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

Alex,

Yes. I should have been more precise.

It just all seems so childish. I guess that says something about my views concerning politics.

Dan Lauffer

Come, Holy Spirit!

Alex writes:

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..

From the few sources I have available and have checked, this assertion seems not quite accurate. In the excellent Blackwell Dictionary of Eastern Christianity it has a very brief entry on "The Pentarchy":

"The theory, supported by Byzantine law, that the supreme government of the church is vested n the five patriarchal sees of Rome, Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem." (That entry was written by my cyber-friend and brother in Christ, David Melling, of the outstanding "arimathea" website).

Also I have on hand the "classic" of Professor Jaroslav Pelikan, vol 2 of his History of the Development of Doctrine, The Spirit of Eastern Christendom. Among other things he writes:

"The eastern version (in contrast to the Roman view)... was not the monarchy of New Rome but the doctrine of the pentarchy. This doctrine came to its focus in the schism of the eleventh century, but its basic elements had been in present much earlier."

Pelikan goes on to quote various Eastern writers and then says:

"Underlying the doctrine of the pentarchy was the Eastern view of the patriarchate."

I quote just a bit now (I had planned on scanning more but my just repaired scanner, I find, is not repaired at all! Ugh!), to show that according to Pelikan, the doctrine of the pentarchy has eastern roots.

I am curious as to your own sources for what you assert about the pentarchy being a Roman Catholic construct.

I tend to trust the sources I quote above. (And do not know your sources well enough to have any opinion yet).

[ 08-07-2002: Message edited by: Gerard Serafin ]

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.

Is it possible that when Alexandria and Antioch did not accept the Chalcedonian definition, there were nevertheless those people, clerics and laity, who wanted to accept it? Wouldn't this then necessitate a "Greek" bishop to take care of them?

This would explain why there are Greek patriarchs in Alexandria and Antioch (where the Patriarch is also successor of Saint Peter, and before he was ever in Rome...come home, Gerard :p )

And is it possible that when the Great Schism occurred in 1xxx, instead of there being a faction of clerics and laity desiring communion with the Orthodox, that all of them desired to stay with Rome?

If this is the case, then there is no practical need to replace the bishop of Rome with a "Greek", as a bishop with no flock is somewhat useless. And if Constantinople already saw itself as Rome or New Rome or whatever, there is no need for a replacement Rome, is there?

I could be wrong, but it's just an idea...

Dear Gerard,

The point here is not the sources themselves, but how one interprets them.

No one is going to argue against the existence, at one point, of the Pentarchy.

The point is that the Church was never LIMITED to the Pentarchy.

The Pentarchy itself developed over time, with three, four and then five Patriarchal centres.

The Pentarchy was around for a while, but in none of the excellent sources you quote was the Pentarchy ever absolutely "canonized" as the ONLY number of allowable Patriarchates in the Church.

The Pentarchy's role in church government is well documented.

And Rome recognized the Pentarchy as did Byzantium.

Was Rome's placement of Latin Patriarchs in the other four Patriarchal sees of the East based on a position that saw an enduring role of a Pentarchy for the Roman Catholic Church?

Not at all! Rome itself would be the sole necessary Patriarchate and See within the RC Church and it had no need of the Pentarchy as such.

The instalment of those Patriarchs was solely an attempt to indicate Rome's enduring claim to JURISDICTION over the East, an illusory claim at best especially given the fact of the alienation of the East from Rome at that time.

Once the Orthodox Patriarchates of the Four Eastern Sees considered Rome in schism from the Church, there could no longer be any thought about a Pentarchy, despite the role of the original united five Patriarchates in much of the first millenium of the Church's history.

And Moscow later not only claimed to be the Third Rome, but also the "Fifth Patriarchate" in precedence following the historical Four Orthodox Patriarchates.

Are you, Friend, searching for something to hang me with here?

What are you really after? What is your view here?

I've given you mine, you are holding yours back.

Unless you want to engage in an open discussion by sharing what you truly feel and how you interpret this, (those "deeper" things), I feel that you are just engaging in a sniper venture here.

You drew a conclusion on something I said that wasn't what I believe.

Let's forget about me for now and concentrate on your perspective here.

Alex

New tribes and new cultures?

In Bulgaria and southern Albania, the Orthodox are accomplishing what others have found impossible to accomplish: converting-freely and without coercion-the indigenous Illyrian/Tosk and Bulgarian Muslim people to Christ....soul by soul, family by family, and tiny village by tiny village.(Of course, in typical Orthodox fashion, they are building the kingdom of God without media hype and self-aggrandizement.)

The return of these Islamic people-without violence-to the faith of their ancestors-even if only in small numbers-is a major achievement that only the Orthodox can boast of.

Typically, they will not.

Abdur

Dear Brother in Christ, Abdur,

Excellent - thank you for sharing that!

And that is in the best traditions of Orthodox mission outreach as well.

How's the Christian life so far?

Alex

“Cantor Joe Thur has had a thing or two to say about the CCC - that it's a Latin document that we should stay away from for that reason.”


Alex,

Can you please explain? I have always questioned the automatic reflex by some to seek all the answers in the CCC as if our Byzantine theological traditions have absolutely nothing to say. Some have even used the Catholic Encyclopedia as the authority on all matters. Still others have used the Baltimore Catechism. A few more will use Vatican I, whereas others will use Trent for their all-encompassing authority. Does this mean that in our hierarchy of truths, we should first seek the answers in the CCC, then only in our theological and liturgical traditions later? I only question uncritical proof-texting with no further investigation how that truth or dogma is understood in our Byzantine tradition and reflected in our liturgies, iconography, and hymnography. That is all.

I once wrote on a separate thread:

“We are well-versed (maybe not) in the meaning of the "rock" in the NT, but do we know what our Pentectostarion means by it? We are well-versed (maybe not) in the meaning of the Immaculate Conception dogma, but do we know how our Church celebrates the Feast of St. Anne's Conception? We are well-versed in being believers of the Pope, but do we actually read what he writes and teaches and instructs? We are good at finding all the answers in the CCC, but have we ever turned a page or sang a sticheron from the Festal Menaion? the Lenten Triodion? the Pentecostarion? the Bible? We are experts in proving how these "inorganic" traditions are our history and right, but become mute or unintelligible in our lexicon of "organic" faith traditions. It is not what is said, but what is NOT said that tells me more about one's character.”

Some may consider this as being negative for the sake of being negative. Is this really being negative? What is “negated” is that which is left out. I never stated that we should stay away from the CCC. The CCC makes a number of honorable mentions of the Eastern traditions. Our Light for Life trilogy, an “adult statement of faith” rather than a “catechism,” is an attempt to complement the CCC with a more Byzantine perspective. There is deficiency in the CCC that our own bishops sought to remedy. Was their response in publishing their own trilogy a negative act?

The CCC is a testament of our Catholic faith, which needs to be complemented with a Byzantine perspective, not replace it uncritically.

I remember questioning a Latin Catholic who considered the Last Supper as a Passover Meal. His thought was that since the Synoptics considered it such that majority rules, therefore, it was definitely a Passover Meal. I simply mentioned John and that our Anaphora uses “on the night he was betrayed” (without mentioning what night) and he considered me very negative and attacking “Catholic” teaching on the matter. I was also supposed to accept all Roman Catholic dogmas, especially the Immaculate Conception (as how the Latins understood it) in order to be a “real” Catholic. There was also another fella who was in one of my scripture classes, who is a Byzantine Catholic from the Archeparchy, who thinks that Sts. Thomas Aquinas and Augustine is the answer to everything. I asked if he ever heard about the Cappadocians, and he responded, “Who?” I think he is planning to teach someday representing the Byzantine Catholics.

Personally, I've never seen anyone use the CCC in our catechesis, whether quoting it or referencing it. Nor have I seen an official catechetical mandate to do so. How can it help in Eastern Christian Formation? I have seen a lot of Orthodox publications being used in many of our parishes, including the Orthodox Study Bible, in addition to the Light for Life trilogy and other God With Us issues. Our pastors and catechists out there have demonstrated the need to first speak of our perspective rather than proof-text the CCC to all questions with something Byzantine slapped on for good measure. Are they being negative?

I have a copy of the Ukrainian Catholic catechetical directory, and teaching THEOSIS (a Byzantine doctrine) is the first order of business in the contents. Where does one begin teaching the doctrine of theosis using the CCC? Terms like theosis, deification, and synergy are not there. See: http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/index/d.htm , http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/index/t.htm , and http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/index/s.htm to see what I mean.

BTW, the CCC also states in 1353b that, “In the institution narrative, the power of the words and the action of Christ, and the power of the Holy Spirit, MAKE SACRAMENTALLY PRESENT [emphasis mine] under the species of bread and wine Christ's body and blood, his sacrifice offered on the cross once for all.”

How do those Catholics, who do not have an institution narrative in their anaphora, use the CCC? I do not reject the CCC, I only question the uncritical and unexamined use of it for all things Byzantine. I only ask for care to be taken.

Fr. Taft once wrote on tradition:

“Any view of "the tradition" has to take account of the whole tradition, not just its currently accepted "official" expression … Problems in the history of the theological tradition are resolved not by references to the Council of Trent or to flights of fancy concerning sobornost ' and eucharistic ecclesiology, salted with a couple of commonplaces from some patristic anthology of long overworked proof-texts, but by the careful, close reading of all the sources, and attempting to fit all the tesserae into the mosaic.” (“The Contribution of Eastern Liturgy to the Understanding of Christian Worship,” 1996)

If you want to read a highly critical assessment of Western liturgical theology, read Fr. Taft's article. Sometimes, inquiring minds aren't always trying to be negative. I have a right to inquire without being charged thusly. If someone in your parish asked you a question about your instruction, do you jump on them with charges of being negative? Do you ignore their question and change the focus of the discussion to determine whether they are negative or positive people? That would be unfair to the person asking the question. The person asking may not really be negative, but only critical. In education, the art of communication - questions and answers without personal reprimand - is a wonderful thing we can enjoy in a free society. Some folks find “references to the Council of Trent” satisfactory; others do not. Some answers may satisfy questions believers may have, but may prove to be unsatisfactory to non-believers who may be inquiring.


Happy Theosis!
Joe Thur

“An unexamined life is not worth living.”

Come, Holy Spirit!

One last post before siesta --

By the way, Alex, I am upfront in my writings and no "hidden agenda" to fear. Take my words for what they say, OK? Thanks.

You write now:

No one is going to argue against the existence, at one point, of the Pentarchy.

The point is that the Church was never LIMITED to the Pentarchy.

The Pentarchy itself developed over time, with three, four and then five Patriarchal centres.

The Pentarchy was around for a while, but in none of the excellent sources you quote was the Pentarchy ever absolutely "canonized" as the ONLY number of allowable Patriarchates in the Church.

My response was to what you wrote in the following clip (and I never implied or stated that the Pentarchy was absolutely canonized as the only way. I never stated that because I realize the Pentarchy was a time-limited theory to begin with and not of the essence of the Church).

What you had written and what I disagreed with based on my sources was this:

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..

Please don't get personal if you find replies like this distasteful to you. I am sticking with the issues and what is actually written. Please don't get offended by this.

Dear Gerard,

My apologies, Brother, I did not mean to get personal. I just didn't see or understand what your perspective on this was. That was not meant to be personal, only evocative. My Latin teacher taught me all about that!

My point was that you had interpreted something I wrote to mean something I had not intended it to mean.

We could have talked about our two interpretations of what I had written, rather than you drawing your conclusion and assuming it was what I was saying as well.

And what I was saying was that while Constantinople wasn't concerned about the lack of a fifth patriarchate following the Schism of 1054 AD, Rome certainly was and insisted on installing (Latin) Patriarchs in the other four Sees.

I have already said why I believe Rome did this and that, once again, the number "5" wasn't all that important in the East following the Schism.

Again, my apologies, Brother in Christ.

Perhaps I need a vacation from the Forum as I seem to be upsetting quite a few people today, including my own Ukrainian Catholic people (but they can be difficult at the best of times .

Alex

Dear Cantor Joe,

It seems I've gotten a few people mad at me today!

My apologies with an explanation and I'll sign off until the "bad karma" that has so obviously enveloped me today wears off.

I actually didn't mean that statement in the negative way that you interpreted it to be.

I agree with you, but you are the theologian here, not me and so you are the leader in the charge.

I think that the CCC is a Latin document that needs to be either a) complemented with additional Byzantine teaching materials as you suggest or b) be rewritten from a Byzantine theological, liturgical and canonical perspective for use by Eastern Catholics.

Frankly, I prefer the latter approach, if it can be done.

Otherwise, the question that should really be posed is "why do we need the CCC if we have our own teaching materials already?"

You once asked a similar question some time ago.

For me, the CCC represents the best in RC understanding of Eastern Christianity to date, including the section on the Jesus Prayer.

I understand your sensitivity to my question - I could have put it more diplomatically.

You are truly a prophet, a voice crying in the wilderness of our Latinisms for a return to our traditions.

And like all true prophets, such are respected, but often not in their own home.

God bless and this offending character is taking a spiritual-recharging break for as long as it takes to "smarten up."

But at least I got your undivided attention for a well-written and informative response from you.

So I must have done something right . . .

Alex

Alex,

Maybe I am being Stoic here, but I don't really see a need to apologize. I love good hearty discussions. Proof-text without con-text worries me. I enjoy the rumble and tumble with the issue or topic at hand rather than considering what disposition I think the inquirer is in. Like you, I was instructed by Latin professors too who preferred criticism over negativity; though many fail to find a distinction between the two.

Joe

Alex writes:


I agree the CCC is primarily Latin in approach (with some notable exceptions!)

I wouldn't say it should be re-written for Eastern Catholics. But, I think Alex's idea of a comprehensive Eastern Catechism based on a "Byzantine theological, liturgical and canonical perspective" for use by Eastern Catholics is a wonderful idea!! There have been other Catechisms put out since the CCC that reference it and add other dimensions. We could do the same.

Dave Ignatius DTBrown@aol.com

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

Dear Alex Pasha,

I've built my metaphorical hermitage,where one can put down roots, nurture them, and avoid the pugilists.

Where I go from point A is a bit of a mystery, but my prayer life is rooted in the in Eastern traditions, which is a clue as to the path I might travel when the time is right.

I love your posts.

Christ is our refuge and peace!

Abdur

Abdur,

This is great news. Where can I find more about these conversions.

Dan Lauffer

Dear Dan,

My apologies.

It is for you to correct me, Professor, not me you!

Alex