Catholic and Orthodox reunion

[Tomdstone]

Is that what I said? I don’t think so.

So you agree that the Patriarchal sees of Alexandria and Antioch were Patriarchal sees approved by the whole Church including Rome and were not invented by Constantinople?
Here’s what you said before:

:
Originally Posted by malphono View Post
Yes, I’m sure the answers will vary, but here’s my (name removed by moderator)ut (like it or not …): the only “Patriarchs” of either Alexandria or Antioch who stayed “in communion” with Constantinople were those those imposed (invented, perhaps, might be better) by Constantinople.

.

 

[dzheremi]

So you agree that the Patriarchal sees of Alexandria and Antioch were Patriarchal sees approved by the whole Church including Rome and were not invented by Constantinople?
Here’s what you said before:
.

Malphono is writing in favor of the Oriental understanding of the rightful governance of those Patriarchates as belonging to the indigenous Christian churches in those areas (the Coptic and the Syriac, respectively), not those of the Greeks who imposed their leadership upon the native Christians by creating Greek churches and corresponding hierarchies to rule over Alexandria and Antioch. The existence and apostolicity of the Sees in question is a different matter, about which no one, Oriental or Byzantine, disagrees. The difference only comes to light when we start talking about which is the rightful claimant to the See: The Syriac and Coptic Patriarchs or the Greek/Constantinople-imposed ones.

 

[Randy_Carson]

That is not the issue. The issue is what did that mean. I believe that it meant that he held a primacy of honor as first among equals just as the Ecumenical Patriarch exercises today in the Orthodox Church. I believe that a study of the 7 Ecumenical Councils and the history of the first 1,000 years of Church history confirms my opinion that the ancient Popes never had anything especially over the East even close to the authority exercised by modern Popes in the Roman Catholic Church.

Archpriest John W. Morris

Yes, I know. You keep repeating that and I could almost type it verbatim myself after having read it so many times. But as Cardinal Newman pointed out (you saw the post, right?), the development of the papacy may not have been required during the very time period you keep referencing. Doctrine develops to meet a need. So, was the papacy as understood by Catholics today even necessary during the first millennium? Apparently not, since you argue that it did not exist, but it was there in latent form all along.

Fr. John, all the Fathers had to work with was Scripture and Tradition. And early on, they didn’t have much Tradition or any of the councils. Today, we don’t have the benefit of speaking live to any of the ECF’s and consequently, we have to make do with our interpretations of what extant material we do have. That can be fuzzy since both of us can appeal to the Fathers in support of our positions. But if I am honest, I can’t demand that you show that the consensus of the Fathers denied the universality of the papacy just as you can’t reasonably demand that I show you a full-blown understanding of the papacy from men who had no need of it as we do today. Neither of us would have expected Peter or Paul to have the same understanding of the trinity, the incarnation or the Eucharist that we have today, would we?

However, it seems to me that like the Fathers, you should be able to pick up a Bible and prove to me that the Pope is not the head of the universal Church. Conversely, I have the Scriptures, also, and I should be able to open them up and demonstrate convincingly that my understanding of the papacy is not misguided or ill-informed.

Make sense?

 

[Peter_J]

So you agree that the Patriarchal sees of Alexandria and Antioch were Patriarchal sees approved by the whole Church including Rome and were not invented by Constantinople?

Well, or they were “invented” by Rome and Constantinople acting in unison.

 

[frjohnmorris]

Malphono is writing in favor of the Oriental understanding of the rightful governance of those Patriarchates as belonging to the indigenous Christian churches in those areas (the Coptic and the Syriac, respectively), not those of the Greeks who imposed their leadership upon the native Christians by creating Greek churches and corresponding hierarchies to rule over Alexandria and Antioch. The existence and apostolicity of the Sees in question is a different matter, about which no one, Oriental or Byzantine, disagrees. The difference only comes to light when we start talking about which is the rightful claimant to the See: The Syriac and Coptic Patriarchs or the Greek/Constantinople-imposed ones.

The Eastern Orthodox Patriarchs of Antioch and Alexandria were not imposed on either city by the Greeks because both Antioch and Alexandria were already Greek speaking cities. The Greek Patriarchs did belong to the indigenous Christian Churches of both Antioch and Alexandria. They were not imposed on the native population of either area. That claim is a distortion of history. The Churches of Antioch and Alexandria existed long before the founding of Constantinople or the Byzantine Empire.
There are good relations between the Eastern Orthodox Patriarch of Antioch and the Syriac Orthodox Patriarch of Antioch. We are well on the way towards reunion. Our new Patriarch John X is said to strongly support reunion. I suspect that it will be done in a way that neither Church will absorb the other, but that each will retain its own Patriarchate. There are also good relations between the Greek Orthodox Pope of Alexandria and the Pope of the Coptic Church. There are not that many Greek Orthodox in Egypt. Most of the members of the Eastern Orthodox Patriarchate of Alexandria are in sub-Sarah Africa. Let them work out the details of reunion. It does not edify the discussion for a non-Chalcedonian to argue that the Chalcedonian Patriarchs of Antioch or Alexandria are not legitimate.

Archpriest John W. Morris

 

[malphono]

So you agree that the Patriarchal sees of Alexandria and Antioch were Patriarchal sees approved by the whole Church including Rome and were not invented by Constantinople?
Here’s what you said before:
.

I know what I said, and I stand by it. The real Sees of Antioch and Alexandria are ancient. It’s the Byzantine “Sees” that were invented by Constantinople. IOW

Malphono is writing in favor of the Oriental understanding of the rightful governance of those Patriarchates as belonging to the indigenous Christian churches in those areas (the Coptic and the Syriac, respectively), not those of the Greeks who imposed their leadership upon the native Christians by creating Greek churches and corresponding hierarchies to rule over Alexandria and Antioch. The existence and apostolicity of the Sees in question is a different matter, about which no one, Oriental or Byzantine, disagrees. The difference only comes to light when we start talking about which is the rightful claimant to the See: The Syriac and Coptic Patriarchs or the Greek/Constantinople-imposed ones.

this.

 

[malphono]

Both Antioch and Alexandria were Greek speaking cities. The Eastern Orthodox Patriarchs of Antioch and Alexandria were not imposed on either city by the Greeks. The Churches of Antioch and Alexandria existed long before the founding of Constantinople. …

It does not edify the discussion for a non-Chalcedonian to argue that the Chalcedonian Patriarchs of Antioch or Alexandria are not legitimate.

Father, with due respect, that seems to me to be the same Constanipolitan polemic as before. :banghead: Indeed the Sees existed, but NOT as Byzantine. And that’s the point.

 

[mardukm]

Both Antioch and Alexandria were Greek speaking cities. The Eastern Orthodox Patriarchs of Antioch and Alexandria were not imposed on either city by the Greeks. The Churches of Antioch and Alexandria existed long before the founding of Constantinople. There are good relations between the Eastern Orthodox Patriarch of Antioch and the Syriac Orthodox Patriarch of Antioch. We are well on the way towards reunion. Our new Patriarch John X is said to strongly support reunion. I suspect that it will be done in a way that neither Church will absorb the other, but that each will retain its own Patriarchate. There are also good relations between the Greek Orthodox Pope of Alexandria and the Pope of the Coptic Church. There are not that many Greek Orthodox in Egypt. Most of the members of the Eastern Orthodox Patriarchate of Alexandria are in sub-Sarah Africa. Let them work out the details of reunion. It does not edify the discussion for a non-Chalcedonian to argue that the Chalcedonian Patriarchs of Antioch or Alexandria are not legitimate.

It would be impossible, IMO, for the two Churches to reunite under one Patriarchate because they are two distinct theological Traditions (similarly with the Alexandrian Patriarchate(s)) – not to mention the differences in Canon law over such things as marriage.

Humbly,
Marduk

 

[malphono]

Well, or they were “invented” by Rome and Constantinople acting in unison.

I realize that you’re of the Constantinopolitan persuasion, but we’ve interacted enough that I feel comfortable asking: is there much difference between the way “Old Rome” and “New Rome” did (do) things?

 

[spina1953]

to Randy Carson: while I think married priests would be ok I do understand where you are coming from, for everything we gain we give up somethiing. there is always the risk in with married priests getting devorces, adultry, etc. we do have a lot of problem in the Church with the sex scandles of so many of our priests. which to me is a sad thing but the devil will temp us and those who are holy or trying to especially priests and the religious hre temps all the more and will do anythiing to destroy what Christ through the Apostles started.

 

[frjohnmorris]

I know what I said, and I stand by it. The real Sees of Antioch and Alexandria are ancient. It’s the Byzantine “Sees” that were invented by Constantinople. IOW

this.

That is not historically accurate. The Chalcedonian Patriarchate of Antioch was not invented by the Constantinople, it is the rightful heir to the ancient Church of Antioch because the Chalcedonian Patriarchs remained in Communion with the rest of the Church. Our people are indigenous to Syria and Lebanon. The Syriac Church broke from the rest of the Church over Chalcedon and established its own Patriarchate. The Apostolic Succession of the Syriac Church came not from the ancient Patriarchates of Antioch, but from Jacob Baradaeus who was responsible for spreading the schism. That is why the Syriac Church is also called the Jacobite Church.
Why do you try to undo all the progress that has been made between Chalcedonian and non-Chalcedonian Orthodox with this kind of argument?
Archpriest John W. Morris

 

[malphono]

That is not historically accurate. The Chalcedonian Patriarchate of Antioch was not invented by the Constantinople, it is the rightful heir to the ancient Church of Antioch because the Chalcedonian Patriarchs remained in Communion with the rest of the Church. Our people are indigenous to Syria and Lebanon. The Syriac Church broke from the rest of the Church over Chalcedon and established its own Patriarchate. The Apostolic Succession of the Syriac Church came not from the ancient Patriarchates of Antioch, but from Jacob Baradaeus who was responsible for spreading the schism. That is why the Syriac Church is also called the Jacobite Church.

The same polemic. Again. :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: I apologize, Father, but I think I have no choice but to repair to the “ignore list” now, lest this exchange become uncharitable.

 

[frjohnmorris]

The same polemic. Again. :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: I apologize, Father, but I think I have no choice but to repair to the “ignore list” now, lest this exchange become uncharitable.

You are the one who introduced this topic. I did not. I have been very careful not to insult the non-Chalcedonians. I suggest that you extend to us the same courtesy. The fact is that there are very good relations between the to Churches who are working to overcome our differences and once again reestablish Communion. Your comments only hinder the efforts toward reunion.

Archpriest John W. Morris

 

[Peter_J]

The Eastern Orthodox Patriarchs of Antioch and Alexandria were not imposed on either city by the Greeks because both Antioch and Alexandria were already Greek speaking cities. The Greek Patriarchs did belong to the indigenous Christian Churches of both Antioch and Alexandria. They were not imposed on the native population of either area. That claim is a distortion of history. The Churches of Antioch and Alexandria existed long before the founding of Constantinople or the Byzantine Empire.
There are good relations between the Eastern Orthodox Patriarch of Antioch and the Syriac Orthodox Patriarch of Antioch. We are well on the way towards reunion. Our new Patriarch John X is said to strongly support reunion. I suspect that it will be done in a way that neither Church will absorb the other, but that each will retain its own Patriarchate. There are also good relations between the Greek Orthodox Pope of Alexandria and the Pope of the Coptic Church. There are not that many Greek Orthodox in Egypt. Most of the members of the Eastern Orthodox Patriarchate of Alexandria are in sub-Sarah Africa. Let them work out the details of reunion. It does not edify the discussion for a non-Chalcedonian to argue that the Chalcedonian Patriarchs of Antioch or Alexandria are not legitimate.

Archpriest John W. Morris

I’m not sure if anyone said they’re “not legitimate” (although it wouldn’t entirely surprise me: in nearly every significant argument, both sides tend to come on a little too strong).

One possible compromise would be to say the EOs have the “original” See of Antioch, and the OOs have the “original” See of Alexandria. I’m not trying to get anyone to believe that (in fact, I myself think it’s a bit of an oversimplification) but maybe it will add perspective.

 

[frjohnmorris]

Yes, I know. You keep repeating that and I could almost type it verbatim myself after having read it so many times. But as Cardinal Newman pointed out (you saw the post, right?), the development of the papacy may not have been required during the very time period you keep referencing. Doctrine develops to meet a need. So, was the papacy as understood by Catholics today even necessary during the first millennium? Apparently not, since you argue that it did not exist, but it was there in latent form all along.

Fr. John, all the Fathers had to work with was Scripture and Tradition. And early on, they didn’t have much Tradition or any of the councils. Today, we don’t have the benefit of speaking live to any of the ECF’s and consequently, we have to make do with our interpretations of what extant material we do have. That can be fuzzy since both of us can appeal to the Fathers in support of our positions. But if I am honest, I can’t demand that you show that the consensus of the Fathers denied the universality of the papacy just as you can’t reasonably demand that I show you a full-blown understanding of the papacy from men who had no need of it as we do today. Neither of us would have expected Peter or Paul to have the same understanding of the trinity, the incarnation or the Eucharist that we have today, would we?

However, it seems to me that like the Fathers, you should be able to pick up a Bible and prove to me that the Pope is not the head of the universal Church. Conversely, I have the Scriptures, also, and I should be able to open them up and demonstrate convincingly that my understanding of the papacy is not misguided or ill-informed.

Make sense?

It all depends on what you mean by “head of the universal Church.” A primacy of honor is acceptable, but it is not acceptable to give one man, even if he is the successor to St. Peter, such authority and power and to throw out the conciliar pattern of polity of the first 1,000 years of Church history.
I think that your recognition that the papacy as it exists today is the product of development and Newman’s comment prove my point. Our position that the system as it existed during the age of the 7 Ecumenical Councils is the norm for the Church. The idea of the development of doctrine is not one we Orthodox can except. We do not believe in changing the teachings of the Church. All doctrine must come from the Holy Tradition of the Church, that is the Holy Scriptures, the consensus of the Fathers and the 7 Ecumenical Councils. If a doctrine is not based on the Holy Tradition we must reject it. If universal papal jurisdiction were a legitimate development, it would not have been rejected by the other 4 Patriarchs of the Pentarchy.

Archpriest John W. Morris

 

[malphono]

I’m not sure if anyone said they’re “not legitimate” (although it wouldn’t entirely surprise me: in nearly every significant argument, both sides tend to come on a little too strong).

One possible compromise would be to say the EOs have the “original” See of Antioch, and the OOs have the “original” See of Alexandria. I’m not trying to get anyone to believe that (in fact, I myself think it’s a bit of an oversimplification) but maybe it will add perspective.

Good try, Peter, but sorry, no. The authentic See of Antioch is certainly NOT Byzantine.

 

[frjohnmorris]

So are you saying that the sixth canon of the first Council of Nicea 325 AD, which recognized the sees of Alexandria and Antioch was not approved by the Roman Pope? If so, then doesn’t this mean that the Roman Pope did not have the authority over this ecumenical Council, but that this canon was imposed by Constantinople?

The Roman Pope had no authority to veto a decision of an Ecumenical Council nor did any Pope during that period claim such authority. It took centuries for the Roman Popes to gain acceptance of their claim to be above the authority of an Ecumenical Council. It was not until the V Lateran Council in 1512 that Popes successfully convinced the Western Church that they had that kind of authority. The Council of Constance, recognized by Rome as an Ecumenical Council passed a decree in 1415 that stated: “Legitimately assembled in the holy Spirit, constituting a general council and representing the Catholic church militant, it has power immediately from Christ; and that everyone of whatever state or dignity, even papal, is bound to obey it in those matters which pertain to the faith, the eradication of the said schism and the general reform of the said church of God in head and members.”

The Popes refused to recognize this decision, but that is not the point. The point is that the council shows that even the leaders of the Western Church did not recognize the papal claims to superiority over an Ecumenical Council at that late a date.

Archpriest John W. Morris

 

[frjohnmorris]

Good try, Peter, but sorry, no. The authentic See of Antioch is certainly NOT Byzantine.

The Byzantine Liturgy was a development from the ancient Liturgy of Antioch. His Beatitude John X is most certainly the authentic Patriarch of Antioch because he leads the Church that did not go into schism after Chalcedon and is in Communion with the rest of the Eastern Orthodox Church. The Jacobites went into schism following Chalcedon. The Church made every possible effort to heal the schism. The next Council, Constantinople II in 553 assured them that Chalcedon was not Nestorian and that it must be interpreted in conformity with the Christology of St. Cyril of Alexandria.

Archpriest John W. Morris

 

[Nine_Two]

And why?

Let’s assume for a moment that you are correct (and I do disagree), then what type of authority did Jesus give to Peter? Was it REAL authority to bind and to loose? Or was all that talk just for show?

If Jesus invested Peter with REAL authority, then would Peter have the authority to establish a more powerful papacy than…well, than you are presently comfortable with?

1. God gave real authority to Peter (and his successors).
2. God has allowed Peter (and his successors) to develop a powerful papacy.

Why would God allow the development of a powerful papacy? For what purpose?

Unfortunately you are entering territory where I must self-censor. So I can
t answer you directly, or as I would like.

However, both the Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church teach that man has freewill, and though God has interfered at certain times he does not always do so (as Job says, the ways of God are beyond our comprehension). He has allowed any number of powerful, non-Christian organizations to spring up, and I would argue that he has done so purely on the basis of the grant of freewill.

 

[Nine_Two]

According to papalencyclicals.net/Councils/ecum04.htm :

Does anyone know where to find online copies of these letters of Marcian, Anatolius, and St. Leo?

This reminds me of a situation we have here in Canada.

In 1982 the Constitution Act, one of our many constitutional documents, was passed. Among the things this act did was that it determined a formula by which future amendments to the Constitution could be made, and was even passed according to that formula. Namely for major changes it required that 50% of the provinces representing 50% of the people ratify such an act.

The Constitution Act itself was ratified by all the provinces but one - Quebec.

As you can see by the formula presented above, Quebec’s acceptance of this document is not necessary for it to be binding. Nonetheless for the past thirty-one years there have been numerous attempts to get Quebec to ratify the act.

My view may be coloured by the history of my own country, but that is how I would view attempts to persuade Rome to accept the canon. It is not necessary that it agree, but it would be nice.