Rome let Orthodox

[ralphinal]

Thanks for the answers to my question. I asked it for a specific reason.

Basically, the only thing in either set of Churches that can be traced back is contained within the Creed and the actual Apostolic line. The Liturgies and the prayers (by and large) all date later.

What we have is a matter of perspective, and not an easy one to sort out. Personally, it makes more sense to me (a Roman Catholic), that the East left the West, but not entirely as it is presented. The division started more over geography and political divisions than theology.

 

[Mickey]

The division started more over geography and political divisions than theology.

Don’t fool yourself. They separated in many ways, theological, well before the official date of 1054.

And for what it’s worth—I believe Rome separated Herself from the other four Patriarchates.

 

[ralphinal]

Don’t fool yourself. They separated in many ways, theological, well before the official date of 1054.

And for what it’s worth—I believe Rome separated Herself from the other four Patriarchates.

Oh, I wasn’t even mentioning the dates. The divisions of every sort began well before that one date

 

[josie_L]

This is a faulty assumption.

Your assumption is that Apostolic Succesion started from the See of St. Peter; however, the first Apostolic See *ever established *was established in Jerusalem by St. James.

We have to remind ourselves or those who seem to forget that St. Peter was not a lone Apostle. Jesus had **twelve Apostles **(not one) and after Judas’ death, St. Matthieus was elected to take his place. St. Paul was also called to be an Apostle as recorded in the Bible.

Apostolic Succession is the Succession line of those who came after one or more of the Apostles who established a particular See.

The five Sees that became known as Patriarchates are: Rome established by Sts. Peter & Paul, Constantinople established by St. Andrew, Alexandria established by St. Mark, Antioch established by St. Peter and Jerusalem established by St. James.

But those 5 Sees weren’t the only Apostolic Sees - there were 13 Apostles (when you include St. Paul) who all started various Churches through out the known world.

There isn’t just 1 line of Apostolic Succession, there are many lines of Apostolic Succession!

Also the order of the 5 original Patriarchates (there are more now) was not due to St. Peter as we can clearly see because if it was based on St. Peter Antioch would either come in first (since he established it first and without the help of St. Paul) or at the very least 2nd to Rome, but it’s order of importance was 4th - per the Early Church Councils. The reason for Rome was considered ‘first among equals’ was due to the historical/political status and size of the city. This is the only thing that makes sense otherwise, again, Antioch would be either 1st or 2nd in order of importance if was due to St. Peter being the founder.

Think about it for a bit Joseph and then rephrase your question.

The reason that Rome was considered “first among equals” was because St. Peter was “first among equals” and that extended to his successors. That he was the bishop of Antioch at one point in time does not signify, he died in Rome and we are told through the early Church fathers that he was the first bishop to Rome.

 

[josie_L]

Don’t fool yourself. They separated in many ways, theological, well before the official date of 1054.

And for what it’s worth—I believe Rome separated Herself from the other four Patriarchates.

How so when Rome was helping the other four patriachates (when heresies arose)?

 

[SingleMomMonica]

The reason that Rome was considered “first among equals” was because St. Peter was “first among equals” and that extended to his successors. That he was the bishop of Antioch at one point in time does not signify, he died in Rome and we are told through the early Church fathers that he was the first bishop to Rome.

I understand that what you say is the current teaching of the Catholic Church.

If you believe that, then please answer:

If it was based on the ‘Person’ of St. Peter that Rome was considered the “first among equals”, then **Why wasn’t Antioch honored in either 1st or at least 2nd position, rather than 4th, in importance? **

Antioch’s Apostolic See was founded soley by St. Peter, but Rome’s Apostolic See was founded by both Sts. Peter and Paul. St. Peter has Successors in both Sees down to the present day.

Although I’d really like to hear you answer that, I really think you will not answer it because you know that if it were true then Antioch would be listed at least 2nd, but definitely not 4th!

 

[John_Larocque]

In the original quadarchy, Antioch was third in importance, after Rome and Alexandria. As I stated earlier, Rome always placed great importance on the Petrine sees maintaining a primacy, or prominance. Making Byzantium second after Rome violated that understanding. This appears to be an understanding that was not shared outside of Rome, but this did not imperil the unity of the church.

St. John Chrysostom referred to several of his Antiochan predecessors as successors of Peter. He could have meant this in the restrictive understanding of Petrine primacy - i.e. Anitochan and Alexandrian patriarchs are also successors of St. Peter in the sense that the Pope of Rome was .

Rome’s position as #1 of the Petrine sees can be seen a number of ways. Ss. Peter and Paul were martyred there, and historically Rome was seen as a bulwark of orthodoxy for having held true to the faith of the two apostles.

 

[josie_L]

I understand that what you say is the current teaching of the Catholic Church.

If you believe that, then please answer:

If it was based on the ‘Person’ of St. Peter that Rome was considered the “first among equals”, then **Why wasn’t Antioch honored in either 1st or at least 2nd position, rather than 4th, in importance? **

Antioch’s Apostolic See was founded soley by St. Peter, but Rome’s Apostolic See was founded by both Sts. Peter and Paul. St. Peter has Successors in both Sees down to the present day.

Although I’d really like to hear you answer that, I really think you will not answer it because you know that if it were true then Antioch would be listed at least 2nd, but definitely not 4th!

Why in tarnation would it matter why Antioch was 4th instead of 2nd when we very well know that the Church fathers believed St. Peter (and as such his successors) held primacy (that he was martyred there as a bishop to Rome is not good enough for you)? Furthermore, the basis for St. Peter’s primacy is not based solely on tradition or solely on scripture or solely on history but all three, therefore given the corroborating evidence we have, St. Peter was/is “the first amongst equals” not Rome. Moreover, if you take a look in your last thread you’ll see my responses delineated in full that answer a lot of the misgivings you had about the papacy (and I raised a couple of questions as well).

p.s. I read in your previous posts that you were raised a Baptist and converted to the Catholic Church since 14 years ago, when were you Orthodox?

 

[MusicMan]

My knowledge of Orthodox Christianity is quite limited for someone who enjoys Christian scholarship, although I’d like to think that it’s much stronger than the average Catholic in the pew. I do not, in fact, know the names of all of the Orthodox Church heads, nor their ranks and titles.

As I understand it, a group of Orthodox separated in the 5th Century, and another group separated in the 11th.

What I do understand is that each Orthodox Church is auto-cephalos, with the Oriental Churches in Communion with each other and the the Eastern Orthodox in Communion with each other.

Within Catholicism, there are the 22 particular Church, which are all in Communion with each other, but the difference is that they’re all under the Pope of Rome. The Oriental Orthodox are not under Pope Shenouda, nor are the Eastern Orthodox under Patriarch Bartholomew.

I believe that the very thing that made you think I didn’t understand was actually the thing that made me reference Pope Benedict separately. So my comment stands. The leader of the Catholic Church and all of the leaders of the Orthodox Churches need to sit down and hash this out.

In reading your Post, it makes me wonder why you only named Pope Benedict, the Pope of Rome, but not the others you referenced. It makes me think that you don’t know who they are and that perhaps you’ve not read any of their writings or have learned what they teach. Have you looked into any of the issues that separate Rome from them? And what separates the Oriental Churches from them? Do you realize that each of the Oriental Churches are independant of each other and are not “under” the the Coptic Pope?

Pope Shenouda III is the Pope of the Coptic Church. copticpope.org/index.php

Patriarch of Constantinople is His All Holiness, Bartholomew, Archbishop of Constantinople, New Rome and Ecumenical Patriarch ec-patr.org/athp/index.php?lang=en

Pope Theodoros II is the Pope and Patriarch of Alexandria and all of Africa patriarchateofalexandria.com/

Patriarch of Antioch is His All Holiness, Ignatius IV (Hazim) antiochpat.org/

Patriarch of Jerusalem is His All Holiness, Beatitude Patriarch Theophilos III jerusalem-patriarchate.info/

Patriarch of Moscow is His Holiness Kirill mospat.ru/en/the_patriarch/

Patriarch of Serbia is His Holiness Pavle (Stojcevic)

Patriarch of Romania is His Beatitude Daniel patriarhia.ro/en/patriarch/

Patriarch of Bulgaria is His Holiness Maxim bg-patriarshia.bg/photos.php

Patriarch of Georgia is His Holiness Ilia II

But, shouldn’t the leaders of the other Oriental Churches be a part of this meeting you propose also? What about the leaders of the rest of the Orthodox Churches which are independent, but not large enough to be have a Patriarch - like the Churches of Greece, Albania, Poland, Czech-Slovakia, Finland and Estonia?

I think that you have an idea that all the Churches are not independent of each other, but they are and always have been - since the beginning - each are united in the Faith and Liturgy, except the Oriental Churches which separated themselves when they began believing that Christ has only 1 Nature, not 2 Natures and except the Catholic Church since they began believing that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son (& the Father). All the other Churches, although independent of each other have continued to teach the same Faith and continued to celebrate the same Liturgy since the beginning.

 

[Hesychios]

…to me (a Roman Catholic), that the East left the West, but not entirely as it is presented. The division started more over geography and political divisions than theology.

Political divisions sure, but theology first of all.

I think that geography had some influence upon the transmission of ideas and theories. Books were hand written and very expensive, sailing craft and mule carts were slow with arrivals unpredictable. In places where the government was not supporting priests fallowing the call could mean a life of poverty and health problems.

There was no such thing as a seminary education. Even from the earliest times deacons and priests were chosen from among the most well-to-do families because they could come into the work already provided with an education (vestments derive from gentlemen’s clothes). In the most rustic areas one learned the priestly craft from another elder and the bishop without necessarily coming into it with a classical education. Illiteracy among the priestly ranks was common in some areas.

I think it is important to stress that it was not culture that divided us, there have always been and always will be cultural distinctions. Division did not happen until these geographic, cultural, and political distinctions allowed differences in religious theory to flourish.

 

[Hesychios]

…to me (a Roman Catholic), that the East left the West, but not entirely as it is presented. The division started more over geography and political divisions than theology.

Political divisions sure, but theology first of all.

I think that geography had some influence upon the transmission of ideas and theories. Books were hand written and very expensive, sailing craft and mule carts were slow with arrivals unpredictable. Bandits and pirates lurked in difficult passages.

In places where the government was not supporting priests fallowing the call could mean a life of poverty and health problems.

There was no such thing as a seminary education. Even from the earliest times deacons and priests were chosen from among the most well-to-do families because they could come into the work already provided with an education (vestments derive from gentlemen’s clothes). In the most rustic areas one learned the priestly craft from another elder and the bishop without necessarily coming into it with a classical education. Illiteracy among the priestly ranks was common in some areas.

I think it is important to stress that it was not culture that divided us, there have always been and always will be cultural distinctions. Division did not happen until these geographic, cultural, and political distinctions allowed differences in religious theory to flourish.

 

[benidict]

i am loving this discussion. could anyone Catholic or Orthodox plz give me some good ideas for historical reading on this subject? sure would appreciate it. i would love to look at both sides of this issue. so something unbiasd plz? thx Catholic or Orthodox. we are one Church. and it would be incredible if we could reunite. hopefully in our life times. wouldnt that really ruin the devils day?

 

[Hesychios]

i am loving this discussion. could anyone Catholic or Orthodox plz give me some good ideas for historical reading on this subject? sure would appreciate it. i would love to look at both sides of this issue. so something unbiasd plz? thx Catholic or Orthodox. we are one Church. and it would be incredible if we could reunite. hopefully in our life times. wouldnt that really ruin the devils day?

I would recommend The Barbarian Conversion: From Paganism to Christianity. I picked it up at a library in the States some time ago.

Then one could read:

http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/41DBQVD4Y8L.SL500_AA240.jpghttp://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/41RCEJEF2EL.SL500_AA240.jpg
The Christian Tradition: A History of the Development of Doctrine

You might also find East and West: The Making of a Rift in the Church through library loan, if you are lucky. I have not actually read this one, it is on my wish list, the author is reputable.

 

[Mickey]

How so when Rome was helping the other four patriachates (when heresies arose)?

Rome was Orthodox and the Church was united for the first century–give or take a few years.

Then Rome separated herself.

 

[josie_L]

Rome was Orthodox and the Church was united for the first century–give or take a few years.

Then Rome separated herself.

How did Rome separate herself (wasn’ there an attempt to patch things up)?

p.s. I think you meant to say “first millenia”.

 

[josie_L]

i am loving this discussion. could anyone Catholic or Orthodox plz give me some good ideas for historical reading on this subject? sure would appreciate it. i would love to look at both sides of this issue. so something unbiasd plz? thx Catholic or Orthodox. we are one Church. and it would be incredible if we could reunite. hopefully in our life times. wouldnt that really ruin the devils day?

Although I haven’t read it myself (plan to), “An Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine” by Cardinal John Henry Newman is considered to be an excellent source for understanding Church history /traditions /doctrine.

p.s. He started off as a Anglican when he wrote this book (thinking to discredit the Catholic Church by way of her theology) and ended up converting to the Catholic faith as a result.

 

[Mickey]

How did Rome separate herself ?

By separating from the other four Patriarchates.

I think you meant to say “first millenia”.

Oops.

 

[ralphinal]

Political divisions sure, but theology first of all.

I think that geography had some influence upon the transmission of ideas and theories. Books were hand written and very expensive, sailing craft and mule carts were slow with arrivals unpredictable. Bandits and pirates lurked in difficult passages.

In places where the government was not supporting priests fallowing the call could mean a life of poverty and health problems.

There was no such thing as a seminary education. Even from the earliest times deacons and priests were chosen from among the most well-to-do families because they could come into the work already provided with an education (vestments derive from gentlemen’s clothes). In the most rustic areas one learned the priestly craft from another elder and the bishop without necessarily coming into it with a classical education. Illiteracy among the priestly ranks was common in some areas.

I think it is important to stress that it was not culture that divided us, there have always been and always will be cultural distinctions. Division did not happen until these geographic, cultural, and political distinctions allowed differences in religious theory to flourish.

I agree. It just seems like had the political, geographic and other issues not been as pronounced (like naming Constantinople the New Rome and making it, in some minds, the most important see), the Theological issues could have been discussed.

After all, how much of the issue with the Filioque is because Rome did not consider how it translated into Greek and did not care to discuss the issue at the time?

 

[josie_L]

By separating from the other four Patriarchates.

Thanks, that was elucidating.

 

[Mickey]

Thanks, that was elucidating.

Always glad to elucidate.