Alexandria vs Antioch

[twf]

There are also Patriarchs in Western Europe who are just glorified Bishops. The Patriarch of Venice and one in Portugal the name of whose see I can’t remember. In the past there was also a Patriarch of Aquileia, which is about a stones throw from Venice.

They are glorified metropolitan archbishops - and there are presently four:

Jerusalem

Goa

Venice

Lisbon

That being said, the office of patriarch never fully developed in the West as it did in the East. Rome only reluctantly accepted the Byzantine construct of the Pentarchy and her bishop has only occasionally used the title “Patriarch of the West” (the removal of such title from the Pope’s official list of titles was not as revolutionary as many seem to think…it has not been consistently used down through the centuries). The Pope, for all intents and purposes, serves as the equivalent of a patriarch for the Latin Church, but I would contend that patriarch is not really a Latin office - it is an Eastern one and the West has never really known what to do with it…

 

[Nine_Two]

They are glorified metropolitan archbishops - and there are presently four:

Jerusalem

Goa

Venice

Lisbon

That being said, the office of patriarch never fully developed in the West as it did in the East. Rome only reluctantly accepted the Byzantine construct of the Pentarchy and her bishop has only occasionally used the title “Patriarch of the West” (the removal of such title from the Pope’s official list of titles was not as revolutionary as many seem to think…it has not been consistently used down through the centuries). The Pope, for all intents and purposes, serves as the equivalent of a patriarch for the Latin Church, but I would contend that patriarch is not really a Latin office - it is an Eastern one and the West has never really known what to do with it…

I know there are four. I said in Western Europe.

While it is true that Rome only reluctantly accepted the Pentarchy, the Eastern concept of Patriarchy predates Byzantium.

 

[GrandChurch]

At one point was the pope called the patriarch of Rome?

 

[Nine_Two]

At one point was the pope called the patriarch of Rome?

Patriarch of the West, I believe. Although this may have started out as Rome, I’m not sure. But it was up until Benedict took office that it was an official title.

 

[twf]

Patriarch of the West, I believe. Although this may have started out as Rome, I’m not sure. But it was up until Benedict took office that it was an official title.

Not exactly - as I mentioned earlier, patriarch is really an Eastern construct - not a Latin one… we’ve never used the title consistently. The title was introduced by Justinian, not by the popes themselves… Yes the title was removed from the Annuario Pontificio in 2006, but it was only introduced in 1863!
(I recognize that the popes had used the title prior to 1863 - but my point is that it has not been consistently used… and its removal from the Annuario Pontificio is much less shocking when one recognizes that it only first appeared among the Pope’s official list of titles 150 years or so ago…). I’ve never come across the title “Patriarch of Rome” - personally I would be fine with Patriach of the Latins or Patriarch of the Latin Church if he must use the title patriarch…that would satisfy Eastern ecclesiology and avoid the imprecision and potential confusion of the vague descriptor “of the West”. The canonical name for our particular Church is the Latin Church, not ‘the West’ or ‘the Roman Church’ (which would technically be Diocese of Rome).

In Latin canon law he is the Roman Pontiff - and in other official Church documents either the Roman Pontiff or simply the Bishop of Rome.

 

[mardukm]

What I’d like to know is why we need three Catholic patriarchs of Antioch.

There are no canons of the ancient Church that forbid it. The only thing forbidden is for a city to have more than one proper bishop.

I think the system is good. It highlights the notion that the Church is not about territory, but about people, and helps prevent the heresy of phyletism. I like the idea that patriarchs are set over a people, instead of a geographical territory (yes, I like it that the bishop of Rome is the Patriarch of the Latins, instead of the Patriarch of the West).

Because there is more than one Tradition In Catholicism and Oriental Orthodoxy, having personal jurisdictions within territorial jurisdictions is pretty standard. But except within Catholicism, the concept seems largely unknown in the Eastern Tradition.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Aelred_Minor]

I’m all in favor of dropping the idea that the bishop of Rome is a patriarch. It’s too confusing, and was largely a modern innovation anyway.

Back on topic, I’m certainly no expert on the subject but I recall having read somewhere that Alexandria’s preeminence arose slightly later than Rome’s and Antioch’s, which would mean it would have been inferior to Antioch at first, surpassing it fairly early in the post-Apostolic period. I would imagine the importance of the city of Alexandria was a factor in that, as well as Alexandria’s status as an important intellectual center of early Christianity.

 

[mardukm]

Why did Alexandria takes precedence over Antioch? Does anyone know? Prior to the development of the pentarchy, Rome favored the more ancient concept of the three Petrine sees -in order of precedence - Rome, Alexandria, and Antioch. Within the pentarchy, Constantoinople was promoted above Alexandria (which Rome long objected to), but Alexandria remained ahead of Antioch. Antioch was directly establised by St Peter while Alexandria is Petrine only indirectly via St Mark. What gives?

I don’t think Alexandria “takes precedence” over Antioch, and I don’t recall any such rivalry between Alexandria and Antioch in the early Church. The only instances of rivalry of precedence I am aware of were when Jerusalem and Constantinople imposed themselves into the order of Patriarchates. But there does not seem to have been an issue of “precedence” among the first three Patriarchates (though, indeed, the bishop of Rome always held the primacy).

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Nine_Two]

I don’t think Alexandria “takes precedence” over Antioch, and I don’t recall any such rivalry between Alexandria and Antioch in the early Church. The only instances of rivalry of precedence I am aware of were when Jerusalem and Constantinople imposed themselves into the order of Patriarchates. But there does not seem to have been an issue of “precedence” among the first three Patriarchates (though, indeed, the bishop of Rome always held the primacy).

Blessings,
Marduk

Actually according to Wikipedia, Alexandria does take precedence over Antioch - en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Order_of_precedence_in_the_Catholic_Church

And in the same order that is used in the Orthodox Church.

I don’t think there ever was a rivalry between Alexandria and Antioch, I think Antioch just accepted that it was the third city in the Empire, so it came third in the original order.

 

[mardukm]

Dear Orthodox brethren,

Because Alexandria was a more important city. St. Peter isn’t a factor.

Actually, St. Peter is a factor - at least on the matter of primacy. On the matter of the order of honor, on the other hand, I think you are correct that the secular importance of a city was a major factor. This highlights a difference between EO and Catholics on the matter of ecclesiology. I believe many EO confuse the secularly-imposed concept of the order of honor among the Sees with the matter of the primacy. The order of honor was imposed when the State married the Church.

But the matter of the primacy is a different thing altogether - primacy was divinely established for the sake of the unity of the Church.

As proof that primacy is a different concept than the order of honor among the Sees, consider that even after the capital of the empire was moved to Constantinople, the bishop of Rome still held the primacy.

Really, there is no good answer for this embarrassing discrepancy. That is why I think the three Perrine Sees theory, as good as it looks on paper, is not too well thought out.

There is no discrepancy. Order of honor (or precedence) is different from primacy.

Actually according to Wikipedia, Alexandria does take precedence over Antioch - en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Order_of_precedence_in_the_Catholic_Church

And in the same order that is used in the Orthodox Church.

I don’t think there ever was a rivalry between Alexandria and Antioch, I think Antioch just accepted that it was the third city in the Empire, so it came third in the original order.

I think you are correct. When the OP asked the question about precedence, I thought he might have meant that Alexandria had a relationship with Antioch akin to Rome’s relationship to all other Churches. Alexandria did not hold a primacy in relation to Antioch.

For the sake of unity, there can be only one who holds the primacy (on every level of jurisdiction - metropolical, patriarchal, universal).

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Nine_Two]

Dear Orthodox brethren,

Actually, St. Peter is a factor - at least on the matter of primacy.

I would say the list of the order of precedence indicates it isn’t a factor at all. It makes no sense that it would matter for the primacy but not to the second or third spaces.

 

[Wisely]

Dear Orthodox brethren,

Actually, St. Peter is a factor - at least on the matter of primacy. On the matter of the order of honor, on the other hand, I think you are correct that the secular importance of a city was a major factor. This highlights a difference between EO and Catholics on the matter of ecclesiology. I believe many EO confuse the secularly-imposed concept of the order of honor among the Sees with the matter of the primacy. The order of honor was imposed when the State married the Church.

But the matter of the primacy is a different thing altogether - primacy was divinely established for the sake of the unity of the Church.

As proof that primacy is a different concept than the order of honor among the Sees, consider that even after the capital of the empire was moved to Constantinople, the bishop of Rome still held the primacy.

There is no discrepancy. Order of honor (or precedence) is different from primacy.

I think you are correct. When the OP asked the question about precedence, I thought he might have meant that Alexandria had a relationship with Antioch akin to Rome’s relationship to all other Churches. Alexandria did not hold a primacy in relation to Antioch.

For the sake of unity, there can be only one who holds the primacy (on every level of jurisdiction - metropolical, patriarchal, universal).

Blessings,
Marduk

1. The “Peterness” of a Church is not a factor. If it were, then Jerusalem would be first because Christ > Peter.
2. Having primacy IS what determines the order of honor.

 

[mardukm]

I would say the list of the order of precedence indicates it isn’t a factor at all. It makes no sense that it would matter for the primacy but not to the second or third spaces.

Among the Apostles, who was second and third? I don’t see anywhere in Scripture or the early Church that being second or third (or fourth or fifth) mattered to the DIVINE constitution of the Church (i.e., the Church as established by Christ himself). It matters for the primacy because the primacy within the hierarchy is the continuation of the model of the Apostles as established by Christ - St. Peter being the coryphaeus.

Whoever is second or third has no bearing on the divine constitution of the Church. At best, it may have an administrative or purely honorific significance. But the primacy itself is not a merely administrative or honorific concept. It is part of the divine constitution of the Church that helps ensure her unity, a unity that our Lord commands of the Church.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Wisely,

1. The “Peterness” of a Church is not a factor. If it were, then Jerusalem would be first because Christ > Peter.

I’m not sure of your point. If Jerusalem would be first because “Christ > Peter,” you seem to be admitting that the “Peterness” of a Church is a factor.

1. Having primacy IS what determines the order of honor.

Disagreed. Alexandria did not have a primacy in relation to Antioch, though Rome had a primacy in relation to both Alexandria and Antioch.

The idea that being second or third has any bearing on the Church was imposed by the secular power when it insisted that Constantinople be second after Rome, while claiming to be first among the Eastern Sees. The intrusion of secular interests into the Church has had bad effects for Church unity down to this day.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Nine_Two]

Among the Apostles, who was second and third? I don’t see anywhere in Scripture or the early Church that being second or third (or fourth or fifth) mattered to the DIVINE constitution of the Church (i.e., the Church as established by Christ himself). It matters for the primacy because the primacy within the hierarchy is the continuation of the model of the Apostles as established by Christ - St. Peter being the coryphaeus.

Whoever is second or third has no bearing on the divine constitution of the Church. At best, it may have an administrative or purely honorific significance. But the primacy itself is not a merely administrative or honorific concept. It is part of the divine constitution of the Church that helps ensure her unity, a unity that our Lord commands of the Church.

Blessings,
Marduk

Shouldn’t Peter’s other see (Antioch) be higher than the see of Peter’s disciple (Mark)?

 

[Nine_Two]

The idea that being second or third has any bearing on the Church was imposed by the secular power when it insisted that Constantinople be second after Rome, while claiming to be first among the Eastern Sees. The intrusion of secular interests into the Church has had bad effects for Church unity down to this day.

Given that Alexandria fought this, rather than adopting a “whatever…” stance leads me to conclude there was an order and Alexandria saw it as a big deal to be moved out of the second place it had previously occupied.

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Nine_Two,

Shouldn’t Peter’s other see (Antioch) be higher than the see of Peter’s disciple (Mark)?

My point is that this shouldn’t matter. What matters for the divine constitution of the Church is the primacy, not who is second or third or whatever after that.

Pope St. Gregory stated that the primacy belongs to the three Petrine Sees in relation to all other Sees. But even among those three, there was still only one that held the actual primacy.

To repeat, it is the concept of primacy that matters for the divine constitution of the Church. Who is second or third or fourth, etc. is a secularly imposed concept.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

Given that Alexandria fought this, rather than adopting a “whatever…” stance leads me to conclude there was an order and Alexandria saw it as a big deal to be moved out of the second place it had previously occupied.

Was Alexandria fighting to be second, or was she contending with Constantinople simply because she felt Constantinople was intruding itself into the order of Apostolic Sees for no other reason than she was Captial of the empire? There’s a big difference.

Understand that according to the Oriental perspective, the deposition of Patriarch St. Dioscorus was motivated primarily by the political ambition of Constantinople, not for a theological rationale.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Nine_Two]

Was Alexandria fighting to be second, or was she contending with Constantinople simply because she felt Constantinople was intruding itself into the order of Apostolic Sees for no other reason than she was Captial of the empire? There’s a big difference.

Understand that according to the Oriental perspective, the deposition of Patriarch St. Dioscorus was motivated primarily by the political ambition of Constantinople, not for a theological rationale.

Blessings,
Marduk

I don’t see a difference there. Alexandria was guarding its position within the Church in both cases. Whether Constantinople’s insertion was political or otherwise.

 

[Cavaradossi]

There is no discrepancy. Order of honor (or precedence) is different from primacy.

Why then, pray tell, is Alexandria higher in order of honor than Antioch? Why is Alexandria even included in the three Petrine sees theory, since Peter had nothing to do with Alexandria directly?