www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life Faith & Theology Orthodox Catechesis

Why would you argue that those three Oriental Orthod Churches are completely byzanatinized?

Peace and grace.
Agape,
Wak-Wak
amen, maranatha!

Not the Oriental Orthodox Partriarchates but the Greek Orthodox Patriarchates in the same cities.

[ 08-07-2002: Message edited by: djs ]

I guess the best suggestion is DavidB's: to take the CCC as a basis for the reason that the CCC was tailormade from the Western viewpoints. Although dealing on thesame truths, it looks at them from a different angle. Yes, Orthodox cathechisms are good resources and must be used even if we are Catholics, but the CCC should be the basis. Did not the Vatican ask for creation of an Eastern version of the CCC? Afterall no less that the bishop of Rome is pushing for the return of eastern traditions lost with latinization. Thank God, Vatican's standpoint is a lot different today. So sit back and relax, Rome will not impose itself this time.

ahhh, i see. sorry.

Peace and grace.
Agape,
Wak-Wak
Amen, maranatha!

Come, Holy Spirit!

Mor Ephrem writes:

Originally posted by Gerard Serafin:
I think that the patriarchate of Alexandria and Antioch left the communion of the patriarchates of Rome, Constantinople, and Jerusalem. They were replaced by Orthodox bishops but the direct line of bishops is claimed by the Coptic Patriarch of Alexandria and the Syrian Orthodox patriarch of Antioch (I think).

Right!!

An interesting fact is that while the Sees of Alexandria and Antioch were replaced by Orthodox bishops, the Apostolic See of Rome never was (looking at it from the Orthodox perspective).

Any Orthodox have any idea why Alexandria and Antioch were replaced but Rome wasn't?

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Gerard Serafin:

>>>Any Orthodox have any idea why Alexandria and Antioch were replaced but Rome wasn't?>>>

The simple fact that by the time Constantinople had any reason to replace the Bishop of Rome, it was in no position to do so. The establishment of Chalcedonian hierarchies in Alexandria and Antioch were primarily Imperial initiatives, and not particularly successful. By the 13th century, the balance of power had shifted, and it was just physically impossible for Constantinople to establish a Byzantine patriarchate in Rome.

Father Elias,

Your advice seems sound. We don't use protestant material but do use some of the methods we learned while protestants.

Stuart,

Could Constantinople's weakness be attributed to God's design and hence be interpreted as Constantinople's secondary status in the Providential workings of God?

Dan Lauffer

Dear Brother Gerard,

My own view about why Rome never had a Byzantine Patriarchate was that Constantinople saw itself as having become the New Rome.

With the loss of its former political and religious significance, all that was to the West of it was looked down as "barbaric" by New Rome/Constantinople, just as Old Rome once looked upon all that lay beyond its cultural/political sphere in the same terms.

Byzantium/Constantinople saw itself as inheriting the identity and "helm" of the Roman Empire and its achievements and "mission."

It also saw itself as the leader of the four Eastern Patriarchates as the "Ecumenical Patriarchate."

For years even before the schism of 1054 AD, New Rome gained ascendancy, religiously and in geopolitical terms, over Old Rome and thus the path was prepared for the coming break.

It was ultimately not the political power of Old Rome at the time that led to the break, (Old Rome really only became a "power" later and following its isolation from the East) but New Rome's ambitions, buttressed by theological arguments of course.

The weakness of the New Roman Patriarchal replacement at Alexandria was largely due to the fact that the Copts themselves had a claim to their "New Pharaoh" (as the Coptic Popes were termed) being the "Ecumenical Archbishop."

In fact, the Coptic Popes were the strongest of the five Patriarchs at the time.

As we know, the Coptic Patriarch was the first to call himself "Pope" and to claim immediate jurisdiction over every single parish and priest throughout the length and breadth of Christian Africa. And this at a time when the Bishop of Rome was called "Your Beatitude" and did not exercise immediate jurisdiction over most of Italy.

The wealth of the Coptic Patriarch was immense, as we know, as was the tremendous universal, ecclesial significance of the Alexandrian School of Christian theology that produced Origen, Clement, Athanasius and Cyril.

While Alexandria was perfectly willing to accept the Primacy of Honour of the Patriarch of Old Rome, (Old Rome was in no position to threaten anyone's agenda then) it clearly saw itself as the natural candidate for the honour of being "Number 2" in patriarchal precedence.

Alexandria lost out when Constantinople used the "New Rome" argument to establish its own ascendancy.

Clearly, Constantinople could not compare with the theological and other achievements of Alexandria, itself a Greek city ("there was Alexandria and then there was the rest of Africa").

The only way it could lay claim to a Primacy in the Church - a Primacy that is today claimed within universal Orthodoxy - was to lay claim to the inheritance of Old Rome itself.

Alexandria for its part, didn't accept that argument and this tension is what ultimately led to the separation of Alexandria - with the other Oriental Orthodox Churches following - from the rest of the Church, then headed by New Rome with Old Rome having a symbolic precedence.

Later, following the "scandal" of the Byzantine churchmen signing the Council of Florence's union decrees (all save for St Mark of Ephesus) and the Fall of Constantinople that was seen in some Orthodox circles as God's judgement being visited on New Rome for giving in to the "heretical" Latin West, Moscow came into the mix.

Moscow declared itself a Patriarchate, New Rome love it or lump it, and Moscow's Tsar began to see himself as the inheritor of the "line of succession" from Old and New Rome by way of the "Third Rome."

This Orthodox Third Rome, namely Moscow, was pristine in its doctrinal purity, unsullied by any compromise with the heretical Latin West, as was Constantinople who "screwed it up" and was now paying the price by being in subjection to the Turks.

The Tsars of Moscow dreamed of liberating Constantinople one day and placing the Cross on top of the Cupola of Aghia Sophia once more.

Of course, they saw themselves as the New Byzantine Emperors of the Orthodox East, called by God to save the Greeks from heresy and oppose the Western Crusaders on the one hand, and the Islamic hordes on the other.

I sometimes wonder how this all fits in with today's ecumenical talks. It must be difficult for Latin Catholics, Greek Orthodox and Russian Orthodox to talk about the "Roman Primacy" when all three believe they are "Rome."

As I see it, anyhow . . .

Alex

[ 08-07-2002: Message edited by: Orthodox Catholic ]

Alex,

"Moscow declared itself a Patriarchate, New Rome love it or lump it, and Moscow's Tsar began to see himself as the inheritor of the "line of succession" from Old and New Rome by way of the "Third Rome."

This Orthodox Third Rome, namely Moscow, was pristine in its doctrinal purity, unsullied by any compromise with the heretical Latin West, as was Constantinople who "screwed it up" and was now paying the price by being in subjection to the Turks.

The Tsars of Moscow dreamed of liberating Constantinople one day and placing the Cross on top of the Cupola of Aghia Sophia once more.

Of course, they saw themselves as the New Byzantine Emperors of the Orthodox East, called by God to save the Greeks from heresy and oppose the Western Crusaders on the one hand, and the Islamic hordes on the other."

And so it goes on and on ad infinitum. These are the same kinds of arguments used by Protestant groups to justify their existence. Lord, have mercy!

Dan Lauffer

Come, Holy Spirit!

Alex writes:

My own view about why Rome never had a Byzantine Patriarchate was that Constantinople saw itself as having become the New Rome.

With the loss of its former political and religious significance, all that was to the West of it was looked down as "barbaric" by New Rome/Constantinople, just as Old Rome once looked upon all that lay beyond its cultural/political sphere in the same terms.

I am not an historian, but somehow this doesn't seem nuanced enough from what I do know about the situation at that time, and after as well.

It seems to me there is more behind the decision not to replace the bishop of Rome with an "orthodox" bishop as was done in Alexandria and Antioch.

I appreciated your historical sketch and found it interesting enough. But still it didn't really answer my question.

Rome was considered always a part of the "pentarchy" since its formulation. That was not dependent on its current status or cultural level - but it was a fact of ecclesiology and canonical structures.

Yet when Rome "fell" (from an Orthodox viewpoint) there was not, and has not been, any effort to replace her bishop, who is in continuity from apostolic times, with another "Orthodox" bishop.

My intuition tells me that there is a deeper reason, ecclesiological reason at work here.

Of course, I could be wrong. Won't be the first time!

<<<

I should be very careful about making such deductions; the end result is a rather Panglossian "best of all possible worlds" outlook on the one hand, or quasi-Islamic fatalism on the other. We cannot clearly discern God's intent in the plan, particularly in times past; we can only do our best with the time we are given.

Stuart,

I was just pulling your chain a bit. I guess the only point I'd like to make on this BC board is the same as the Pope made (I think). The Church breathes best with two lungs: East and West.

Dan Lauffer

Dear Gerard,

There was never any magical formula for "five" patriarchates. The Orthodox Church later had to accept the creation of further patriarchates, as did Rome and Vatican II even calls for the development of new patriarchates in the Eastern Catholic Churches where this is warranted.

Again, I go back to the point about "Rome."

Latin Catholics see "Rome" as that city in Italy .

"Rome" however always represented much more than this.

"Rome" represented a spiritual and yes ecclesiological significance, the pinnacle of the Greco-Roman Christian achievement and civilization.

"Rome" as such could be transferred outside the immediate and visible walls of the city called such.

Constantinople has ALWAYS considered itself as the SUCCESSOR of Old Rome, identifying itself completely with the spiritual and ecclesial significance of Rome and becoming the inheritor of all that Old Rome was.

The same is true of Moscow which sees itself as the inheritor of the Byzantine/New Roman Empire.

The argument then is that there was absolutely no need to establish a Byzantine Patriarchate for Rome. No, not when the Ecumenical Patriarchate considers itself to be "Rome" or "Rhoum."

The Turks themselves always referred and still refer to the Patriarch of Constantinople as the "Patriarch of the Romans."

I don't know how to make this any more nuanced, Friend.

After the Schism of 1054 AD, Old Rome, that had for years held only a symbolic role for the then powerful Byzantine East, completely lost it afterwards.

The number "5" for the Patriarchates was held to be somehow crucial only by the Roman Catholic Church that set up Patriarchates in the Eastern Sees.

But it did so not because it considered a Pentarchy necessary for the viable governance of the Church within a conciliar context, but because it wanted to, at that time, dominate the East and assert itself over the Eastern Churches that it came to regard as schismatic and without graces, a conclusion that was made painfully evident to the East with the Sack of Constantinople and the West's unwillingness to help defend the City of Constantine against the Turks later still.

I'm not trying to convince anyone here. I'm just stating my interpretation of history.

Please do share your own interpretation, including the "deeper reason." Politics, including church politics is often deep - as deep as money in pockets.

Alex

[ 08-07-2002: Message edited by: Orthodox Catholic ]

Dear Dan,

Well, I don't know if Protestants would try and justify their existence on the basis of a relationship to Rome!

It is true that the early Protestants called themselves "Reformed Catholicks."

But that's as far as it went.

All the early Christian centres of Europe and elsewhere developed their own "Myth" (used in a good sense about their Apostolic beginnings and their justification for leadership over their regions and throughout the Church.

Constantinople claimed its primacy on the basis of St Andrew. So did Kyivan Rus' and Moscow not only felt it had inherited the tradition of "New Rome" from Constantinople, but also that of St Andrew from Kyiv.

Pope St Gregory I actually believed that the "Petrine See" included Rome, Alexandria and Antioch, the three (rather than five) chief Patriarchates of his time.

And if a Christian centre could match its "Apostolic pretensions" with a solid record of theological schools, missionary outreach and other Christian works, then it truly was recognized as an apostolic Centre by the rest of Christendom.

The Pope of Rome himself also once referred to Moscow as the "Third Rome."

But was that an infallible pronouncement?

Alex

"I think it safe to say that the patriarchates of Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch and even Jerusalem are greatly diminished from the early centuries."

Yes, following the sack of Constantinople...

"While the patriarchate of Rome has grown significantly... adding new lands, and cultures, and populations."

Yes, with the resultant concentration of power of Rome. The East created autocephalous Churches in its evangellization or lands, while the West created dependencies of Rome. So that if Christianity is a communion of Churches, and if a Church is [physically] autocephalous [according to geography], [although in fact the Head of the whole Body (and each Church) is Christ], then where are the autocephalous Churches who have Rome as their Primate? Where are Rome's adult children? What we see are adolescents - eg not yet autocephalous.

It would be interesting to see what would happen were one [or all] of the Catholic Archdioceses in the west to declare itself autocephalous. It is agreed that autocephaly was the mode of being of the Church from place to place prior to the great schism, yes? And that following the schism, it continued to be the mode of being in the east, but was first immediately wiped out in the west by Rome, and then never reinstated, yes?

Our [EO] catechesis certainly addresses the matter of ekklesiology in terms of autocephalous Churches which are in communion... Does the RCC?

This probably belongs on an East and West thread.

geo