I agree that +Ignatius most certainly was not talking about a single, monarchial bishop, but rather bishops, plural. For us, +Ignatius is describing what became dioceses. We believe the fullness of The Church is found within a single diocese. The Latin view for some centuries now has been that the fullness of The Church is found only in the worldwide grouping of the dioceses in communion with the Bishop of Rome. In other words, for the Latins, the fullness of The Church is not found in the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Boston but for the Orthodox it is found in the Greek Orthodox Metropolis of Boston.
I wish I could say that this is a distiction without a difference, but I can’t.
That was the original hoped for ideal, I'd think. And then collegiality, one family, all of brethren (and sistern? lol) among themselves.
It's too bad that 'popa' word crept in to the mix, and people began to take that word too seriously, even as it was for a time (many centuries) widely applied to most any bishop.
One group, took off running with it? ... or was it more like slithering with it..?
Continuing to use the city of Boston as the example: You have stated that it is one diocese. Are all the orthodox churches within Boston of that one diocese? Are they considered satellites, extensions, or separate churches? (Not an argumentative question, but an information seeking question.)
Not sure what the concept of "fullness" is here.
I can see (and agree with) the Orthodox formulation insofar as a Bishop is the fullness of Holy Orders. There's no higher-level of ordination. So a Bishop and his diocese around the Eucharist is the fullness of the sacramental faith...you really don't need anything else. A Church accidentally cut off from Rome, say Gardar in Greenland or the Maronites, can hum along just dandy until such time as communion can be restored.
But there's no way I can subscribe to that formula if it means the Bishop and his diocese is the fullness of *orthodoxy.* I doubt you would either...because as you know history is replete with heretical bishops who had to be deposed.
I'm not sure what the "Latin" position on all of this is, because as you indicated, there have been ultramontanist tendencies in the last few centuries that have not been good. We allowed Pius X to butcher the Roman breviary and Paul VI to butcher St. Gregory's Latin Mass (you remember!) under a misguided notion of obedience. Insane! If this happened in Orthodoxy the laity would have thrown their hierarchs *out the door*. Plus in the Middle Ages, each major diocese had its own liturgical books. What in blazes happened to that since Trent? Why weren't there 20 or 100 dioceses that refused the new Mass like Campos did? And who the flip is Cipriano Vaggagini to have the temerity to write new anaphoras in the first place?
I hope I'm not saying anything titanically dumb here, but I would not be surprised if future Latin theologians started making serious motion toward the Orthodox position. Not about the essence of the papacy, but more about it doing its job and not usurping the prerogatives of a bishop in his see.