Theyâre
self-governing churches, not rites. There are only around six or so eastern and oriental rites.
Saint Cyprian believed all bishops were Peter, and it was in this context that he stated what he did because of a local schism in his synod of north Africa. He wanted them to return to communion with himself. When Roman Catholic apologists make the claim that this quote supports the Petrine ministry of Rome to the exclusion of any other orthodox bishop, they are at the very least misinformed.
Usually, people who do not know much of anything about Saint Cyprian take this âout-of-contextâ snippet directly from a quote mine and pretend that they are clever.
I understand Orthodox ecclesiology (every bishop is Saint Peter; thus, every bishop possesses Petrine seniority), but doesnât Saint Cyprian somewhere refer to the Church of Rome specifically as âthe principal Church, in which sacerdotal unity has its source, whose faith was praised by the preaching Apostle, and among whom it is not possible for perfidy to have entranceâ?
Statements about the headship of Saint Peter do not prove the Catholic position for the reasons youâve pointed out, Hesychios. But what about when fathers like Saint Cyprian or Saint Irenaeus speak of the See of Rome specifically?
Cyprian and his synod in North Africa ruled that those baptized by heretics ought to be rebaptized. Stephen, bishop of Rome, decided that they should not be rebaptized, and he attempted to force this custom upon the churches in Africa. Cyprian and the African bishops refused to give into Stephenâs demands. Joining Cyprian in his resistance to Stephenâs notion that heretics ought not be rebaptized was Firmilian of Cappadocia, who wrote an epistle to Cyprian in support of the rebaptism of heretics, decrying Stephenâs belief as not being passed down from the Apostles. St. Basil the great would later call Cyprian and Firmilian the âancient authoritiesâ in his epistle 188, where he himself endorsed the rebaptism of heretics
Didnât the Church - long before the schism that now divides us - come to agree with St. Stephen on this matter rather than St. Cyprian?
Even your churchâs practice until relatively recently (nineteenth century? I think) was to receive converts from Roman Catholic churches, etc. by Chrismation rather than by (re)baptismâŚ
(Actually, I only know that for sure about the Russian Orthodox Church, but even soâŚ)
I donât think anyone questions the primacy of the Pope even in the early Church. But what this shows that universal jurisdiction and supreme authority obviously did not exist back then.
Actually, I donât think it shows that. Itâs very hard to âshowâ or to prove a universal negative. The lack of exercise of such jurisdiction does not prove it did not exist. St. Leo I, just to take one example, did occasionally take acts that seem to indicate a belief in at least some kind of universal jurisdiction.
Iâm not saying this disproves the Orthodox position; far from it. Theyâd be perfectly logical to say that it would be irrational to expect to find explicit denials of âuniversal papal jurisdictionâ and âpapal supremacyâ when no one was claiming them in the first place (according to them).
But honestly, I donât buy gotcha-style polemicism from either side.
Even St. Peter was taken to task by St. Paul as shown in the Epistles.
Over St. Peterâs personal conduct. Not over what his authority was.
Also, I donât see the relevance here of that incident: the Orthodox donât deny Saint Peterâs supreme headship. They just say that every bishop (rather than his Roman successor alone) inherits it.
But there is no indication that all the other Apostles were to bow down and obey St. Peter no matter what.
Nor is that the case in the Catholic Church today⌠the popeâs rights, responsibilities, jurisdiction, etc. are very clearly defined. I do not believe that by Catholic standards other bishops must âbow down and obey [the pope] no matter what.â There are things he canât do.
The problem is what most Eastern Catholics believe is not really what the Catholic Church teaches.
Are you sure about that? My impression is that they tend to have a better understanding of it; they more often are familiar with the nuances of the teaching
What about the Maronites? They have no mother church outside of the Catholic communion. What about the Syro-Malabar? One could argue that the Assyrian Church is in some way their âmother churchâ, but an argument could also be made that they are a distinct tradition that has been influenced by the âimperialismâ of both the ancient Assyrian Church and in more recent centuries, the Latins⌠not to mention that they constitute the vast majority of East Syriac Christians in the world⌠What about the Melkites? The legitimate canonical patriarch of the Melkites reconciled with Rome in the 18th centuryâŚConstantinople then appointed their own âOrthodox patriarchâ in his placeâŚhow is the Greek Orthodox Church of Antioch the âmotherâ of the Melkite Greek Catholic Church?
Good points. We have to discern the ecclesiastical situation of various churches on a case-by-case basis.
Generally speaking, it is true that eastern Catholic churches have mother Orthodox churches, though. That exceptions exist - the solitary Maronite Church, the Melkite Greek Catholic Church which may actually be the mother church to its Orthodox counterpart, etc. - do not change what the general situation is.
I donât know, ask the Melkites why they want to be reabsorbed to the Antiochian Church is union is established.
Theyâre very pro-reunion. These are the folks who gave us the Zoghby Initiative, after all. So that policy of theirs exists for ecumenical reasons. It would be ridiculous to read into it an endorsement of the position that they did not inherit the canonically legitimate Patriarch of Antioch.
Actually, no, you are wrong. Because episopacy is not reduced to one bishp of Antioch, st Meletius. But, all espisopacy deriving its authority from Rome, according to rc ecclesiology, if you dont know who the Pope is, and do not have true succession, then the whole church crumbles.
But the Church didnât crumble. Everyone the whole time understood that there was only one legitimate Supreme Pontiff, even if it was unclear who that might be. So we fixed that problem, and the papacy endured.
So Iâm not sure what your point is.
) tradition of the Church.
