Has the Orthodox Patriarch of Jerusalem ever erred?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Kaste
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
K

Kaste

Guest
Hello,

I am familiar with many Eastern Patriarchs erring while Rome stood strong for the faith, but can anyone provide a few examples of the Patriarch of Jerusalem erring?

He may have just as clear record as Rome…

Thanks,
K
 
Hello,

I am aware the Patriarchs of Antioch, Alexandria and Constantinople erred, while Rome remained faithful, but what about the Patriarch of Jerusalem? Has he ever erred or committed heresy?

Perhaps like Rome, the Patriarch of Jerusalem has a clear record…

Thank you,
K
 
One was recently deposed, so it is likely.

Of course the record of that Patriarchy may still be as clean as Rome’s.
 
I don’t know, but maybe he hasn’t.

Are you trying to prove something with this, because I for one have never heard a Catholic say that all Patriarchs/Bishops besides the Pope have erred.

Their claim is that the Pope is GUARANTEED freedom from error when teaching ex cathedra on faith or morals. In other words, when speaking infallibly, he CAN’T err.

The Patriarch of Jerusalem may not have erred in is teaching, yet, but he’s not guaranteed to be free from error and nobody claims he CAN’T err, as far as I know.
 
Howdy Kaste!

According to Pope Boniface VIII, I’ll be waving up to you from hell, look for me there. But according to the more enlightened modern Popes, we’ll be sipping a cup of tea behind the pearly gates where one of us will be gloating that our Church was the True Church.

So how on earth do we assume that the Roman Patriarch hasn’t erred, and use him as a standard for the holy Patriarch of Jerusalem? We are talking about offices, correct, not individuals?

Regards,
Evan
 
I not sure but it seems that the bishop of Jerusalem, like many bishops of Eastern Churches, at one time embraced the heresy of Arianism. The Catholic Encyclopedia article on “Arianism” says, “In 335 the heresiarch [Arius] was absolved by two councils, at Tyre and Jerusalem…”
 
The thing of it is, if the Patriarch of Jerusalem has not erred at the highest level (which is equivalent, for the Orthodox, to Rome’s ex-cathedra level) then the “Mother of all Churches” may have a special charism like Rome.

After all, the Patriarch of Jerusalem does have the Holy Fire. That bishop is also the one who settled the first council in the book of Acts.

It is where Christ lived and died.

There’s something about that Patriarch…it seems, like Rome, not to have erred when defining faith at the highest levels.

The only thing I have found is that that Patriarch taught unbaptized babies go to hell: Council of Jerusalem 1672. But this is no different than Rome with Popes Zosimus, Boniface VIII and Eugene IV, and so can be argued that the Patriarch did not mean to define this as dogma at the highest levels just as ably as Catholics do for their popes’ mistakes.

In any event, if anyone can show the Patriarch of Jerusalem truly erring on a matter of heresy, I would be interested in seeing this.

Sincerely,
Kaste
 
The thing of it is, if the Patriarch of Jerusalem has not erred at the highest level (which is equivalent, for the Orthodox, to Rome’s ex-cathedra level) then the “Mother of all Churches” may have a special charism like Rome.

After all, the Patriarch of Jerusalem does have the Holy Fire. That bishop is also the one who settled the first council in the book of Acts.

It is where Christ lived and died.

There’s something about that Patriarch…it seems, like Rome, not to have erred when defining faith at the highest levels.

The only thing I have found is that that Patriarch taught unbaptized babies go to hell: Council of Jerusalem 1672. But this is no different than Rome with Popes Zosimus, Boniface VIII and Eugene IV, and so can be argued that the Patriarch did not mean to define this as dogma at the highest levels just as ably as Catholics do for their popes’ mistakes.

In any event, if anyone can show the Patriarch of Jerusalem truly erring on a matter of heresy, I would be interested in seeing this.

Sincerely,
Kaste
 
Jerusalem ceased to be a functioning metropolia for nearly a century… let alone a patriarchate. It’s charism of leadership was lost during the early church.
 
EvanISOT said:
Howdy Kaste!

According to Pope Boniface VIII, I’ll be waving up to you from hell, look for me there. But according to the more enlightened modern Popes, we’ll be sipping a cup of tea behind the pearly gates where one of us will be gloating that our Church was the True Church.

So how on earth do we assume that the Roman Patriarch hasn’t erred, and use him as a standard for the holy Patriarch of Jerusalem? We are talking about offices, correct, not individuals?

Regards,
Evan
Click to expand...
Do you have a proper reference for those quotes?
 
Kaste said:
The thing of it is, if the Patriarch of Jerusalem has not erred at the highest level (which is equivalent, for the Orthodox, to Rome’s ex-cathedra level) then the “Mother of all Churches” may have a special charism like Rome.

After all, the Patriarch of Jerusalem does have the Holy Fire. That bishop is also the one who settled the first council in the book of Acts.
Click to expand...
Actually it was Peter who settled the matter. James implemented what Peter directed. It was also proper that James was the one to implement, because the Judaizers who were causing the trouble, and the cause for the council, were from James party.
 
Kaste said:
Perhaps like Rome, the Patriarch of Jerusalem has a clear record…
Click to expand...
Well, it depends on what you mean by “erred.”

When we say the Pope has never “erred” we mean that he has never violated his charism of infallibility when solemnly promulgating dogmatic teaching according to some very specific criteria. The Patriarch of Jerusalem does not claim this charism of infallibility, so it is impossible for him to “err” in this way.

So, in this context, both have never “erred” - the Pope never has, and the Patriarch never could.

If “err” means to privately hold (and even publicly profess) some dubious or erroneous teaching then Popes are hardly free from such error. For example, many Popes strongly embraced the idea of limbo, which the Church has distanced Herself from in more recent years. But no Pope ever proclaimed limbo as a Doctrine of the Faith.
 
Kaste said:
The thing of it is, if the Patriarch of Jerusalem has not erred at the highest level (which is equivalent, for the Orthodox, to Rome’s ex-cathedra level) then the “Mother of all Churches” may have a special charism like Rome.

After all, the Patriarch of Jerusalem does have the Holy Fire. That bishop is also the one who settled the first council in the book of Acts.

It is where Christ lived and died.

There’s something about that Patriarch…it seems, like Rome, not to have erred when defining faith at the highest levels.

The only thing I have found is that that Patriarch taught unbaptized babies go to hell: Council of Jerusalem 1672. But this is no different than Rome with Popes Zosimus, Boniface VIII and Eugene IV, and so can be argued that the Patriarch did not mean to define this as dogma at the highest levels just as ably as Catholics do for their popes’ mistakes.

In any event, if anyone can show the Patriarch of Jerusalem truly erring on a matter of heresy, I would be interested in seeing this.

Sincerely,
Kaste
Click to expand...
You’ll have to do more than he say “he wasn’t teaching infallibly!” when you mention that he taught unbaptized babies go to Hell.

The burden of proof is on you, because you admit he freely taught it. Prove he didn’t teach it infallibly.

Also, another problem: Nobody has ever claimed that the Patriarchate of Jeruslame has a special charism of infallibility.
 
Well, obviously they have erred about Saint Peter being the first Pope and him having primacy over the other bishops. As far as I know, there are no Orthodox Christians who believe in the primacy of Saint Peter.
 
Holly3278 said:
Well, obviously they have erred about Saint Peter being the first Pope and him having primacy over the other bishops. As far as I know, there are no Orthodox Christians who believe in the primacy of Saint Peter.
Click to expand...
The primacy of Saint Peter is one of honor, not power. The Pope was basically what the Ecumenical Patriarch is today, as the First Among Equals. Why does the Pope need so much power over other Patriarchs? Is it necessary? The Eastern Orthodox communion is doing pretty good in the hierarchy structure they have had since the beginning, despite national desires of some for independent national churches.

On the original question, why is the question about the Patriarch of Jerusalem. That Patriarchate is fourth most prestigious, behind Constantinople, Alexandria, and Antioch.

In 2005, Patriarch Irenaios was deposed for selling church owned property for personal profit, so I guess that big recent event counts as erring.
 
chaldobyzantine said:
The primacy of Saint Peter is one of honor, not power. The Pope was basically what the Ecumenical Patriarch is today, as the First Among Equals. Why does the Pope need so much power over other Patriarchs? Is it necessary? The Eastern Orthodox communion is doing pretty good in the hierarchy structure they have had since the beginning, despite national desires of some for independent national churches.

On the original question, why is the question about the Patriarch of Jerusalem. That Patriarchate is fourth most prestigious, behind Constantinople, Alexandria, and Antioch.

In 2005, Patriarch Irenaios was deposed for selling church owned property for personal profit, so I guess that big recent event counts as erring.
Click to expand...
Well, I don’t wish to debate about the primacy of Saint Peter but I personally do believe that he was not just a first among equals. Yes, they were all equal in the sight of God as far as worth goes but they were not all equal in the sight of God as far as authority goes. That is my own belief and the belief of the Catholic Church as far as I am aware.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top