Posted on 07/01/2005 2:22:18 AM PDT by kosta50
XXVIII. ECCLESIOLOGY
The commotion about union of the churches makes evident the ignorance existing as much among the circles of the simple faithful as among the theologians as to what the Church is.
They understand the catholicity of the Church as a legal cohesion, as an interdependence regulated by some code. For them the Church is an organization with laws and regulations like the organizations of nations. Bishops, like civil servants, are distinguished as superiors and subordinates: patriarchs, archbishops, metropolitans, bishops. For them, one diocese is not something complete, but a piece of a larger whole: the autocephalous church or the patriarchate. But the autocephalous church, also, feels the need to belong to a higher head. When external factors of politics, history, or geography prevent this, a vague feeling of weak unity and even separation circulates through the autocephalous churches.
Such a concept of the Church leads directly to the Papacy. If the catholicity of the Church has this kind of meaning, then Orthodoxy is worthy of tears, because up to now she has not been able to discipline herself under a Pope.
But this is not the truth of the matter. The catholic Church which we confess in the Symbol (Creed) of our Faith is not called catholic because it includes all the Christians of the earth, but because within her everyone of the faithful finds all the grace and gift of God. The meaning of catholicity has nothing to do with a universal organization the way the Papists and those who are influenced by the Papist mentality understand it.
Of course, the Church is intended for and extended to the whole world independent of lands, nations, races, and tongues; and it is not an error for one to name her catholic because of this also. But just as humanity becomes an abstract idea, there is a danger of the same thing happening to the Church when we see her as an abstract, universal idea. In order for one to understand humanity well, it is enough for him to know only one man, since the nature of that man is common to all men of the world.
Similarly, in order to understand what the catholic Church of Christ is, it suffices to know well only one local church. And as among men, it is not submission to a hierarchy which unites them but their common nature, so the local churches are not united by the Pope and the Papal hierarchy but by their common nature.
A local Orthodox church regardless of her size or the number of the faithful is by herself alone, independently of all the others, catholic. And this is so because she lacks nothing of the grace and gift of God. All the local churches of the whole world together do not contain anything more in divine grace than that small church with few members.
She has her presbyters and bishop; she has the Holy Mysteries; she has the Body and Blood of Christ in the Holy Eucharist. Within her any worthy soul can taste of the Holy Spirit's presence. She has all the grace and truth. What is she lacking therefore in order to be catholic? She is the one flock, and the bishop is her shepherd, the image of Christ, the one Shepherd. She is the prefiguring on earth of the one flock with the one Shepherd, of the new Jerusalem. Within her, even in this life, pure hearts taste of the Kingdom of God, the betrothal of the Holy Spirit. Within her they find peace which "passeth all understanding," the peace which has no relation with the peace of men: "My peace I give unto you."
"Paul, called to be an Apostle of Jesus Christ ... to the Church of God which is at Corinth ...." Yes, it really was the Church of God, even if it was at Corinth, at one concrete and limited place.
This is the catholic Church, something concrete in space, time, and persons. This concrete entity can occur repeatedly in space and in time without ceasing to remain essentially the same.
Her relations with the other local churches are not relations of legal and jurisdictional interdependence, but relations of love and grace. One local church is united with all the other local Orthodox churches of the world by the bond of identity. Just as one is the Church of God, the other is the Church of God also, as well as all the others. They are not divided by boundaries of nations nor the political goals of the countries in which they live. They are not even divided by the fact that one might be ignorant of the other's existence. It is the same Body of Christ which is partaken of by the Greeks, the Negroes of Uganda, the Eskimos of Alaska, and the Russians of Siberia. The same Blood of Christ circulates in their veins. The Holy Spirit enlightens their minds and leads them to the knowledge of the same truth.
There exist, of course, relations of interdependence between the local churches, and there are canons which govern them. This interdependence, though, is not a relation of legal necessity, but a bond of respect and love in complete freedom, the freedom of grace. And the canons are not laws of a code, but wise guides of centuries of experience.
The Church has no need of external bonds in order to be one. It is not a pope, or a patriarch, or an archbishop which unites the Church. The local church is something complete; it is not a piece of a larger whole.
Besides, the relations of the churches are relations of churches, and not relations which belong exclusively to their bishops. A bishop cannot be conceived of without a flock or independent of his flock. The Church is the bride of Christ. The Church is the body of Christ, not the bishop alone.
A bishop is called a patriarch when the church of which he is the shepherd is a patriarchate, and an archbishop when the church is an archdiocese. In other words, the respect and honor belongs to the local church, and by extension it is rendered to its bishop. The Church of Athens is the largest and, today, most important local church of Greece. For this reason the greatest respect belongs to her, and she deserves more honor than any other church of Greece. Her opinion has a great bearing, and her role in the solution of common problems is the most significant. That is why she is justly called an archdiocese. Consequently, the bishop of that church, because he represents such an important church is a person equally important and justly called an archbishop. He himself is nothing more than an ordinary bishop. In the orders of priesthood—the deacon, the presbyter, and the bishop—there is no degree higher than the office of the bishop. The titles metropolitan, archbishop, patriarch, or pope do not indicate a greater degree of ecclesiastical charism, because there is no greater sacramental grace than that which is given to the bishop. They only indicate a difference in prominence of the churches of which they are shepherds.
This prominence of one church in relation to the others is not something permanent. It depends upon internal and external circumstances. In studying the history of the Church, we see the primacy of prominence and respect passing from church to church in a natural succession. In Apostolic times, the Church of Jerusalem, without any dispute, had the primacy of authority and importance. She had known Christ; she had heard His words; she saw Him being crucified and arising; and upon her did the Holy Spirit first descend. All who were in a communion of faith and life with her were certain that they walked the road of Christ. This is why Paul, when charged that the Gospel which he taught was not the Gospel of Christ, hastened to explain it before the Church of Jerusalem, so that the agreement of that church might silence his enemies (Gal. 2:1-2).
Later, that primacy was taken by Rome, little by little. It was the capital of the Roman Empire. A multitude of tried Christians comprised that church. Two leading Apostles had lived and preached within its bounds. A multitude of Martyrs had dyed its soil with their blood. That is why her word was venerable, and her authority in the solution of common problems was prodigious. But it was the authority of the church and not of her bishop. When she was asked for her view in the solution of common problems, the bishop replied not in his own name as a Pope of today would do, but in the name of his church. In his epistle to the Corinthians, St. Clement of Rome begins this way: "The Church of God which is in Rome, to the Church of God which is in Corinth." He writes in an amicable and supplicatory manner in order to convey the witness and opinion of his church concerning whatever happened in the Church of Corinth. In his letter to the Church of Rome, St. Ignatius the God-bearer does not mention her bishop anywhere, although he writes as though he were addressing himself to the church which truly has primacy in the hierarchy of the churches of his time.
When St. Constantine transferred the capital of the Roman state to Byzantium, Rome began gradually to lose her old splendor. It became a provincial city. A new local church began to impose itself upon the consciousness of the Christian world: the Church of Constantinople. Rome tried jealously to preserve the splendor of the past, but because things were not conducive to it, it developed little by little its well-known Papal ecclesiology in order to secure theoretically that which circumstances would not offer. Thus it advanced from madness to madness, to the point where it declared that the Pope is infallible whenever he speaks on doctrine, even if because of sinfulness he does not have the enlightenment of sanctity the Fathers of the Church had.
The Church of Constantinople played the most significant role throughout the long period of great heresies and of the Ecumenical Councils, and in her turn she gave her share of blood with the martyrdom of thousands of her children during the period of the Iconoclasts.
Besides these churches which at different times had the primacy of authority, there were others which held the second or third place. They were the various patriarchates, old or new, and other important churches or metropolises. There exists, therefore, a hierarchy, but a hierarchy of churches and not of bishops. St. Irenaeus does not advise Christians to address themselves to important bishops in order to find the solution to their problem, but to the churches which have the oldest roots in the Apostles (Adv. Haer. III, 4, 1).
There are not, therefore, organizational, administrative, or legal bonds among the churches, but bonds of love and grace, the same bonds of love and grace which exist among the faithful of every church, clergy or lay. The relationship between presbyter and bishop is not a relationship of employee and employer, but a charismatic and sacramental relationship. The bishop is the one who gives the presbyter the grace of the priesthood. And the presbyter gives the layman the grace of the Holy Mysteries. The only thing which separates the bishop from the presbyter is the charism of ordination. The bishop excels in nothing else, even if he be the bishop of an important church and bears the title of patriarch or pope. "There is not much separating them [the presbyters] and the bishops. For they too are elevated for the teaching and protection of the Church .... They [the bishops] surpass them only in the power of ordination, and in this alone they exceed the presbyters" (Chrysostom, Hom. XI on I Tim.).
Bishops have no right to behave like rulers, not only towards the other churches but also towards the presbyters or laymen of the church of which they are bishop. They have a responsibility to Oversee in a paternal way, to counsel, to guide, to battle against falsehood, to adjure transgressors with love and strictness, to preside in love. But these responsibilities they share with the presbyters. And the presbyters in turn look upon the bishops as their fathers in the priesthood and render them the same love.
All things in the Church are governed by love. Any distinctions are charismatic distinctions. They are not distinctions of a legal nature but of a spiritual authority. And among the laymen there are charisms and charisms.
The unity of the Church, therefore, is not a matter of obedience to a higher authority. It is not a matter of submission of subordinates to superiors. External relations do not make unity, neither do the common decisions of councils, even of Ecumenical Councils. The unity of the Church is given by the communion in the Body and Blood of Christ, the communion with the Holy Trinity. It is a liturgical unity, a mystical unity.
The common decisions of an Ecumenical Council are not the foundation but the result of unity. Besides, the decisions of either an ecumenical or local council are valid only when they are accepted by the consciousness of the Church and are in accord with the Tradition.
The Papacy is the distortion par excellence of Church unity. It made that bond of love and freedom a bond of constraint and tyranny. The Papacy is unbelief in the power of God and confidence in the power of human systems.
But let no one think that the Papacy is something which exists only in the West. In recent times it has started to appear among the Orthodox too. A few novel titles are characteristic of this spirit, for example, "Archbishop of all Greece," "Archbishop of North and South America." Many times we hear people say of the Patriarch of Constantinople, the "leader of Orthodoxy," or we hear the Russians speaking of Moscow as the third Rome and its patriarch as holding the reins of the whole of Orthodoxy. In fact, many sharp rivalries have begun. All these are manifestations of the same worldly spirit, the same thirst for worldly power, and belong to the same tendencies which characterize the world today.
People cannot feel unity in multiplicity. Yet this is a deep mystery. Our weakness or inability to feel it originates from the condition of severance into which the, human race has fallen. People have changed from persons into separated and hostile individuals, and it is impossible for them now to understand the deep unity of their nature. Man, however, is one and many; one in his nature, many in persons. This is the mystery of the Holy Trinity, and the mystery of the Church.
XXIX. PSEUDO-BISHOPS
It is imperative that Christians realize that the Church has sacramental and not administrative foundations; then they will not suffer that which has happened to the Westerners who followed the Pope in his errors because they thought that if they did not follow him, they would automatically be outside the Church.
Today the various patriarchates and archdioceses undergo great pressures from political powers which seek to direct the Orthodox according to their own interests. It is known that the Patriarchate of Moscow accepts the influence of Soviet politics. But the Patriarchate of Constantinople also accepts the influence of American politics. It was under this influence that the contact of the Ecumenical Patriarchate with the similarly American-influenced, Protestant, World Council of Churches was brought about, and its servile disposition toward the Pope started to take on dangerous dimensions and even to exert over-bearing pressure upon the other Orthodox churches.
America thinks that it will strengthen the Western faction against communism if, with these artificial conciliations, it unifies its spiritual forces. But in this way the Church becomes a toy of the political powers of the world, with unforeseeable consequences for Orthodoxy.
Are the Orthodox people obliged to follow such a servile patriarchate forever? The fact that this patriarchate for centuries held the primacy of importance and honor in the Christian world cannot justify those who will follow it to a unifying capitulation with heresy. Rome also once had the primacy of importance and honor in the Christian world, but that did not oblige Christians to follow it on the road of heresy. The communion with and respect for one church on the part of the other churches remains and continues only as long as that church remains in the Church, that is, as long as it lives and proceeds in spirit and truth. When a patriarchate ceases to be a church, admitting communion with heretics, then its recognition on the part of the other churches ceases also.
The Orthodox people must become conscious of the fact that they owe no obedience to a bishop, no matter how high a title he holds, when that bishop ceases being Orthodox and openly follows heretics with pretenses of union "on equal terms." On the contrary, they are obliged to depart from him and confess their Faith, because a bishop, even if he be patriarch or pope, ceases from being a bishop the moment he ceases being Orthodox. The bishop is a consecrated person, and even if he is openly sinful, respect and honor is due him until synodically censured. But if he becomes openly heretical or is in communion with heretics, then the Christians should not await any synodical decision, but should draw away from him immediately.
Here is what the canons of the Church say on this: "... So that if any presbyter or bishop or metropolitan dares to secede from communion with his own patriarch and does not mention his name as is ordered and appointed in the divine mystagogy, but before a synodical arraignment and his [the patriarch's] full condemnation, he creates a schism, the Holy Synod has decreed that this person be alienated from every priestly function, if only he be proven to have transgressed in this. These rules, therefore, have been sealed and ordered concerning those who on the pretext of some accusations against their own presidents stand apart, creating a schism and severing the unity of the Church. But as for those who on account of some heresy condemned by Holy Synods or Fathers sever themselves from communion with their president, that is, because he publicly preaches heresy and with bared head teaches it in the Church, such persons as these not only are not subject to canonical penalty for walling themselves off from communion with the so-called bishop before synodical clarification, but they shall be deemed worthy of due honor among the Orthodox. For not bishops, but false bishops and false teachers have they condemned, and they have not fragmented the Church's unity with schism, but from schisms and divisions have they earnestly sought to deliver the Church" (Canon XV of the so-called First and Second Council).
Only the interpretation in your church...
In yours as well, it would seem.
The Orthodox Faith - Fr. Thomas HopkoThe Tradition of the Church, however, maintains the testimony of the letters themselves, ascribing them to the foremost leader of Christ's apostles writing from "Babylon," which was the early Church's name for Rome, on the eve of his martyrdom there in the latter half of the first century (see 1 Pet 5:13, 2 Pet 1:14).
The Church assigned ther title "Protokoryphaioi" (leaders or chiefs) to St Peter and St Paul. This title, however, as indicated in the Orthodox Tradition, reflects their "functions, responsibilities, cares, and rôles; they do not, however, refer to special privileges, prerogatives, or authority."
Their work included more people, and was harder and more dangerous in the center of an Empire that persecuted them, so their contribution was naturally recognzied above those of other Churches.
That is a good link. Thank you MarMema.
But you denied that he was Prince, not that he was ruler. But since you mention it: "In this world there are many kings, not one, like that pope who is over the church of the whole world" (Letter of Rebuke from the Bishop of Patara to the Emperor Justinian, On the Exile of St. Silverius, 537 AD).
or that he has the right to imperial insignia
Look, this is just some silly thing from the Dictatus. Can we just forget about that? No one in the West treats the thing as a source of Catholic teaching, nor was it ever considered such.
What makes +Jerome's writing "official" is the faith behind it, not every word he says.
But here +Jerome speaks for the rest of the Fathers (as I said) - surely it is not necessary to dredge up the texts on St. Peter as prince.
We also venerate Sts. Peter and Paul as chiefs of the apostles. But St. Peter was the first and the chief of all of them. Chrysostom appears to differ on whether such titles imply authority, as I have shown - I think he's probably a good source for what those were thought to mean.
This are +Chrysostom's words...the New Testament says this:
"Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to see Peter, and abode with him fifteen days.
But other of the apostles saw I none, save James the Lord's brother." (Gal 18-19)
+Paul went to see +Peter and +James. He went specifically to speak with +Peter but there is nothing that says here because "so greatly did he honor him and set him before all." That is +Chrysostom's version...it's ain't the Gospel.
+Paul doesn't say why he went to see +Peter or why he also saw +James but not others (maybe because they were busy baptizing the world!). +Paul also doesn't say anything about what they discussed. +Paul doesn't say "I went to see Peters because he is my leader, or because he is above me."
It seems to me these gaps were slowly "filled" by various Fathers as the time went by.
That the Apostles themselves did not buy into this interpretation as they argued who is first among them.
There is one instance where the NT "ranks" Apostles: "Peter as the "first" (Mat 10:2) but that can be because he was the oldest. It says nothing about first in authority.
No, the text only says that he went up "to see Peter". That he saw St. James incidentally doesn't mean that was the purpose of his visit.
It seems to me these gaps were slowly "filled" by various Fathers as the time went by.
They explained them in light of other parts of Scripture and the Apostolic traditions.
That the Apostles themselves did not buy into this interpretation as they argued who is first among them.
No, they argued about "which of them should seem to be the greater". That's not necessarily a reference to authority.
"Judging from what you wrote, it appears to me that you think that the entire Orthodox theology was made by people who didn't read the Scripture and/or didn't understand it."
I never said anything about the "entire Orthodox theology". I believe your interpretation of Mat 16 disregards the rest of the Scriptures. You are jumping to conclusions with your accusations.
"For, nowhere does the New Testament even hint that Peter was the "prince" of Apostles, nor that the Apostles considered him someone who alone possessed the purity of faith, or supreme authority in faith."
Where was I required to prove that? The Catholic Church does not make that claim - I don't recall anyone saying that the Pope possessed the purity of faith... As to him being the "prince", you'll have to define what you mean by prince. If you mean primacy of position, then it is painfully obvious you are wrong.
"...Dictatus Papae"
Frankly, these are notes of one pope, not formally promulgated as doctrine.
"The Church of the West changed with the Popes the way empires change with kings. The Orthodox Church remains unchanged despite many Patriarchs. The East never allowed an ordinary man to define the Church."
That is ridiculous! The East never allowed the Emperor to dictate policy? Have you ever studied the histories of heresies? Caesaropapism was rampant in the East...
"If the Church reflects the character of Her caretakers, it will change continuously. If the Church reflects only God, it will remain unchanged."
The Church, the Body of Christ, is human and divine. The Church consists of a changing element and an eternal one.
"That's why the Church is anchored on the faith, and not on men. Men come and go. It is the faith that defines the Church and makes it stand."
Agreed. But your argument does not follow.
"The key to the Kingdom of Heaven is the Faith."
Yes. But again, you are focusing on either/or. The key also supposes responsibility given to another. If I give you the keys to my house, does that indicate you have authority while I am not there? Sure, you will have to answer to me when I return for any mischief on your part, but you are the man in charge in my absence. I believe you are twisting Scripture to mean something more than its simple literal meaning.
"The validity of its Mysteries comes from the validity of the clergy, not from some external authority"
Agreed. And has nothing to do with Peter's special role among the apostles. For you to deny ANY special function of Peter is to deny the Scriptures themselves. WHY DID CHRIST CHANGE SIMON'S NAME? I already shown several cases of professions of faith - yet no name change. What about John and Luke's witness that Peter was given a special charge. Despite your denial, it is there in Scripture.
Now, we can argue about what EXACTLY this special role means, but you refuse even that. Even the Eastern Church itself will disagree with you on Peter's primacy among the Apostles.
St. Peter, Bishop of Alexandria (306-311 A.D.):
Head of the catechetical school in Alexandria, he became bishop around A.D. 300, reigning for about eleven years, and dying a martyr's death.
Peter, set above the Apostles. (Peter of Alexandria, Canon. ix, Galland, iv. p. 98)
St. Anthony of Egypt (330 A.D.):
Peter, the Prince of the Apostles (Anthony, Epist. xvii. Galland, iv p. 687).
St. Athanasius (362 A.D.):
Rome is called the Apostolic throne. (Athanasius, Hist. Arian, ad Monach. n. 35).
The Chief, Peter. (Athan, In Ps. xv. 8, tom. iii. p. 106, Migne)
St. Macarius of Egypt (371 A.D.):
The Chief, Peter. (Macarius, De Patientia, n. 3, p. 180)
Moses was succeeded by Peter, who had committed to his hands the new Church of Christ, and the true priesthood. (Macarius, Hom. xxvi. n. 23, p. 101)
St. Cyril of Alexandria (c. 424):
He suffers him no longer to be called Simon, exercising authority and rule over him already having become His own. By a title suitable to the thing, He changed his name into Peter, from the word 'petra' (rock); for on him He was afterwards to found His Church. (Cyril, T. iv. Comm. in Joan., p. 131)
He (Christ) promises to found the Church, assigning immovableness to it, as He is the Lord of strength, and over this He sets Peter as shepherd. (Cyril, Comm. on Matt., ad loc.)
Therefore, when the Lord had hinted at the disciple's denial in the words that He used, 'I have prayed for thee that thy faith not fail,' He at once introduced a word of consolation, and said (to Peter): 'And do thou, when once thou art converted, strengthen thy brethren.' That is, 'Be thou a support and a teacher of those who through faith come to me.' Again, marvel also at the insight of that saying and at the completeness of the Divine gentleness of spirit. For so that He should not reduce the disciple to despair at the thought that after his denial he would have to be debarred from the glorious distinction of being an Apostle, He fills him with good hope, that he will attain the good things promised. ...O loving kindness! The sin was not yet committed, and He already extends His pardon and sets him (Peter) again in his Apostolic office. (Cyril Comm. on Luke's Gospel)
St. John Chrysostom, Patriarch of Constantinople (c. 387):
Peter himself the Head or Crown of the Apostles, the First in the Church, the Friend of Christ, who received a revelation, not from man, but from the Father, as the Lord bears witness to him, saying, 'Blessed art thou, &c.' This very Peter and when I name Peter I name that unbroken Rock, that firm Foundation, the Great Apostle, First of the disciples, the First called, and the First who obeyed he was guilty ...even denying the Lord." (Chrysostom, T. ii. Hom)
Peter, the Leader of the choir of Apostles, the Mouth of the disciples, the Pillar of the Church, the Buttress of the faith, the Foundation of the confession, the Fisherman of the universe. (Chrysostom, T. iii Hom).
Peter, that Leader of the choir, that Mouth of the rest of the Apostles, that Head of the brotherhood, that one set over the entire universe, that Foundation of the Church. (Chrys. In illud hoc Scitote)
(Peter), the foundation of the Church, the Coryphaeus of the choir of the Apostles, the vehement lover of Christ ...he who ran throughout the whole world, who fished the whole world; this holy Coryphaeus of the blessed choir; the ardent disciple, who was entrusted with the keys of heaven, who received the spiritual revelation. Peter, the mouth of all Apostles, the head of that company, the ruler of the whole world. (De Eleemos, iii. 4; Hom. de decem mille tal. 3)
In those days Peter rose up in the midst of the disciples (Acts 15), both as being ardent, and as intrusted by Christ with the flock ...he first acts with authority in the matter, as having all put into his hands ; for to him Christ said, 'And thou, being converted, confirm thy brethren. (Chrysostom, Hom. iii Act Apost. tom. ix.)
I think you get the gist. There are more that I have found than the ones that I have posted, but for the sake of shortness, I'll close here. There is room for discussion between Orthodox and the Latins on this issue, but we are going to have to AT LEAST go back to some common denominator. At the very least, it is clear that the East considered Peter had a special role among the Apostles. HE WAS NOT AN EQUAL...
Regards
Since you invoked the title "Prince of the Apostles," I have to ask, does a Prince rule the kingdom or does the King.
Who is the King?
And don't even thing of invoking that "who died and left you king nonsense!"
Can you cite examples of Paul being subservient to Peter? Thanks.
But this discounts the Orthodox understanding that humans are inherently fallible. There is no such thing as an infallible human, regardless of the position he holds or in the manner he speaks.
We understand that humans, even Bishops, err, as often proved when they contradict, or even modify, the rulings of a true Ecumenical Council.
I'm sorry, but how does greater authority not make make one "greater" in regards to authority on this earth.
Your statement contradicts itself.
Please reference those cases where it exists to this day?
This has been an interesting discussion to follow, everything from HTM's icons to St. Peter's clout. Just two hopefully helpful comments as follows:
1) When the state dictates religious teaching, this is erastianism, not Caesaropapism. Caeseropapism is the Pope, e.g. Pope Benedict VIII or Pope Innocent III, acting as if he were the Roman Emperor.
2) Another good read, but unfortunately out of print, is The Primitive Saints and the See of Rome 3d ed., rev. and enl. Puller, Frederick William, 1843-1938. Another good one, but much more feisty (too feisty for my taste!), is THE PAPACY: Its Historic Origin and Primitive Relations With the Eastern Churches by the Abbe Guettee. It's in print and also now on line.
A question. Granted that St. Peter was the leader of the holy apostles, so what? After all, he founded at least TWO episcopal sees. Tactually, therefore, the Patriarch of Antioch is as much a successor of St. Peter as was the Patriarch of the West.
Another question. How does the Church of Rome pope a pope? In Alexandria, the Pope of Alexandria is "poped" by being consecrated/ordained bishop of Alexandria. In Carthage, the Pope of Carthage is "poped" by being consecrated/ordained bishop of Carthage. So how is the Pope of Rome "poped"?
Actually it seems that the Orthodox position is that only western bishops are inherently fallible and err. Whenever the Orthodox are defining the consensus episcoporum they only refer to consensus among the eastern bishops as if they constituted the entire Church. The episcopacy of the west is as fully competent and authoritative as that of the east. If the Orthodox truly believed in the equality of all bishops they would recognize this and stop acting as if only they were the guardians of the truth and that the western bishops were somehow merely wayward and benighted children.
Again I would like to emphasize that in a correctly constituted Church the bishops in the east would only be part of a single united episcopacy and not a separate group that would have a collective veto power over the entire Church. I can find the unity of the Church in the gospels; I can find the authority of the bishops as the successors of the apostles. What I cannot find are national synods or patriarchates.
One could be greater in other ways than authority.
Really, all the Fathers agree, as you know, that some kind of primacy was conferred upon St. Peter by St. Matthew 16:18-19. I can't believe that it's necessary to prove this to you Orthodox who should respect their authority.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.