputation.

Rome's claim to immediate and universal jurisdiction seems only to have been accepted in the East whenever ...

Good. Accepted and disputed,

This question could be turned the other way around. Why are Catholics so obsessed with our "disobedience" towards Rome, when there is much to do at home?

At the level of laity, I can't recall seeing such "other way around" discussions on any Orthodox board. At the highest levels, I do recall the Pope of Rome inviting discussions with Orthodox on the matter.

I don't see how it benefits your position any more than it benefits mine. We of course have our own ecclesiological questions to take care of, but since Rome is constantly asking in talks what needs to be done for reconciliation, we must offer an honest answer of how we understand ecclesiology and what in our understanding prevents us from reconciling with Rome.

What is an "honest" answer. ISTM that, to be genuine and fruitful in any way, an honest answer must be informed by historical reality rather than myth and cherry picking, not to mention charity. I have posted before on the "Myth of Schism" and the comments of the highly learned Fr. Taft on history and myth. It can be argued that we have a long way to go before we reach honest discussion, but I am confident that the CC is doing more to advance this discussion that anyone else.

[dvdjs]

Originally Posted by Cavaradossi

The metropolitan bishop of a metropolis has always had special privileges over his metropolis, such as having the power to refuse to allow for the ordination of a certain candidate for bishop. I think calling Orthodox ecclesiology collegial is making a caricature here. There is balance of power between the primate and the body in Orthodoxy that is not being acknowledged. The model is not purely collegial, except on an ontological level because all bishops have equal power given to them by the Spirit, but some have extra powers given to them by man for good governance.

Sorry but there are just too many Orthodox posters who hold to the collegial model to suggest that it is a caricature. Many even hold to a congregational model. When did the office of metropolitan begin, and where are the powers - beyond those of other bishops spelled out. I think that is still an issue within the EOC to this day Ditto on Patriarchs.

By immediate and universal jurisdiction, I mean the ability to act in a location without the consent of its local bishop or synod. The answer to your question depends on what you mean by arise. Rome tried to intervene in the affairs of other churches almost from the beginning.

Tried and did, with disputation.

Rome's claim to immediate and universal jurisdiction seems only to have been accepted in the East whenever ...

Good. Accepted and disputed,

This question could be turned the other way around. Why are Catholics so obsessed with our "disobedience" towards Rome, when there is much to do at home?

At the level of laity, I can't recall seeing such "other way around" discussions on any Orthodox board. At the highest levels, I do recall the Pope of Rome inviting discussions with Orthodox on the matter.

I don't see how it benefits your position any more than it benefits mine. We of course have our own ecclesiological questions to take care of, but since Rome is constantly asking in talks what needs to be done for reconciliation, we must offer an honest answer of how we understand ecclesiology and what in our understanding prevents us from reconciling with Rome.

What is an "honest" answer. ISTM that, to be genuine and fruitful in any way, an honest answer must be informed by historical reality rather than myth and cherry picking, not to mention charity. I have posted before on the "Myth of Schism" and the comments of the highly learned Fr. Taft on history and myth. It can be argued that we have a long way to go before we reach honest discussion, but I am confident that the CC is doing more to advance this discussion that anyone else.

[steve b]

Originally Posted by rciadan

These days, though, it seems to be generally thought that in order to integrate, one must compromise. How do you compromise Truth?

Seems to me, a way to approach this is, if one doesn't have the fullness of truth now, and desires it, they then integrate that fullness into themselves. By definition then, one won't be compromising any truth.

Originally Posted by r

Take the dialogue between the Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church for example. Neither should expect the other to compromise on known Truths of the faith, nor should they be willing to do so.

True. In this dialogue between the parties, is there awareness of truth being compromised, if so, which truth is it?

Originally Posted by r

The purpose of ecumenism, as i see it, is for the two to dialogue with the purpose of reaching an understanding of these Truths that both agree on, without actually changing the Truth.

Agreed

Originally Posted by r

A tall order, I know; but capitulation or compromise are not tools that should be used to accomplish the goal.

I think all our actions should come from seeing that God's will is done on earth as it is in heaven, and for us to not be an obsticle to it.

[dcointin]

Unfortunately I believe that the spirit of most of the modern Catholic Church is profoundly different than the Orthodox, and this is as important as our dogmatic differences for our continued disunity.

[dvdjs]

Originally Posted by dcointin

Unfortunately I believe that the spirit of most of the modern Catholic Church is profoundly different than the Orthodox, and this is as important as our dogmatic differences for our continued disunity.

That is an interesting belief, but one that would be very difficult to substantiate.

[dcointin]

Originally Posted by dvdjs

That is an interesting belief, but one that would be very difficult to substantiate.

I think a simple visit to a typical mass would be enough.