www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West primacy with bishop or his see?

Dr. John,

I have to ask... were these tears of joy or of sadness and disgust at my ignorance? Although I dread the answer, I just have to know. (Its rather dangerous sometimes posting on this forum. )

Of course, they were of joy. There are so many folks who just willy-nilly pontificate about this, that or the other thing but when one asks them about the true meaning of what they are talking about (in terms of language and meaning), one only gets a blank stare. (I just LOVE the Latin proponents who haven't the foggiest idea about Latin, butcher it beyond belief, but who will lay down their lives for it.)

Your comments are a refreshing change from the usual linguistic folderol; you actually know what you are talking about and speak it clearly. (Can we clone you?)

Blessings to you and your kin!!

(Is the sobriquet actually Armenian, or is it a variation through the Iranian community?)

Dear Der-Ghazarian,

Yes, I'm in tears too . . .

The term is definitely Greek, but the office which the Church imitated came from the organizational structure of the Roman Empire - the Greco-Roman tradition.

I wasn't specific enough and should be beaten about the calves and ankles - as my Latin teacher used to tell me.

Alex

Dear Dr. John,

Actually, it was the Fourth Council that DID say that the geographical and secular, imperial significance of Rome had a bearing on is primacy within the Church.

You yourself, albeit in tears, discussed the way in which the Church borrowed from the secular tradition of government as existed in the Roman Empire (even though the terms were Greek - O.K. I made a mistake, happy? ).

Rome was where Sts Peter and Paul were martyred, but there is no mention of that as a consideration in the Council's deliberations - this was a much later development in the Church's thinking.

Rome was the ONLY western city where Apostles established the Church. Antioch and many dozens of towns and cities in the East could likewise boast that their churches were founded by the Chief Apostles and others.

So if the fact that Peter and Paul were in Rome was the criterion for primacy - the whole thing was lost on the East that was well acquainted with the Apostles and their presence.

You, quite rightly, raise the issue of Kyiv (I'm still in tears over your Russian spelling of the name of Ukraine's capital - what kind of a diploma was that? )

The Metropolitans of Kyiv (who always had Patriarchal powers granted them by Constantinople and wore Patriarchal robes) slowly moved northwards after the enemy attacks on Kyiv got to be too much for them. They went to Vladimir on the Kliazma and then to a small city that was well protected by nature against attack, Moscow.

They continued to call themselves "Metropolitans of Kyiv" even though they no longer resided at Kyiv.

The argument was heated on this subject even then and the Muscovites (the official change to "Russian" only came with Peter I) had the name changed to "Moscow."

And your blaming the Moscow Patriarchate is simply unfair.

Rome and Constantinople have long recognized that name change - I blame Constantinople more than Moscow since Moscow doesn't know any better.

As for the ordering of the Patriarchates - sorry but Constantinople is in second place by Conciliar decree that is agreed to by all.

Although I would have to search way back for some articles, I know that Pope John Paul II, early in his Pontificate, publicly referred to Moscow as a "great Christian centre" and the "Third Rome."

I was involved with patriarchal movement at the time when this was said and our Church was quite sad at the pope's statements, including priests who preached sermons about it. There were articles about it in the press, but it was a few years back.

More tears . . .

Alex

I was speaking with a friend yesterday who mentioned that our official Ruthenian recension liturgical books published at Rome use the phrase "elder Rome" to refer to see of Peter at Rome, Italy.

Dear Administrator,

That certainly does make sense and it reflects a most ancient and authentic tradition.

"Rome" has been "passed on" from Rome, Italy to Constantinople and then to Moscow, at least the last two are "Pretenders to the Rome."

Getting back to the original question of this thread, this would illustrate that ecclesial authority and title can indeed be passed on to other geographic locales.

The argument isn't a perfect one because what is passed on is "Rome" rather than the ecclesiastical office of the Pope of Rome.

But "Rome" here is surely not the city itself, but the central authority for the universal Church, the Petrine Ministry.

Both Constantinople and Moscow feel justified in seeing themselves as exercising that Ministry based on the St Andrew legend (and legends can be true!) of the founding of the Church at Constantinople by the Apostle, the brother of St Peter, and the "taking on" of the Kyivan St Andrew story and role of Kyiv as "Light of the East" by Moscow.

But although Constantinople did come to play a more important ecclesial role than did Rome, the Councils still deferred to elder Rome as the original capital of the empire and, implicitly, because this was the site of the martyrdom of the Chief Apostles who founded the Church there as well.

I guess the lack of theological agreement on this issue is one reason why His All-Holiness Patriarch Bartholomew stays put!

Alex

Dear Dr. John,

I appreciate your kind words. Although, I more consider myself to be in the bumbling group of those who don't know much about the ancient languages (although I do desire and try to learn what I can). That's why I asked you the question, because I was hoping that I had got it right this time.

As for my "sobriquet" (I definitely had to look that one up ) allow me to simply copy this quote off of my web-page to explain:

The name "Der-Ghazarian," for those who may be wondering, is Armenian for "Lord" (= Der) which means "Reverend," and "Lazarus" (= Ghazar) and "son" (= ian). So literally it connotes "Lord Lazar-son." It was my great-grandmother's maiden name. Any name in Armenian beginning with "Der" indicates a priestly line. Somewhere in that family's heritage there was a priest or many priests. The Armenian Church, like all Eastern Churches, preserves the ancient practice of allowing married men to be ordained as priests. I have taken it as part of my name because of its significance to me. This is not only out of thankfulness to God for the priest(s) in my family's history but also because my Medz Mayrig (great-grandmother) Asanet, was a very special woman to me. In taking this name, I honor her for her faith in Christ, the love she shared, and her humble -yet profound- dedication to her Armenian heritage.

May Christ's Light be upon you and yours,

Der-Ghazarian

p.s. My apologies to everyone for getting off the subject of this thread. I will try not to avoid any further distraction from the very excellent and informitive information being presented.

Dear Dr. John,

I appreciate your kind words. Although, I more consider myself to be in the bumbling group of those who don't know much about the ancient languages (although I do desire and try to learn what I can). That's why I asked you the question, because I was hoping that I had got it right this time.

As for my "sobriquet" (I definitely had to look that one up ) allow me to simply copy this quote off of my web-page to explain:

The name "Der-Ghazarian," for those who may be wondering, is Armenian for "Lord" (= Der) which means "Reverend," and "Lazarus" (= Ghazar) and "son" (= ian). So literally it connotes "Lord Lazar-son." It was my great-grandmother's maiden name. Any name in Armenian beginning with "Der" indicates a priestly line. Somewhere in that family's heritage there was a priest or many priests. The Armenian Church, like all Eastern Churches, preserves the ancient practice of allowing married men to be ordained as priests. I have taken it as part of my name because of its significance to me. This is not only out of thankfulness to God for the priest(s) in my family's history but also because my Medz Mayrig (great-grandmother) Asanet, was a very special woman to me. In taking this name, I honor her for her faith in Christ, the love she shared, and her humble -yet profound- dedication to her Armenian heritage.

May Christ's Light be upon you and yours,

Der-Ghazarian

p.s. My apologies to everyone for getting off the subject of this thread. I will try to avoid any further distraction from the very excellent and informitive information being presented on this thread.