www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West Catholic 2010 Lay Orthodox Survey on Attitudes Toward Reunion

Historic facts are anachronistic?

Bernard of Clairveaux denouncing the IC as an innovation and your Pope Pius declaring it apostolic dogma is not the same thing as making Orthodox changes in the Divine Liturgy.

What is the Latin Patriarchate of Jerusalem?

Looking up "sui juris" in the "Catholic Encyclopedia" of just a century ago, nothing came up about such churches. Looking up "Eastern Churches" brought up this:


http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05230a.htm

So, they are in the Roman pontiff's jurisdiction, no? I think Cum Data Fuerit made that clear. While the Churches issue confirmation of the protection of their WRO "adjuncts," last year among a number of Eastern bishops at the Vatican, the issue of how much they were not "merely a ritual adjunct of a particular jurisdiction of a Church" came up.


http://catholicexchange.com/2010/10/21/139404/


That differs from the run-of-the-mill suspicion by Slavs of Greek usage and vice versa how?



IMHO, yes we are.



And you explain the mission of SS. Cyril and Methodius how?



You mean the non-Chalcedonians? They went their own way two centuries before "their new Muslim overlords" showed up. But not really: witness the Henoticon, and non-Chalcedonianism at Constantinople.


For over half a millenium after "their new Muslim overlords" showed up, the Greeks and Copts in the Patriarchate of Alexandria, and the Greeks, Syriacs and Arabs in the Patriarchate of Antioch had the same traditional liturgies.



You will have to explain what you mean by "mode of doctrinal expression."


Byzantium became history over three centuries before "their new Muslim overlords" showed up.


Btw in Arabic, the language most of us speak, the word for "Melkite" is "ruumii" "Roman."


Neither Alexandria nor Antioch switched to the rite of Constantinople until the decade before the Crusaders sacked Constantinople.


The Chalcedonian and Greek Church retained a presence in Egypt (the legate from Egypt to the Seventh Ecumenical Council, the Abbot Thomsd of S. Arsenius and syncellos of the Pope of Alexandria, became in time the Archbishop of Thessalonica, recently translated from Rome to New Rome's patriarchate). In Antioch the Chalcedonians constituted the majority of the the Patriarchate. In Jerusalem, they remained the only native element of the Patriarchate.


Hardly. The role of Pat. Sophronius of Jerusalem alone preserving the Orthodox Faith of the Catholic Church is well known, and mentioned by name by the Fathers of the Sixth Ecumenical Council. The Iconoclasts' council of Hieria is called "headless" because the patriarchates of Alexandria, Antioch and Jerusalem refused to take part, and continued to confess the Orthodox Faith, defending the icons. They were not able to attend the Seventh Ecumenical Council, but did send their legates. Patriarch John of Antioch refused to blindly follow EP Michael Celarius, and tried to save Old and New Rome from their own stupidities and arrogance. It doesn't seem until the Crusades that the patriarchs became dependent on Constantinople.

A couple points regarding the links you provided.

With regard to that post on catholicexchange.com [catholicexchange.com], I believe this is the news article in question:
http://www.catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/1004186.htm



Hmm, a 1909 article from the Catholic Encyclopedia. If you're trying to convince us that that's not a time period we Catholics ought to be proud of ... well let's just say that many of us are already convinced.

A titulary, as in titularies on a bull. He heads no Church, has no extraterritorial jurisdiction. He's a jackalope.


Not being very friendly or helpful. I can't believe you think this is a serious argument.


Brought Byzantine Christianity and Byzantine culture as a turnkey operation. Again, are you being disingenuous or do you truly not understand what you are saying?


Not nearly so simple as that. Suggest you do read some Orthodox historians on the subject. I can provide a reading list.


Um, no.


Oh, for example, Cyrilian Christology vs. Chalcedonian Christology.


Before you all spoke Arabic, you all spoke Syriac (or Coptic). The Syriac term was Melkite--"King's Men".


Obviously, you do not understand the meaning of "rump".


When a see is dependent upon another for its financial support, and when its bishop is either nominated or appointed by the head of another see, then that see is indeed "Suffragan". For most of the time from the 7th to the 15th century, a majority of the bishops and often the patriarchs of the Chalcedonian Churches of Alexandria, Antioch and Jerusalem resided in Byzantine territory, often in Constantinople itself. A variety of Imperial writs exist commanding such bishops either to return to their sees or surrender their office.


The Patriarch of Antioch in 1054 was Peter III. And Antioch had been liberated from the Arabs in 969 during the reign of Nikephoros Phokas, allowing an independent Patriarchate to be reestablished. Antioch remained independent until 1078, when the Armenians briefly took over in the wake of Manzikert. It was conquered by the Seljuk Turks in 1084. Fourteen years later, the Crusaders arrived, but did not reinstall the Orthodox Patriarch.

So Not a Church, merely a ritual adjunct in the East of a particular jurisdiction of a Church

Not much utility in removing a mote, but the CE article can prove a tool to remove beams.

Here I must admit I don't understand what you are saying. Byzantine? Turnkey operation? Do you know what you are saying?

Please do so: although I read a lot under the eminent historian of the period, Prof. Walter Kaegi, one can never have too much information.

Balsamon, the "Patriarch of Antioch" who never set foot in his patriarchate nor left Constantinople, was the one who ordered Pope Mark II, and then gave orders to those coming from the Patriarchate to see their "patriarch" were ordered to suppress their rites and adopt Constantinople's. So, um, yes, we can precisely date the suppression (note: note the abandonment) of the EO rites of Alexandria and Antioch to the decade preceding the Crusader sack of Constantinople.
The shape of the liturgy By Gregory Dix [books.google.com]

Emperor and priest: the imperial office in Byzantium By Gilbert Dagron
http://books.google.com/books?id=yC...;q=Balsamon%20Liturgy%20Mark&f=false
So you mean a difference that doesn't exist?

I'm aware of that, having taken Syriac for my second language of the Doctorate Exams in Near Eastern Language and Cultures at the University of Chicago. And no, a lot of use spoke Arabic: the Idumeans, Nabateans, the Palmyrans, Edessan and Hatran rulers used Aramaic and Greek as their official records, but spoke Arabic as Arabs. Starting in the 4th century, Arabic inscriptions, including Christian ones, appear all over Lebanon, Syria and Iraq.
Not to load up on links here, I've posted links to the sources and evidence here:
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,22261.0.html

No, unlike you, I also know when it is misapplied. Or would you refer to Rome as a "rump" after its fall?

So during the "Byzantine Papacy"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Byzantine_Papacy#Economic
Old Rome was hte suffragan of New Rome? The Ecumenical Patriarch is now the suffragan of the Church of Greece and now the Greek Archdiocese of America?

Well, you so kindly direct us to those writs so we can consider them as evidence, because you describe a situation that comes about only after the Crusaders came in until the Mamlukes came, and then after the Ottoman conquest. Because we have quite a body of evidence of the patriarchs and their Holy Synod living in their patriachates until the Crusader period.

Ah, yes, Pat. Peter, not John. But the Patriarchate didn't have to be reestablished, as it never disappeared. Pat. John IV was the patriarch resident (and tortured by the Seljuks when the Crusaders approached)in Antioch, who was exiled by the Crusaders and ended up in Constantinople, ending up in the suffragan situation you portray above.

I think the point he was trying to make is that Orthodox ecclesiology hasn't changed in a millenia, whereas eastern Catholic ecclesiology has fluidly changed to helpfully accommodate whatever Roman trends come blowing in the wind (Vatican II, perhaps set to those very lyrics ;), for instance). Whatever you want to say about the 1909 encyclopedia's view, at least it represents a view of eastern catholic churches that had been consistent for a few centuries rather than debated for, oh, 30 years.

If he did mean that, then he'd be very, very wrong. Consider, for instance, the total inversion of the term "autocephalous".

What "total inversion" would that be?

Can you enlighten me?

(emphasis added)

Interesting that you should say that ... I think that the main thing to worry about with the Catholic Encyclopedia is that the websites that host it, like catholic.com and newadvent.org (plus catholic.org and catholicity.com) are clearly not traditionalist sites. I can't say exactly what their motivation is for promoting the Catholic Encyclopedia, but there's clearly some kind of syncretism going on there.

As The Blackwell Dictionary of Eastern Christianity puts it, originally


The Church of Cyprus was the classic example. Today, an autocephalous Church is a Church headed by a patriarch or metropolitan, further divided into metropolitan provinces and/or dioceses, which is absolutely self-governing and not subject to the authority of any other Church.

That notion of autocephaly has resulted in the current uncanonical and chaotic state of Orthodox ecclesiology, with the proliferation of national and even sub-national Churches all claiming autocephaly, and many with overlapping jurisdictions. It is also said that the Orthodox Church does not recognize a universal level of jurisdiction--but that also is historically incorrect.

Orthodox canonists and theologians are all agreed the current ecclesiology of the Orthodox Church is recent and not consistent with patristic norms--but Orthodox ecclesiology has not changed? Please!

Wrong yet again.

The Church of Cyprus wasn't the classic example of modern Blackwell's definition, as canon 8 of Ephesus shows:

http://www.earlychurchtexts.com/public/ephesus_canons_431.htm

So we have a church in Cyprus headed by an archbishop with suffragans, and himself holding authority directly, under no patriarch, as an autocephalous archbishop. Not at all Blackewell's definition, but the modern (and ancient) Orthodox one.

As Fr. Erikson writes


The challenge of our past: studies in Orthodox Canon law and Church history By John H. Erickson.
http://books.google.com/books?id=Xg...son&cd=1#v=onepage&q&f=false

As Fr. Erikson cites, the term autocephalous is frequently used in the sense Blackwell defines it, but already in 540 it is used, e.g. Thedore the Reader writing on Cyprus' Church, in the sense approaching the current technical meaning of a self-governing, independent ecclesiastical entity.


What "current uncanonical and chaotic state of Orthodox ecclesiology"? Can you provide details?


Like the four patriarchs of Antioch at Vatican II, only one of which the aftermath of Vatican II abolished? (and if you count the Catholicos of the Chaldeans with-as was historically the case-Antioch, that would be five with four still functioning with overlapping jurisdictions, five if the Latin rite parishes are under some Latin ordinary). Btw, has a decision been made about the Ruthenians vis-a-vis the UGCC?

.

Of course that's incorrect: we hold to all the Seven Ecumenical Councils.


Hate to break it to you, but you were lied to at Ravenna. Take your example of Cyprus: its status now remains the same as its status under the Fathers and indeed under the Apostles.

Do feel free to please yourself, and give us some examples of differences between the current ecclesiology of the Orthodox Church and that of the Orthodox Fathers on the Catholic Church. Be forwarned, however, that the canon 28 myth is indeed recent and not consistent with patristic norms, which is why it has been universally rejected by everyone but the Greek Church.

Fair points I suppose, though I would distinguish them from the changes the eastern catholics have gone through as the Orthodox are still in a state of aspiring to have a church inconformity with first millenium canonical norms (Met Philip excepted maybe), which is unfortunately in a dilapidated state. The ECs on the other hand are still trying to work out exactly what canonical norms govern them since the changes of VII and the 1970s, which is a different thing entirely.