Do the Oriental Orthodox have a primate who is "first among equals"?

[StevenFrancis]

Actually, they are a church singular, made up of sub churches , that’s why they are named the Orthodox Catholic Church not Churches , they believe the bishop of Constantinople is first among equals.

From an Apostolic standpoint, which Apostle of Jesus Christ is the Bishop/Patriarch of Constantinople an apostolic descendant of. i.e. The current Pope of the Catholic Church is Francis, whose see is that of the Apostle Peter, upon whom Jesus Christ, in scripture built His Church. I’ve always been curious which of the apostles the first among equal Patriarchs in the Orthodox Church are the sees for from among Christ’s twelve apostles, and if there are scriptural or traditional references to their see.

I hope this question makes sense. I’m not sure of the wording.

Thanks,

Steven

 

[SyroMalankara]

From an Apostolic standpoint, which Apostle of Jesus Christ is the Bishop/Patriarch of Constantinople an apostolic descendant of. i.e. The current Pope of the Catholic Church is Francis, whose see is that of the Apostle Peter, upon whom Jesus Christ, in scripture built His Church. I’ve always been curious which of the apostles the first among equal Patriarchs in the Orthodox Church are the sees for from among Christ’s twelve apostles, and if there are scriptural or traditional references to their see.

I hope this question makes sense. I’m not sure of the wording.

Thanks,

Steven

Peter’s brother, Andrew the First Called.

 

[pablope]

From an Apostolic standpoint, which Apostle of Jesus Christ is the Bishop/Patriarch of Constantinople an apostolic descendant of. i.e. The current Pope of the Catholic Church is Francis, whose see is that of the Apostle Peter, upon whom Jesus Christ, in scripture built His Church. I’ve always been curious which of the apostles the first among equal Patriarchs in the Orthodox Church are the sees for from among Christ’s twelve apostles, and if there are scriptural or traditional references to their see.

I hope this question makes sense. I’m not sure of the wording.

Thanks,

Steven

The claim is from Andrew. I forgot where I read this, but actually, the original Apostolic founder is John, but the claim of a line from Andrew started around after AD300 or so.

 

[pablope]

From an Apostolic standpoint, which Apostle of Jesus Christ is the Bishop/Patriarch of Constantinople an apostolic descendant of. i.e. The current Pope of the Catholic Church is Francis, whose see is that of the Apostle Peter, upon whom Jesus Christ, in scripture built His Church. I’ve always been curious which of the apostles the first among equal Patriarchs in the Orthodox Church are the sees for from among Christ’s twelve apostles, and if there are scriptural or traditional references to their see.

I hope this question makes sense. I’m not sure of the wording.

Thanks,

Steven

Found the article…catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=1355

If this could be verified, it would amount to a clear negation of Roman primacy in the Church by the Byzantines. I have examined this story thoroughly in my book The Idea of Apostolicity in Byzantium and the Legend of the Apostle Andrew27 and came to the conclusion that there is no trace of it in Byzantine or Western tradition before the end of the seventh or the beginning of the eighth centuries. During this time the Byzantines were still clinging to the old principle of accommodation to the political situation, and the fact that their city was the Imperial residence was regarded as sufficient to assure it a privileged position in the Church.

However, they were impressed by the idea that a See which was to play such a prominent role should be connected with the Apostles, the universal teachers, whose doctrine the Patriarchs should explain and promote. In reality, we find some instances in the seventh century in which the See of Constantinople is called “apostolic.” It is reasonable to see in this the influence of the Roman emphasis on the apostolic character of the Church in general and the Roman See in particular. It should be stressed, however, that this custom was not originated by the story of the Apostle Andrew as founder of its bishopric, because the Andrew story was then not yet known in Byzantium.

Early Syriac, Armenian and Coptic traditions show, however, that the apostolic character was attributed to the See of Constantinople because this See was the heir of Ephesus, and, thus, of the Apostle John, when the jurisdiction which the See of St. John had exercised over Asia Minor was transferred to Constantinople.28 This is also confirmed by the declaration of the Patriarch Ignatius at a synod in 861,29 and seems also to be alluded to by the Patriarch Photius in his letter to the Armenians.

 

[SyroMalankara]

Found the article…catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=1355

If this could be verified, it would amount to a clear negation of Roman primacy in the Church by the Byzantines. I have examined this story thoroughly in my book The Idea of Apostolicity in Byzantium and the Legend of the Apostle Andrew27 and came to the conclusion that there is no trace of it in Byzantine or Western tradition before the end of the seventh or the beginning of the eighth centuries. During this time the Byzantines were still clinging to the old principle of accommodation to the political situation, and the fact that their city was the Imperial residence was regarded as sufficient to assure it a privileged position in the Church.

However, they were impressed by the idea that a See which was to play such a prominent role should be connected with the Apostles, the universal teachers, whose doctrine the Patriarchs should explain and promote. In reality, we find some instances in the seventh century in which the See of Constantinople is called “apostolic.” It is reasonable to see in this the influence of the Roman emphasis on the apostolic character of the Church in general and the Roman See in particular. It should be stressed, however, that this custom was not originated by the story of the Apostle Andrew as founder of its bishopric, because the Andrew story was then not yet known in Byzantium.

Early Syriac, Armenian and Coptic traditions show, however, that the apostolic character was attributed to the See of Constantinople because this See was the heir of Ephesus, and, thus, of the Apostle John, when the jurisdiction which the See of St. John had exercised over Asia Minor was transferred to Constantinople.28 This is also confirmed by the declaration of the Patriarch Ignatius at a synod in 861,29 and seems also to be alluded to by the Patriarch Photius in his letter to the Armenians.

The Ecumenical Patriarch succession flows from the Apostle Andrew’s mission in Thrace, Scythia and Achaia. For Ephesus, St. John ordained St. Polycarp, who taught St. Jerome.

 

[pablope]

The Ecumenical Patriarch succession flows from the Apostle Andrew’s mission in Thrace, Scythia and Achaia. For Ephesus, St. John ordained St. Polycarp, who taught St. Jerome.

From what I understand from the article, the See of Constantinople’s traditional apostolic connection is John’s…" that the apostolic character was attributed to the See of Constantinople because this See was the heir of Ephesus, and, thus, of the Apostle John, when the jurisdiction which the See of St. John had exercised over Asia Minor was transferred to Constantinople."… "It should be stressed, however, that this custom was not originated by the story of the Apostle Andrew as founder of its bishopric, because the Andrew story was then not yet known in Byzantium… I have examined this story thoroughly in my book The Idea of Apostolicity in Byzantium and the Legend of the Apostle Andrew27 and came to the conclusion that there is no trace of it in Byzantine or Western tradition before the end of the seventh or the beginning of the eighth centuries. "

 

[Rohzek]

That’s because the whole founding of St. Andrew is probably a myth. Apostolicity was never a necessary criteria in the Christian East for having a patriarchate. The only reason the myth arose was in order to help lay to rest Constantinople’s claims as 2nd place. That’s why Jerusalem remained a rump bishopric for the longest time before being elevated to a patriarchate.

 

[pablope]

That’s because the whole founding of St. Andrew is probably a myth. Apostolicity was never a necessary criteria in the Christian East for having a patriarchate. The only reason the myth arose was in order to help lay to rest Constantinople’s claims as 2nd place. That’s why Jerusalem remained a rump bishopric for the longest time before being elevated to a patriarchate.

Yes…you just confirmed the article in post 22, which I cite:

Constantinople has no special position in the Church hierarchy because she was not founded by an Apostle. Moreover, this promotion of Constantinople contradicted the Sixth Canon of the Council of Nicaea which had allotted the first three places in the Church to Rome, Alexandria and Antioch.17…In the meantime, the passage of events had made the Byzantines increasingly aware of the growing importance which the idea of apostolicity had in their relationship with Rome. Many scholars have supposed that because of the impression which the display of the apostolic character of the Roman See had made during the Acacian Schism in Byzantium, the Greeks had invented the legend that their See was also founded by an Apostle, St. Andrew, the brother of Peter. Because St. Andrew was the first to be invited by the Lord to join Him, and because he had introduced his brother Peter to the Master, he, Andrew, should be regarded as the first of the Apostles, and his successors in Byzantium at least equal, if not superior, to the successors of Peter in Rome.

 

[Peter_J]

Actually, they are a church singular, made up of sub churches , that’s why they are named the Orthodox Catholic Church not Churches

Well yes, in the same sense that we Catholics can say that our name is “The Catholic Church” singular. But that doesn’t change the fact that we are a communion of 24 Churches.

 

[StevenFrancis]

Found the article…catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=1355

If this could be verified, it would amount to a clear negation of Roman primacy in the Church by the Byzantines. I have examined this story thoroughly in my book The Idea of Apostolicity in Byzantium and the Legend of the Apostle Andrew27 and came to the conclusion that there is no trace of it in Byzantine or Western tradition before the end of the seventh or the beginning of the eighth centuries. During this time the Byzantines were still clinging to the old principle of accommodation to the political situation, and the fact that their city was the Imperial residence was regarded as sufficient to assure it a privileged position in the Church.

However, they were impressed by the idea that a See which was to play such a prominent role should be connected with the Apostles, the universal teachers, whose doctrine the Patriarchs should explain and promote. In reality, we find some instances in the seventh century in which the See of Constantinople is called “apostolic.” It is reasonable to see in this the influence of the Roman emphasis on the apostolic character of the Church in general and the Roman See in particular. It should be stressed, however, that this custom was not originated by the story of the Apostle Andrew as founder of its bishopric, because the Andrew story was then not yet known in Byzantium.

Early Syriac, Armenian and Coptic traditions show, however, that the apostolic character was attributed to the See of Constantinople because this See was the heir of Ephesus, and, thus, of the Apostle John, when the jurisdiction which the See of St. John had exercised over Asia Minor was transferred to Constantinople.28 This is also confirmed by the declaration of the Patriarch Ignatius at a synod in 861,29 and seems also to be alluded to by the Patriarch Photius in his letter to the Armenians.

So, most would cite Andrew, but the older tradition is the taking up of the Apostle John’s bishopric in Ephesus? Is that a fair summary? In any event, thank you for such a well researched reply. I’ve been interested in this.

 

[Padres1969]

If so, who would that be? The Pope of Alexandria? How does the ranking of bishops follow in Oriental Orthodoxy, assuming it’s anything like Eastern Orthodoxy?

To answer the original question, Pope Tawadros II of Alexandria is considered the “first among equals” in the Oriental Orthodox family of churches which includes the following churches:

Armenian Apostolic Church
Coptic Orthodox Church of Alexandria
Eritrean Orthodox Tewahedo Church
Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo Church
Malankara Orthodox Syrian Church
Syriac Orthodox Church

Now mind you his title may be “pope” but hierarchically those churches are all independently governed so his temporal authority is really non-existent over any of the listed churches.

All of this is of course separate from the Eastern Orthodox family of churches which hold Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew I of Constantinople.

 

[SyroMalankara]

To answer the original question, Pope Tawadros II of Alexandria is considered the “first among equals” in the Oriental Orthodox family of churches which includes the following churches:

Armenian Apostolic Church
Coptic Orthodox Church of Alexandria
Eritrean Orthodox Tewahedo Church
Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo Church
Malankara Orthodox Syrian Church
Syriac Orthodox Church

Now mind you his title may be “pope” but hierarchically those churches are all independently governed so his authority is really non-existent over any of the listed churches.

Moral authority goes a long way.