A Comment about a Comment in the recent Past

  • Thread starter Thread starter Jaypeeto4
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
J

Jaypeeto4

Guest
Something has been bugging me for weeks.
A few weeks back, an Eastern Orthodox fellow believer, referring
to the mutual excommunications of 1041 A.D.,
noted that the majority of the communion (4 of the 5 patriarchates and eventually all their members) sided with the Patriarch of Constantinople’s action excommunicating the papal legates (and by extension, the western church).
The Majority of the (heretofore 5 Patriarchate) Communion rejected the Roman Bishop, the successor of Saint Peter.
You know what? SO what? Big deal. Considered historically, this means nothing.
Only the Bishop of Rome was successor of Saint Peter and had been regarded so by all from the very first century A.D.
But just as importantly, the “four of the five patriarchates” no longer held the numerical significance that they once held.
Mohammed’s hordes had overrun most of the middle east long before 1041 A.D.
While the Patriarchates of Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem still existed,
the number of their subjects had been reduced to a REMNANT of their former numerically-large selves. Constantinople was still Christian, but the Muslim hordes were even then encroaching on the Eastern “Roman” Empire.
These three once-large Patriarchates, which sided with Constantinople in 1041 A.D., had nowhere near the huge numbers of Christians as did the western Church under the Pope and Patriarchate of Rome. Russia was still being evangelized at the time, this noble work having begun under Cyril and Methodius in earnest many decades before, but Moscow did not yet even have a patriarch.
This statement about the majority of the communion siding against Rome is thus misleading and not NEARLY as impressive as it might sound at first.
The fact is, the number of Christians outside of the Roman Patriarchate had GREATLY DWINDLED. The majority of Christians were western Christians, and that situation, sadly, got even worse for the east as the Ottomans conquered more and more of the east, and eventually in the 1400s seized Constantinople itself, brutally murdering thousands of eastern Christians who had taken refuge in Hagia Sophia.
 
It should also be noted that the Syriac and Coptic Patriarchs (the “original” succession of Patriarchs of Alexandria and Antioch) had been in schism with the Catholic Church (both Rome and Byzantium) since the Council of Chalcedon in 451… the Patriarchs of Antioch and Alexandria in communion with Rome/Constantinople in the 11th century were heavily Hellenized and under Constantinople’s spiritual/political influence.

Also - I think you mean 1054 not 1041.
 
Something has been bugging me for weeks.
Probably because you are confused.
A few weeks back, an Eastern Orthodox fellow believer, referring to the mutual excommunications of 1041 A.D.,
noted that the majority of the communion (4 of the 5 patriarchates and eventually all their members) sided with the Patriarch of Constantinople’s action excommunicating the papal legates (and by extension, the western church).
First of all, they excommunicated ONLY the legates, not the western church. It could have easily remained that way until the legates asked for forgiveness.

Secondly, the episode involved the illegal activities of a couple of rogue Roman Catholic prelates and the Patriarch of Constantinople, the other three Patriarchs were not involved and there was no Pope.
The Majority of the (heretofore 5 Patriarchate) Communion rejected the Roman Bishop, the successor of Saint Peter.
Per what I have just written they rejected nothing. The rest of what you have written is a sort of fantasy play, not historical, a popular revision of history.
 
The Majority of the (heretofore 5 Patriarchate) Communion rejected the Roman Bishop, the successor of Saint Peter.
. The rest of what you have written is a sort of fantasy play, not historical, a popular revision of history.
Great. I agree that this popular version of 4 to 1 is fantasy. But we certainly know where it is most rigidly rooted.
 
To the OP:

As fellow believer in Jesus Christ and in communion with our Most Holy Father, Pope Benedict XVI,guardian and teacher of the Holy Faith, I must kindly point out that I am not exactly sure I know what you are trying to discuss? Is it the papal primacy? There are plenty of threads on that. The 1054 business? This has also been discussed. Clarify, please…
 
Great. I agree that this popular version of 4 to 1 is fantasy. But we certainly know where it is most rigidly rooted.
The whole myth of 1054 being the end of intercommunion is fantasy. I suppose people need for some sort of climactic event instead of a slow falling out of communion, complete by the thirteenth century.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top