Patriarchates and Schism

[Gabriel_of_12]

Although there are lots of reason from the historical as to why there is a schism, it is really trying to learn and understand the why of it and maybe, just maybe come to a better understanding of those reasons and hopefully begin to try and resolve those issues that have caused the schisms in the first place. I think that some of us who are not all that familiar with the Eastern way of thinking and understanding who are willing to learn from our Eastern brothers and sisters and come to some sort of agreement on the issues instead of fostering arguments that tend to drive a wedge between a them and us would or might be a better way. For me it is more trying to learn and understand the differences that have kept us apart and look for ways in which one can come to understanding and agreement as Christians. The only I see this is by leaning what the other thinks and believes and the why. trying to force the other to believe or make one think they are wrong does not seems to me to work all that well.
What I see is a richness of tradition and faith that the East and the West have that each side does not either see or understand. If we are not willing to learn and understand the other why are we even trying? it would not make any sense to me. I am not saying this is true of everyone but only a few from reading some of the threads on CAF.

The Patriarchates who have engaged in the schism from antiquity appears to have a lasting effect today.

It should be stated here, although many Eastern Patriarchates were found to be teaching and holding to heretical views of the Catholic faith. Many Patriarchates who remained in full communion with the bishop’s of Rome from the East became cannonized Saints and dubbed “Orthodox” those who were found holding to the apostolic faith in full communion with the bishop’s of Rome.

It is not until the Patriarch’s of Constantinople gain political powers and the ear of the Emperor’s, history finds this path leading to multiple schisms between the Orthodox Patrirarch’s and the Bishop’s of Rome. Many of these schism’s were dubbed personal and not affecting the whole Church and get resolved. While the splitting of the Empire political power enhanced the schism between the Orthodox and the Bishop’s of Rome.

Thus the first Patriarchates from the East are excommunicated as heretics. From the bishop’s of Rome and those Church’s dubbed Orthodox now who are in full communion with the bishop’s of Rome as one Church. The Orthodox held to the apostolic teachings in communion with the Popes.

The second phase of Imperial Patriarch’s of Constantinople, we enter in and out of schism’s with the bishop’s of Rome.

Peace be with you

 

[Peter_J]

Can you give an example between the difference of a better thread discussing Patriarchates and Schism and a worse one?

Does learning and giving an answer for your faith have to always come during a season? Or are we called to give witness for our faith in or out of season?

So that the Orthodox are not falsely accused of shutting down postitive threads by changing the OP.

Do any of the Orthodox have anything to add to this better or worse thread? particularly on the subject of the OP?

Haven’t you read The Jericho Guide To Religion On The World Wide Web (Unabridged)?

I kid. Seriously, I’m very much inclined to think that you’re going to have to decide for yourself which blogs, which threads, and which posts to read and which to ignore.

 

[mardukm]

I have a lot to say on this matter, but I just don’t have the time right now. I will make one comment, however (for now):

Why does the RCC have a counterpart in Jerusalem but not in Alexandria or Constantinople?

The RCC does not have a counterpart in Jerusalem in the same way that there are “counterpart” Sees in Alexandria for the OO and EO.

In Jerusalem, the Latin Patriarch has what is known as PERSONAL jurisdiction, which is not the same as TERRITORIAL jurisdiction. The Latin Patriarch only claims jurisdiction over Latin Catholic persons, not over the territory of Jerusalem.

In distinction, the OO and EO BOTH claim TERRITORIAL jurisdiction in Alexandria.

As you might have guessed, the difference between PERSONAL jurisdiction and TERRITORIAL jurisdiction, is that whereas personal jurisdiction claims jurisdiction only over people, territorial jurisdiction claims jurisdiction over a geographical boundary.

The Eastern Orthodox govern by the concept of territorial jurisdiction alone.

The Catholic and Oriental Orthodox Churches govern by the concept of both personal and territorial jurisdiction.

Perhaps you can extrapolate this consideration for your other questions (though it will not answer all your questions).

Blessings

 

[jimkhong]

Interesting! So the situation is even more complex than I first surmised. So why do the various churches have patriarchates in some sees but not in others?

Why does the RCC have a counterpart in Jerusalem but not in Alexandria or Constantinople?

If you mean Latin patriarchs, there were Latin patriarchs in Constantinopole, Alexandria and Antioch until abolished in 1964. Unlike the Latin patriachate of Jerusalem, they were all titular sees and were actually occupied since they were set up during the Crusades.

Other than that, there is a Catholic Coptic patriach in Alexandria, who for obvious reason do not adopt the title of Pope as the Coptic Orthodox patriarch do.

FYI, the Catholics have six Eastern patriarchs, three of whom are in Antioch.

Why does the Byzantine/EOC have a counterpart in Jerusalem but not Rome?

The Orthodox patriarch of Jerusalem is one of the original five patriarchates, which jointly governend the church. When the schism happened, the Patriarch of Jerusalem and the Patriarch of Rome ended up on different sides. Hence, an Orthodox patriarch of Jerusalem and a Catholic patriarch of Rome

Why do the Orientals have a counterpart in Constantinople but not Rome, etc.?

The Oriental patriarch of Constantinopole you mentioned is peculiar only to the Armenians. For some reason, the Armenians regard the title of patriarch as a lesser rank than the Catolicos, who occupy the same role that we expect of a patriarch. The Armenian patriarch of Constantinopole would probably be the equivalent of a Catholic Patriarchal Vicar (as used by the Melchites).

Why did any of the churches even consider replacing patriarchates that went into schism?

Also, why has Rome suppressed some of its patriarchal sees but not all of them (save for Rome)?

Rome did after the Crusades, of which only Jerusalem remained. The other three Latin patriarchates were the ony ones suppressed, due to the ecumenical atmosphere in 1964.

Since the Crusades, there were new patriarchates resurrected by Rome, as Eastern Catholic (as opposed to Latins) when reunion with the respective Eastern churches took place.

 

[spina1953]

Hi Gabriel of 12: Your post #41 is good and you have made great points. I thought that I’d share something that I read from Michael Whelton’s book Popes and Patriarchs in which he quotes from I seems the Council of Chalcedon 451 AD " (1) Rome’s primacy is not based on theological premise, such as Matthew 16:18. but on political considerations, she was the ancient seat of Roman government. The earlier ranking of the Patriarchal sees reflect this." I am not sure about it as I do not remember at this time that I read that in reading the Council’s canon’s but I could be wrong about that. What strikes me is that according to this author that the orthodox view or perspective, this is the reason why the Orthodox believe The Bishop of Rome who is also the Pope does not have supreme jurisdiction over the Church. That being said, it has been my understanding that the Pope does have jurisdiction over the Church since the Church there was founded not on any political consideration but on Peter who elected by any Roman authority as head of the Church but by Christ Himself s the chief shepherd in which Jesus said he would built His Church. It seems to me that many of the Patriarchs were elected by the emperor having the Bishops honor his wishes as to whom he wanted as patriarch of Constantinople, which sounds to me to be political. I am not saying that all of the Patriarchs were elected that way but that some were it seems to me. if this is true it lends to the fact that Bishops in the East and Patriarchs included were more political than allowing the Church itself to decide who is elected to those positions.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

spina1953;11753844]Hi Gabriel of 12: Your post #41 is good and you have made great points. I thought that I’d share something that I read from Michael Whelton’s book Popes and Patriarchs in which he quotes from I seems the Council of Chalcedon 451 AD " (1) Rome’s primacy is not based on theological premise, such as Matthew 16:18. but on political considerations, she was the ancient seat of Roman government. The earlier ranking of the Patriarchal sees reflect this."

Hi, spina, enjoying your post’s

Is the bolden above a quote directly from Whelton’s book? It sounds like Michael Whelton has the bishop’s of Rome confused with the Emperor’s of Rome?

The Bishop’s of Rome were never the ancient seat of Roman Government. The ancient seat of Roman Government (the Ceasar’s) persecuted the bishop’s of Rome.

I am not sure about it as I do not remember at this time that I read that in reading the Council’s canon’s but I could be wrong about that. What strikes me is that according to this author that the orthodox view or perspective, this is the reason why the Orthodox believe The Bishop of Rome who is also the Pope does not have supreme jurisdiction over the Church.

The authority of Jurisdiction over the whole Church by the bishop’s of Rome (Peter’s Chair), never comes into question, until the Patirarch’s of Constantinople have the ear and political clout of the Emperor’s who were either pagan, schismatics, heretics. It is from here the “supreme jurisdiction” of the bishop’s of Rome come into conflict with the Patriarch’s of Constantinople mixed with the political power’s of the Emperor’s.

The author appears to be justifying his claims post Constantinople. His views are never existing pre-Constantinople. When political Jurisdiction is given to the bishop’s in apostolic see’s over the Emperor’s territories from which the apostolic see’s already existed, but are now dubbed Patriarch’s in the East who are Bishop’s of the Church. There never existed an original apostolic see in Constantinople, because Constantinople never existed for the first 400 years of Christianity. Constantinople becomes an apostolic see, when an apostolic successor (bishop) to the apostle Andrew is placed in Constantinople.

I believe the Orthodox’s objection to the Peter’s Chair having jurisdiction, never comes under question until post Constantinople. When the Patriarch of Constantinople has the political power to usurp apostolic see’s under it. The Patriarch of Constantinople vied for equality of jurisdiction with the bishop’s of Rome, but never succeeded. The Patriarch’s of Constantinople did succeed in ursurping authority over the weaker apostolic see’s that were in communion with the bishop’s of Rome, such as Antioch that came from Peter, Alexandria from Peter’s disciple Mark and Jersusalem. This all took place post-Constantinople in the East.

I have not read the book, but from the quote alone many questions arise about the authenticity of the author’s historical facts.

That being said, it has been my understanding that the Pope does have jurisdiction over the Church since the Church there was founded not on any political consideration but on Peter who elected by any Roman authority as head of the Church but by Christ Himself s the chief shepherd in which Jesus said he would built His Church.

Peter is the leader of the apostles not leader of the Roman Empire. And Peter is never leader over the Emperor’s territories, which the Emperor’s placed under the Patriarch’s. The bishop’s in full communion with the bishop’s of Rome their Leader in the things belonging to God. When the apostolic successors to the apostles who are divinely ordained by God as bishops, become Patriarch’s (post Constantinople) when they are conducting Imperial political jurisdiction under the Emperor’s who placed them as overseer’s in the Emperor’s territories.

This complex of authority, begins the exchange and mixing of giving to Ceasar what belongs to God and givine to God what belongs to Ceasar. I think your author’s view got twisted up in this complex of power struggle politically and Church jurisdiction.

I have to side the Eastern Bishop’s and the Popes’ who made efforts and took actions to keep the secular Emperor’s powers out of the Church, but the gates of hell flooded and stormed against Peter in the bishop’s of Rome, but they never prevailed.

It seems to me that many of the Patriarchs were elected by the emperor having the Bishops honor his wishes as to whom he wanted as patriarch of Constantinople, which sounds to me to be political.

It is difficult to paint a broad paint brush here from your above statement. For one the Patriarch’s are Bishop’s first, Patriarch’s second. For the reason I gave earlier. The Bishop’s are a divine office that can never change, when the office of Patriarch can come and go any tme and anywhere, because the office of Patriarch is an eccleesial office, never a divine office consecrated by Jesus Christ.

** Reading history in this light, clears up and draws border lines of Church jurisdiction of the Apostolic successors in the Bishop’s, and Political jurisdiction of the Patriarch’s. Keepping in mind the two were always one. The Orthodox for some reason today, believe holding to these ancient political Patriarchial offices today is something Orthodox. What is Orthodox for ever are the apostolic successors in the Bishop’s not the Patriarch’s.**

The election of bishop’s and patriarch’s is very complex post-Constantinople. Because they did not have telephones and faxes at the time. Many got elected or placed in office without Rome’s approval, this is a whole other historical cases.

Sorry, your subject caught my attention did not intend to be long winded here:blush:
Peace be with you