Alexandria vs Antioch

[mardukm]

Dear brother Nine_Two,

The second.
Do you have quotes from Fathers?

I can think of four off-hand. (not having my usual resources here in the Philippines):

(1) The council of Sardica’s attribution of it’s recognition of the bishop of Rome’s prerogative to be the court of final appeal to the honor of St. Peter.

(2) St. John Chrysostom’s interpretation of the Matthew 24 verse (“who is the wise and faithful servant whom the Master will set over his household to feed it”) as a reference to St. Peter and his successors.

(3) The laud given by at least two Ecumenical Councils to the bishop of Rome that “Peter has spoken through…”

(4) St. Cyprian’s attribution of the See of Rome being the seat of priestly unity due to its succession from St. Peter.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Nine_Two]

I’m not talking about Rome though, I’m talking about Alexandria attaching the importance of St. Peter to itself.

 

[mardukm]

I’m not talking about Rome though, I’m talking about Alexandria attaching the importance of St. Peter to itself.

As noted, Alexandria received the Gospel because of a divine revelation to St. Peter. I don’t know what greater relevance one could attach to the link between Alexandria and St. Peter. And I don’t know why you would question the importance of that fact. It is recorded in our histories. EO, especially Slavs, make much of the fact that it was St. Photius who sent Sts. Cyril and Methodius to preach the Gospel to the slavic lands. You take that for granted, yet for some strange reason you doubt that it could be important to Copts that St. Peter sent St. Mark to Alexandria to preach the Gospel. I think that demonstrates an inconsistent prejudice on the part of EO.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Nine_Two]

As noted, Alexandria received the Gospel because of a divine revelation to St. Peter. I don’t know what greater relevance one could attach to the link between Alexandria and St. Peter. And I don’t know why you would question the importance of that fact. It is recorded in our histories. EO, especially Slavs, make much of the fact that it was St. Photius who sent Sts. Cyril and Methodius to preach the Gospel to the slavic lands. You take that for granted, yet for some strange reason you doubt that it could be important to Copts that St. Peter sent St. Mark to Alexandria to preach the Gospel. I think that demonstrates an inconsistent prejudice on the part of EO.

Blessings,
Marduk

I’ve actually never heard anyone emphasize St. Photius as being the Patriarch who sent out Sts Cyril and Methodius.

My question was relating to a quest for sources on this post, however.

twf:

But doesn’t the Oriental testimony suggest otherwise? St. Gregory is certain post-Chalcedon… the non-Chalcedonian Churches recognize the primacy of Alexandria (in the Coptic and Ethiopian traditions) and Antioch (in the Syriac tradition) by virtue of St. Peter… so some form of this tradition must have predated St. Gregory.

which twf passed over to you for evidence.

In other words, what writings from the fathers in the Oriental church proclaim that the primacy of Alexandria in that communion is based on the fact that it is a Petrine See.

 

[mardukm]

I’ve actually never heard anyone emphasize St. Photius as being the Patriarch who sent out Sts Cyril and Methodius.

I’ve encountered it several times in the past several years. A quick google search:
“[Photius] is perhaps best known for his leading role in the conversion of the Slavic peoples. It was Photios who, correctly understanding the inner psychology of the semi-barbaric Moravian Slavs (in today’s Czechoslovakia), dispatched to convert them in 862, at their request, the Apostles to the Slavs, Cyril and his brother Methodios, two Greeks from Thessalonike learned in the Slavonic language and, most important, to translate the Greek liturgy into Slavonic…It was Photios’ conversion of the Moravians and Bulgars through the work of Cyril and Methodios that later led to the Byzantine conversion of the Russian Slavs.”
westernorthodox.com/kalendar/0206a.htm

“[Photius] was a central figure in both the conversion of the Slavs to Christianity.”
pittsburgh.goarch.org/about/saintphotios

In other words, what writings from the fathers in the Oriental church proclaim that the primacy of Alexandria in that communion is based on the fact that it is a Petrine See.

I don’t know of any because as far as the Oriental Orthodox communion at large, there is no talk of one Patriarchate having primacy in relation to another patriarchate (except in the microcosm of each particular Tradition in OO’xy). As stated in a past post, this idea of precedence among the original patriarchates seems to be peculiar to the Eastern Orthodox mentality. It seems of great concern to you, but it is not to Orientals, and neither is it to most Catholics (I gather).

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Nine_Two]

I’ve encountered it several times in the past several years. A quick google search:
“[Photius] is perhaps best known for his leading role in the conversion of the Slavic peoples. It was Photios who, correctly understanding the inner psychology of the semi-barbaric Moravian Slavs (in today’s Czechoslovakia), dispatched to convert them in 862, at their request, the Apostles to the Slavs, Cyril and his brother Methodios, two Greeks from Thessalonike learned in the Slavonic language and, most important, to translate the Greek liturgy into Slavonic…It was Photios’ conversion of the Moravians and Bulgars through the work of Cyril and Methodios that later led to the Byzantine conversion of the Russian Slavs.”
westernorthodox.com/kalendar/0206a.htm

“[Photius] was a central figure in both the conversion of the Slavs to Christianity.”
pittsburgh.goarch.org/about/saintphotios

I think I’d have to disagree with that site that the conversion of the Slavs is what he is best known for.

I don’t know of any because as far as the Oriental Orthodox communion at large, there is no talk of one Patriarchate having primacy in relation to another patriarchate (except in the microcosm of each particular Tradition in OO’xy). As stated in a past post, this idea of precedence among the original patriarchates seems to be peculiar to the Eastern Orthodox mentality. It seems of great concern to you, but it is not to Orientals, and neither is it to most Catholics (I gather).

Blessings,
Marduk

Which is what I thought you had said before, however twf was saying otherwise, and saying you’d answer for the evidence.

I’ll also comment that the more I see, the more I’m convinced that you are probably correct, the idea of a ranking of Churches is an Eastern Orthodox innovation - though one that affects the Catholic Church to a lesser extent.

 

[mardukm]

I think I’d have to disagree with that site that the conversion of the Slavs is what he is best known for.

Which is what I thought you had said before, however twf was saying otherwise, and saying you’d answer for the evidence.

I’ll also comment that the more I see, the more I’m convinced that you are probably correct, the idea of a ranking of Churches is an Eastern Orthodox innovation - though one that affects the Catholic Church to a lesser extent.

Oh OK. I think we are on the same page.

To recap (just for the sake of clarity):
There was a question of why Alexandria has precedence over Antioch in the order of Sees.

In response, I stated that I am not aware that Alexandria has precedence over Antioch in the order or Sees. Further, I stated that in the divine constitution of the Church, it is only the primacy that matters (which was held by Rome), not who was “second,” “third,” “fourth.” etc. after that.

Our EO brethren appealed to certain sources that stated that Alexandria was “third” or “second” and Antioch was “fourth” or “third.”

In response, I stated that this concern for precedence seems to be peculiar to the EO. I also expressed the concern that this question makes it seem like Alexandria has a certain primacy in relation to Antioch, when it does not.

Someone also mentioned Pope St. Gregory’s attribution of primacy to the three Petrine Sees.

I responded that his concern was to give an indication of primacy in relation to all other Sees, though even within that triumvirate of Petrine Sees, there was only one that held the primacy. In other words, it is the concept of primacy that matters, not who is “second,” “third,” “fourth.” etc. after that.

Then the question was asked whether there were any Coptic sources that indicated that Alexandria gave any importance to its connection to St. Peter. I interpreted this question exactly as it was stated, and responded accordingly.

But my response was not given to lend any credence to the concept of a successive precedence among the Sees. As stated, as far as the divine consitution of the Church is concerned, it is only the primacy that matters, not who is “second,” “third,” “fourth,” etc. after that.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[twf]

mardukm / Nine_Two:
I think there’s been a misunderstanding. When I asked brother Mardukm to step in, we had already deviated from the original question of why Alexandria ranks above Antioch in the order of precedence. I contended that Alexandria held primacy in Africa (and to this day in the Coptic/Ethiopian tradition), and that Antioch held primacy in Asia (and to this day in the Syriac tradition) by vrute of St. Peter, just as Rome held primacy over the whole Church by virtue of St. Peter. I believe that Mardukm has indirectly confirmed that this is the ancient Oriental understanding - but this is the point we are trying to clarify. In other words…the Coptic Pope holds primacy in the Coptic/Ethiopian Churches not because he is simply bishop of the once important city of Alexandria, but because he shares in the primacy of Peter… and likewise, the Syriac Patriach exercises primacy over the Syriac Churches of the Near East and India for the same reason…

 

[dcointin]

My problem with the argument that sees enjoy their primacy by virue of their connection to St. Peter is that I’m sure he founded or was involved in the foundation of many sees other than Alexandria, Antioch, and Rome. Wouldn’t these sees logically enjoy the same status if that were the case?

 

[mardukm]

mardukm / Nine_Two:
I think there’s been a misunderstanding. When I asked brother Mardukm to step in, we had already deviated from the original question of why Alexandria ranks above Antioch in the order of precedence. I contended that Alexandria held primacy in Africa (and to this day in the Coptic/Ethiopian tradition), and that Antioch held primacy in Asia (and to this day in the Syriac tradition) by vrute of St. Peter, just as Rome held primacy over the whole Church by virtue of St. Peter. I believe that Mardukm has indirectly confirmed that this is the ancient Oriental understanding - but this is the point we are trying to clarify. In other words…the Coptic Pope holds primacy in the Coptic/Ethiopian Churches not because he is simply bishop of the once important city of Alexandria, but because he shares in the primacy of Peter… and likewise, the Syriac Patriach exercises primacy over the Syriac Churches of the Near East and India for the same reason…

Thanks for the clarification, brother Tyler.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Don,

My problem with the argument that sees enjoy their primacy by virue of their connection to St. Peter is that I’m sure he founded or was involved in the foundation of many sees other than Alexandria, Antioch, and Rome. Wouldn’t these sees logically enjoy the same status if that were the case?

It’s possible, but we don’t have a record of any of those other Sees. Rome, Antioch and Alexandria are the only ones we have to this day who can claim direct relationship to St. Peter for their establishment.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[dcointin]

Dear brother Don,

It’s possible, but we don’t have a record of any of those other Sees. Rome, Antioch and Alexandria are the only ones we have to this day who can claim direct relationship to St. Peter for their establishment.

Blessings,
Marduk

Do you believe that the fact that they were also the three largest and most important cities of the Roman Empire had no bearing on their status in the Church?

 

[Nine_Two]

mardukm / Nine_Two:
I think there’s been a misunderstanding. When I asked brother Mardukm to step in, we had already deviated from the original question of why Alexandria ranks above Antioch in the order of precedence. I contended that Alexandria held primacy in Africa (and to this day in the Coptic/Ethiopian tradition), and that Antioch held primacy in Asia (and to this day in the Syriac tradition) by vrute of St. Peter, just as Rome held primacy over the whole Church by virtue of St. Peter. I believe that Mardukm has indirectly confirmed that this is the ancient Oriental understanding - but this is the point we are trying to clarify. In other words…the Coptic Pope holds primacy in the Coptic/Ethiopian Churches not because he is simply bishop of the once important city of Alexandria, but because he shares in the primacy of Peter… and likewise, the Syriac Patriach exercises primacy over the Syriac Churches of the Near East and India for the same reason…

We still have no sources on that assertion, and I interprete what Mardukm is saying to mean it isn’t seen as an issue.

 

[Cavaradossi]

By the way, the pentarchy was defined by the so-called eighth ecumenical council, accepted by the Latins. They too abandoned the three-petrine sees theory when it was inconvenient for them.

 

[dcointin]

It seems to me that this is just a case of a different perspective between east and west. That isn’t to say that either is necessarily wrong, only different, and I don’t see why they can’t both be true.

 

[mardukm]

By the way, the pentarchy was defined by the so-called eighth ecumenical council, accepted by the Latins. They too abandoned the three-petrine sees theory when it was inconvenient for them.

What are you talking about? The three-Petrine sees theory does not mean there are only three apostolic Sees. It is a reference to the primacy of the first three apostolic sees in the Church in relation to all other sees.

IMO, admission of the pentarchy does not necessarily denude the notion of that primordial primatial triumvirate of sees. The notion of precedence is merely honorific, administrative at best. In distinction, the notion of primacy has a theological relevance.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Don,

Do you believe that the fact that they were also the three largest and most important cities of the Roman Empire had no bearing on their status in the Church?

Yes. I am a firm believer that it is the apostolic origins of those Sees that gave them prominence in the Church. It was only when the State married the Church that the idea you propose ever became a consideration. Prior to that it was apostolicity that was the primary, if not sole, rationale, as witnessed by the works of St. Irenaeus and Eusebius.

EDIT: Note that St. Irenaeus and Eusebius were both pre-Church/State marriage.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Cavaradossi]

Dear brother Don,

Yes. I am a firm believer that it is the apostolic origins of those Sees that gave them prominence in the Church. It was only when the State married the Church that the idea you propose ever became a consideration. Prior to that it was apostolicity that was the primary, if not sole, rationale, as witnessed by the works of St. Irenaeus and Eusebius.

EDIT: Note that St. Irenaeus and Eusebius were both pre-Church/State marriage.

Blessings,
Marduk

That’s not entirely true. When Diocletian broke Italy into two administrative dioceses with Milan as the head of the northern one and Rome as the head of the southern one, the Church followed suit and Milan became the head of those northern provinces, with no protest from Rome. Thee principle of accommodation to civil divisions was well practiced in the Church before Nicaea.

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother in Christ Cavaradossi,

That’s not entirely true. When Diocletian broke Italy into two administrative dioceses with Milan as the head of the northern one and Rome as the head of the southern one, the Church followed suit and Milan became the head of those northern provinces, with no protest from Rome. Thee principle of accommodation to civil divisions was well practiced in the Church before Nicaea.

I think this rather proves my point. Milan became the new capital of the empire, and Rome had already become a mere figurehead capital for some time. Yet the bishop of Rome still held the primacy. Even after the seat of the Empire moved to Constantinople, the bishop of Rome still held the primacy. So the notion of primacy held precedence (no pun intended) over the notion of precedence in the mind of the Church.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Nine_Two]

Dear brother in Christ Cavaradossi,

I think this rather proves my point. Milan became the new capital of the empire, and Rome had already become a mere figurehead capital for some time. Yet the bishop of Rome still held the primacy. Even after the seat of the Empire moved to Constantinople, the bishop of Rome still held the primacy. So the notion of primacy held precedence (no pun intended) over the notion of precedence in the mind of the Church.

Blessings,
Marduk

You’re also talking about a group that takes an extreme view toward the concept of “tradition”.