Original Apostolic Sees?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Italia19
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I

Italia19

Guest
I’ve been studying up on the Eastern Catholic Churches and the Orthodox Churches for a while. I’m very confused about something.

The Three Original Apostolic Churches are Rome, Antioch and Alexandria (From my understanding Jerusalem and Constantinople have apostolic successions but were not established as patriarchates in the apostolic age).

Obviously the church of Rome is the Latin Church of the Catholic Church. But what about the other two?

The Following churches all claim to be the original Antiochian church described in the bible
The Greek Orthodox Patriarchate of Antioch and all the East (Eastern Orthodox)
The Syriac Orthodox Patriarchate of Antioch and all the East (Oriental Orthodox)
The Syriac Maronite Church (Eastern Catholic)
The Melkite Greek Catholic Church (Eastern Catholic)
The Syriac Catholic Church (Eastern Catholic)

What I am trying to figure out is which one is actually the original church of antioch that all other branched away from? I don’t think it is any of the Catholic ones, because as per my understanding the Eastern Catholic Churches left their orthodox counterparts to be part of the Catholic Church, so they left those original churches and started new ones that were in communion with Rome.

This same issue exists for the See of Alexandria

We have three churches with competing claims
The Coptic Orthodox Patriarchate of Alexandria (Oriental Orthodox)
The Greek Orthodox Patriarchate of Alexandria and all Africa (Eastern Orthodox)
The Coptic Catholic Church (Eastern Catholic)

Again the same question. Regarding the Alexandrian church I think the Coptic Orthodox church may have been the original Alexandrian church, reason being the Bishop of Alexandria took the title of Pope before the schism that created the Oriental Orthodox. Currently the Coptic Orthodox Church which is oriental orthodox has the title of Pope for its leader, while the Greek Orthodox Church of Alexandria has the title of Patriarch. But this begs the question: If the Coptic Church is the original alexandrian church, where did the Greek Orthodox Patriarchate of Alexandria come from? Did the Other eastern churches just establish another church in place of the original one that had become oriental orthodox?

Its all very confusing and I cannot find ANYTHING online that clarifies this
 
Last edited:
I don’t think there’s much left in Antioch of its splendid Christian past. On the Wikipedia page for Antakya (the Turkish form of the name), this is all its says about churches in the city:

Several small Christian communities are active in the city, with the largest church being St. Peter and St. Paul on Hurriyet Caddesi.

Just the one short sentence. They don’t even bother to tell us the names of the “small Christian communities.” In what sense can it be truly said that there is still today a Patriarchate of Antioch?

 
Last edited:
Italia19 said:
The Three Original Apostolic Churches are Rome, Antioch and Alexandria (From my understanding Jerusalem and Constantinople have apostolic successions but were not established as patriarchates in the apostolic age).
Click to expand...
I’m no expert but i think you may be confusing “Apostolic Church” and “Pentarchy”
 
Italia19 said:
The Following churches all claim to be the original Antiochian church described in the bible
Click to expand...
A Melkite priest showed me a group portrait of all five patriarchs of Antioch.

🤣😱:crazy_face:

In any schism, both sides fancy the other wrong, and believe themselves to be the original.
 
BartholomewB said:
In what sense can it be truly said that there is still today a Patriarchate of Antioch?
Click to expand...
In the same way that the Pope (the bishop of Rome) lived in Avignon, France for close to a century. It’s the title of the head of their church, which is attached to the city for historical reasons.
 
No, the pentarchy developed later. He’s referring to the three primordial primal sees of Christianity: Rome, Alexandria, and Antioch. These three bishops were considered successors of St Peter, with Rome first among them. It only became a pentarchy in the early medieval period after Constantinople and Jerusalem were recognized as patriarchates.
 
Thanks for the clarification. Using the term Apostolic Church is still not correct for what was trying to be described.
 
The Greek Orthodox Patriarchate of Alexandria, I believe, was founded by the Byzantines in an attempt to further their Imperial agenda in Egypt. It was resisted by the native Coptic Orthodox Patriarchate of Alexandria, with the majority of the population staying loyal to the Coptic Pope.
 
Italia19 said:
The Following churches all claim to be the original Antiochian church described in the bible
The Greek Orthodox Patriarchate of Antioch and all the East (Eastern Orthodox)
The Syriac Orthodox Patriarchate of Antioch and all the East (Oriental Orthodox)
The Syriac Maronite Church (Eastern Catholic)
The Melkite Greek Catholic Church (Eastern Catholic)
The Syriac Catholic Church (Eastern Catholic)
Click to expand...
My guess is the two with the most the most direct ties to the ancient Antioch are the Syriac Catholic Church and the Maronites.

The Maronites never left communion with Rome and the Syriac Catholic Church (which is also called Syriac Catholic Patriarchate of Antioch and all the East) was iterally the entire Syriac Orthdox Church coming back into communion with Rome.

The Syriac Orthodox Patriarchate of Antioch and all the East split from the Catholic one when the Patriarch of Antioch and all the East of the Syriacs rejoined with Rome in the 1700s
 
Practically, Maronite Catholic Church is original Church of Antioch that remained in communion with Catholics. Melkite Greek Church (later, today, Catholic) began when Constantinople sent their (greek) bishop to be Patriarch instead of local one. Rome supported local (Maronite) guy, but Constantinople did not care and therefore 2 Patriarchal lines exist now in communion with Catholics. Original Church of Antioch however, is Maronite Catholic Church. After Melkites joined Catholic Church, greek “Patriarch” was sent and that gave rise to Orthodox Church of Antioch, which is neither of historical lines but exists roughly from 1800 or a bit sooner than that (by the way, most Melkites wanted to join Church but Ottomans persecuted them because Ecumenical Patriarch did not like that). Syriac Orthodox Church was practically made of people who rejected Chalcedon (Maronites did not in-fact reject Chalcedon) , technically they can claim lineage to Apostle Peter too. After pro-Catholic Patriarch got elected, he wanted to return to Catholic Church and hence different opinion would arise and one part of Syriac Church would rejoin Catholics, other would remain Syriac Orthodox Church.

Alexandria left Church during Oriental Orthodoxy Schism over Chalcedon, therefore that is original line. Greeks sent their bishop to be Patriarch later on, which gave birth to Alexandrian Greek Orthodox Church. Coptic Catholic Church basically began when Pope thought Ottomans wanted Catholic Patriarch for Catholics in Alexandria in 1820’s. Practically speaking, Catholic Patriarch has no historical line if I’m not missing something.

Might have some errors, this is largely from what I’ve read before, I hope I did not misremember anything.

TLDR:
  1. Antioch
    Maronites- Original, accepted Chalcedon
    Syriac Orthodox- Original, did not accept Chalcedon
    Melkites- appointed by Byzantium to depose Maronite Patriarch, Greek, rejoined Catholics, accepted Chalcedon
    Syriac Catholic- left Syriac Orthodox, rejoined Catholics, kinda original
    Greek Orthodox- replacement of Melkites after they rejoined Catholics before 1800
  2. Alexandria
    Coptic Orthodox- rejected Chalcedon, original line
    Greek Orthodox- sent as replacement after Copts left, Greek, appointed by Byzantium
    Coptic Catholic- modern, sent because Pope thought Ottomans wanted Catholic Patriarch in their lands
 
Last edited:
Italia19 said:
Did the Other eastern churches just establish another church in place of the original one that had become oriental orthodox?
Click to expand...
Practically speaking, any Church establishes Patriarch to care for souls. When Oriental Orthodox left Church, Greek Orthodox Patriarch was sent to care for those who did not leave Church. Many times, Churches just kinda split into two (pro-council, anti-council, pro-union, anti-union), but some times people would just send someone over- or, in-case of Byzantium’s doings, would appoint someone to have honor of that office but reside in Constantinople (kinda like being titular Bishop/Patriarch).

What really strikes me is that Rome has absolutely no other lines (well, of course, if we don’t count the “Pope in Red” theory 😃 ).
 
Last edited:
Italia19 said:
I don’t think it is any of the Catholic ones, because as per my understanding the Eastern Catholic Churches left their orthodox counterparts to be part of the Catholic Church, so they left those original churches and started new ones that were in communion with Rome.
Click to expand...
Not so. The Patriarchal Pentarchy (Rome, Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch and Jerusalem) was mostly settled by the 5th century and all five Patriarchates were part of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church. There were occasional splits but the big one came in 1054 when Cardinal Humberto and Michael Cerularius hurled excommunications at each other and the Orthodox Church came into being. These are not polemics but historical facts.
 
Italia19 said:
because as per my understanding the Eastern Catholic Churches left their orthodox counterparts to be part of the Catholic Church, so they left those original churches and started new ones that were in communion with Rome.
Click to expand...
That is true in some cases.

In others, such as Ukranian, Ruthenian, Melkite, and others, the Churches themselves sought communion with Rome, and the corresponding Orthodox churches were created from the dissidents.

hawk
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top