The Ancient Pentarchy

[FRANKYG]

Hello my brothers and sisters in Christ.

I’ve been doing some church history research. I have a bit of a two fold dillema… I understand that there were originally 4 Patriarchal (IDK if thats a real word lol) churches, Rome, Antioch, Jerusalem, and Alexandria. As I understand it, Constatonople came a little later when The emperor moved the “Capital” to Byzantium… Now feel free to correct me on that research, Both Orthodox and Catholics…

Here is my Dillema, After the schism, was Rome the Only Patriarch in the Catholic Church for some time until some Eastern Christians entered communion with the Holy See? So if that is true, The Church was “Roman” Catholic only for a couple of centuries? Right…

So my second problem is. What if Rome “sets up” a “new” Patriarch in either Antioch, Jerusalem, Constanople, Or Alexandria?? Is The Orthodox Patriarch now Void?? What happens in one of these situations?

Thank you Very Much… PLEASE NO FIGHTING OR UNFRIENDLY DEBATING, THIS GOES FOR BOTH ORTHODOX AND CATHOLICS…

 

[ConstantineTG]

The Maronites never went into schism, but were separated from Rome by the political situations in their area. I believe it resulted in loss of contact, but not loss of Communion.

 

[Vico]

Hello my brothers and sisters in Christ.

I’ve been doing some church history research. I have a bit of a two fold dillema… I understand that there were originally 4 Patriarchal (IDK if thats a real word lol) churches, Rome, Antioch, Jerusalem, and Alexandria. As I understand it, Constatonople came a little later when The emperor moved the “Capital” to Byzantium… Now feel free to correct me on that research, Both Orthodox and Catholics…

Here is my Dillema, After the schism, was Rome the Only Patriarch in the Catholic Church for some time until some Eastern Christians entered communion with the Holy See? So if that is true, The Church was “Roman” Catholic only for a couple of centuries? Right…

So my second problem is. What if Rome “sets up” a “new” Patriarch in either Antioch, Jerusalem, Constanople, Or Alexandria?? Is The Orthodox Patriarch now Void?? What happens in one of these situations?

Thank you Very Much… PLEASE NO FIGHTING OR UNFRIENDLY DEBATING, THIS GOES FOR BOTH ORTHODOX AND CATHOLICS…

Here is something from the Vatican on that topic.
Without presuming to consider the complex historical question of the title of patriarch in all its aspects, it can be said from the historical point of view that the ancient patriarchs of the East, established by the Councils of Constantinople (381) and Chalcedon (451), were related to a fairly clearly defined territory, where the territory of the See of the Bishop of Rome remained vague. In the East, under the ecclesiastical imperial system of Justinian (527-565), in addition to the four Eastern Patriarchs (Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch and Jerusalem), the Pope was included as the Patriarch of the West. Conversely, Rome favors the idea of the three Petrine episcopal sees: Rome, Alexandria and Antioch. Without using the title “Patriarch of the West,” the Fourth Council of Constantinople (869-70), the Fourth Lateran Council (1215) and the Council of Florence (1439), listed the Pope as the first of the then five Patriarchs.
vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/chrstuni/sub-index/index_general-docs.htm

So with that perspective, we have these Patriarchs: Rome, Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem.

When the schisms occurred there were then multiple Patriarchs in these cities representing various Churches, some titular only, because there we no longer any faithful in the jurisdiction (The Latin Church till 1964, had titular Patriarchs of Constantinople, Alexandria, and Antioch, and there is still one for Jerusalem).

Patriarchs

Rome: Latin Catholic

Constantinople: Latin Catholic (abolished), Eastern Orthodox, Armenian Orthodox (1461)

Alexandria has: Latin Catholic (abolished), Melkite Catholic, Coptic Catholic, Eastern Orthodox Melkite, Coptic Orthodox, Ethiopian Orthodox

Antioch: Latin Catholic (abolished), Maronite Catholic, Melkite Catholic, Syriac Catholic, Syriac Orthodox, Antiochian Eastern Orthodox

Jerusalem has: Latin Catholic, Melkite Catholic, Eastern Orthodox

 

[Vico]

I just realized, there is also an Armenian Orthodox Patriarch of Jerusalem.

 

[5Loaves]

The Maronites never went into schism, but were separated from Rome by the political situations in their area. I believe it resulted in loss of contact, but not loss of Communion.

Russians also were not part of a formal separation. I won’t repeat what one can read about more fully here

The events of 1054 did not cause any immediate rupture between the See of Rome and the Russian Church; rather there was a gradual drift apart. Indeed, contact between Rome and Moscow continued. The Russian Church was represented at the Council of Florence in 1439 by Metropolitan Isidore of Kiev and several other Russian clergy. The Russian bishops signed the Act of Union at the Council and they declared the union, which was warmly received by their people, throughout their territories as they returned to Moscow… After this time, there were always some Russians who were in communion with the Holy See, albeit small in number and hardly organized…

and here from the OrthodoxWiki site.

(Recently in conversation with a Russian Orthodox protodeacon he happened to mention that his Orthodox family came from Harbin China, as did our Russian Greek/Byzantine Catholic community, where they fled from the persecutions of the Bolshevik Revolution. I would like to learn more about how those two communities co-existed in Harbin. I don’t know how both communities Orthodox and Byzantine Catholic both ended up in the same town in China.)

 

[Hesychios]

The Maronites never went into schism, but were separated from Rome by the political situations in their area. I believe it resulted in loss of contact, but not loss of Communion.

Actually, it seems very likely that they became monothelites around the time of Honorius, and remained so for some time, perhaps several centuries, afterward.

Their separation was not a loss of contact (they were not in Tibet or Mongolia or some such far off place). Their neighbors the Melkite Catholics and the Jacobites knew them well (as did the Byzantine government), and neither group was in communion with them for specific reasons. That the See at Rome had eventually forgotten about them would be no surprise, since the curia could not be expected to keep tabs on all of the heretical and schismatic groups scattered across the globe in those days. But the Melkite Catholic Patriachal church certainly knew who they were and did not commune them.

If your theory that there was no loss of communion is to be taken seriously, that would mean that one Eastern Catholic church under the Pope would have excommunicated another Eastern Catholic church while both remained in communion with Rome, a very unlikely scenario, in fact it could be the very first time that had ever happened, it wouldn’t be allowed to happen today. It would also mean the Rome was in communion with heretics, an institutional example of cafeteria Catholicism which is completely unlikely.

For those two reasons it is clear that the claim the Maronittes never broke communion with Rome is a myth.

 

[malphono]

Actually, it seems very likely that they became monothelites around the time of Honorius, and remained so for some time, perhaps several centuries, afterward. …

For those two reasons it is clear that the claim the Maronittes never broke communion with Rome is a myth.

Here we go again. :yawn: The allegations of monotheletism among the Maronites has been discussed before in this [thread=349702]forum[/thread] and elsewhere. I am not reopening the argument, but let’s be clear that just because a certain group of Orthodox polemicists cling tenaciously to that premise does not make it fact. The bottom line is that the allegations of monotheletism among the Maronites remain unproven.

 

[Hesychios]

Here we go again. :yawn: The allegations of monotheletism among the Maronites has been discussed before in this [thread=349702]forum[/thread] and elsewhere. I am not reopening the argument, but let’s be clear that just because a certain group of Orthodox polemicists cling tenaciously to that premise does not make it fact. The bottom line is that the allegations of monotheletism among the Maronites remain unproven.

Well of course it’s unproven.

Everything in the historical record is unproven to us.

All we have is the opinion of the contemporaries, we cannot read their hearts.

Anyway, I am the only Orthodox person I am aware of who posts on the subject, and I was a convinced Catholic reading the Catholic encyclopedia when I first came to this information. It is still my only source, so if you want to discredit the theory by somehow tagging it as an “Orthodox polemicist” position I would say that is disingenuous. It is actually an historically Catholic position determined by Catholic scholars.

What is most certainly unproven is the opinion that the Maronites ‘never’ broke communion with Rome, yet people parade around that idea as if it were a fact for some odd reason, and mislead many innocent lurkers.

Mythmaking abounds.

 

[malphono]

Well of course it’s unproven.

Everything in the historical record is unproven to us.

All we have is the opinion of the contemporaries, we cannot read their hearts.

Anyway, I am the only Orthodox person I am aware of who posts on the subject, and I was a convinced Catholic reading the Catholic encyclopedia when I first came to this information. It is still my only source, so if you want to discredit the theory by somehow tagging it as an “Orthodox polemicist” position I would say that is disingenuous. It is actually an historically Catholic position determined by Catholic scholars.

And as I said long ago in that prior thread, that position, despite the lack of true, substantive, and objective evidence, is stock in trade for certain Orthodox polemicists.

What is most certainly unproven is the opinion that the Maronites ‘never’ broke communion with Rome, yet people parade around that idea as if it were a fact for some odd reason, and mislead many innocent lurkers.

Yes that point is also unproven and undocumented. Frankly I’m one who really doesn’t much care, so if that jab was intended as a slight, it didn’t work.

Mythmaking abounds.

And so does proclaiming unfounded and unsubstantiated allegations.

Anyway, I said earlier in this thread that I was not reopening the issue, and I meant it.

 

[yeshua]

And as I said long ago in that prior thread, that position, despite the lack of true, substantive, and objective evidence, is stock in trade for certain Orthodox polemicists.

Just a side note, much of the material addressing the monotheletism of the Maronites comes from Roman Catholic sources, alongside accounts from the Melkites, Syriac Orthodox, and yes, even Maronites sources (we just don’t like giving permission to view them at libraries). In the past century, those who have tried to address or prove the monothelitism have all been (non-clerical, of course) Maronites, save an occasional Syriac Orthodox or two…

I don’t think the Orthodox (and I’m assuming you reference EO) give Maronites a second thought, certainly none of their heirarchs or others peoples of importance have made statements on the matter. The only “Orthodox polemicists” I can think of are occasional online goers, more often than not converts, who probably only learned about the issue from forums like this one.

Yes that point is also unproven and undocumented. Frankly I’m one who really doesn’t much care, so if that jab was intended as a slight, it didn’t work.

Unproven, perhaps. Undocumented, hardly. Maronite historiography is rampantly dishonest. But like you said, for another time/place.

 

[malphono]

Just a side note, much of the material addressing the monotheletism of the Maronites comes from Roman Catholic sources, alongside accounts from the Melkites, Syriac Orthodox, and yes, even Maronites sources (we just don’t like giving permission to view them at libraries). In the past century, those who have tried to address or prove the monothelitism have all been (non-clerical, of course) Maronites, save an occasional Syriac Orthodox or two…

I don’t think the Orthodox (and I’m assuming you reference EO) give Maronites a second thought, certainly none of their heirarchs or others peoples of importance have made statements on the matter.

You’re probably right that most EO don’t give us a second thought, but I have seen EO polemics on the matter in print. The usual provenance was (big surprise there) Antiochian. Plus (another big surprise ) a few Melkites along the way. Although I’ve rarely encountered it from the real OO (Syriac or otherwise), I’ll admit it does exist.

The only “Orthodox polemicists” I can think of are occasional online goers, more often than not converts, who probably only learned about the issue from forums like this one.

Not the only ones, but oh, yes. No argument from me about that.

Unproven, perhaps. Undocumented, hardly. Maronite historiography is rampantly dishonest. But like you said, for another time/place.

Not only Maronite historiography … But of course I know that full well. As I said, the business of “perpetual union” means little to me. Frankly, I wish we had an Orthodox counterpart.

 

[Hesychios]

You’re probably right that most EO don’t give us a second thought,

I do.

Catholic history is very interesting to me, it always has been.

Among themselves Orthodox never discuss the Maronites, as far as I know. I hesitate to make any assumptions as to the reason.

… but I have seen EO polemics on the matter in print.

You may have been reading me.

Although in fact, I rarely post any place else but on CAF. Almost everything I write is archived right here. I have to admit I get some things wrong, but I I don’t think it is polemics to bring out the facts as far as we know them. That is a strange notion, it is like saying “you only told the truth about us because you are against us” and implying “people on our side would never have thought to correct the errors in that post”.

In the spirit of the Bollandidsts, I think the facts are neutral. They are what they are whether we discuss them or even care. The facts have their own intrinsic value.

The usual provenance was (big surprise there) Antiochian. Plus (another big surprise ) a few Melkites along the way. Although I’ve rarely encountered it from the real OO (Syriac or otherwise), I’ll admit it does exist.

I would sure be interested to see whatever else was posted on the subject out there. If you have a link, that is.

If not, don’t worry about it.

… Frankly, I wish we had an Orthodox counterpart.

Personally, I think that the counterpart is the Antiochian Jacobite church, or at least it woulld be thought so if the small Syriac Catholic church did not already exist.

 

[Alexander_Roman]

I just realized, there is also an Armenian Orthodox Patriarch of Jerusalem.

Yes - the Armenians have their main Patriarch in Etchmiadzin (“The Descent of the Only-Begotten” and he is also a Catholicos with universal jurisdiction over all Armenians) and then their “minor Patriarchs” in Constantinople, Jerusalem and Cilicia. The position of the Catholicos in the Oriental Churches is an interesting one and while a patriarch, his jurisdiction goes beyond that of a circumscribed ecclesial territory.

Alex

 

[Alexander_Roman]

Hello my brothers and sisters in Christ.

I’ve been doing some church history research. I have a bit of a two fold dillema… I understand that there were originally 4 Patriarchal (IDK if thats a real word lol) churches, Rome, Antioch, Jerusalem, and Alexandria. As I understand it, Constatonople came a little later when The emperor moved the “Capital” to Byzantium… Now feel free to correct me on that research, Both Orthodox and Catholics…

Here is my Dillema, After the schism, was Rome the Only Patriarch in the Catholic Church for some time until some Eastern Christians entered communion with the Holy See? So if that is true, The Church was “Roman” Catholic only for a couple of centuries? Right…

So my second problem is. What if Rome “sets up” a “new” Patriarch in either Antioch, Jerusalem, Constanople, Or Alexandria?? Is The Orthodox Patriarch now Void?? What happens in one of these situations?

Thank you Very Much… PLEASE NO FIGHTING OR UNFRIENDLY DEBATING, THIS GOES FOR BOTH ORTHODOX AND CATHOLICS…

Many books have been written pondering the questions you raise!

Rome was indeed the only Patriarchate, properly so called, in the West after the East-West schism became solidified (especially at the time of the Sack of Constantinople).

Some have suggested that the fact that Rome was the only Apostolic See in the West, where the Apostles Sts Peter and Paul had died, led to a kind of papal triumphalism. In the East, where St Peter, St Paul and the other Apostles established bishoprics not only at Antioch, Alexandria etc. but also in very many towns and villages, the idea that this or that See had a primacy because the “Apostles were there” would have made little impression as an argument for such primacy.

It was actually the patriarchate of Alexandria that developed as the first Papacy in the Church. That Patriarch/Pope had full jurisdiction over every priest and small parish throughout Christian Africa. He was a powerful political figure as well, ruling over the Greek city of Alexandria and was also referred to as the “New Pharaoh” and the “Ecumenical (universal) Archbishop.” His See was and is the “Evangelical See” of St Mark who acted with the authority of St Peter himself as Peter’s closest assistant. St Mark’s Gospel is, in reality, the Gospel of St Peter. The Last Supper was held in St Mark’s parents’ home and the young man in the Garden when Christ was arrested who escaped naked etc. was St Mark himself. Every single Pope/Patriarch of Alexandria since St Mark’s time has been canonized a saint by the Coptic Church and Pope St Cyrillos is wildly popular by many Christians outside the Alexandrian tradition as a great miracle-worker. The Alexandrian Churches remain faithful to the Christology of St Cyril of Alexandria and to his terminology and the schisms between them and the “Roman Churches” i.e. of Rome and Byzantium had much to do with politics and who decided which Church was where in the Pentarchical hierarchy. Alexandria did not see how Constantinople, a Johnny come lately, could have primatial pretensions in the East . . .

This was all at a time when Rome’s primate bore the modest title of “Bishop” and barely had immediate jurisdiction over Italy.

You raise the equally fascinating question of the origina of the title “Roman Catholic.”

Although the link with Rome itself was made by the Protestant Reformation, the term “Roman” has a much more ancient origin.

To be a “Roman” of “Rhoum” meant to be a citizen of a civilization that reached its apex with its acceptance of Christianity.

Romans were not limited to the West only - there were Western and Eastern “Romans.” The Roman nation had two national languages - Latin and Greek, not Latin only. The Roman Empire included both the Eastern and Western parts of “Romania.” The Romans/Rhoum/Rum were Christians, both Orthodox in Faith and Catholic by way of ecclesial name - Orthodox Catholic.

This is why the Patriarch of Constantinople maintains “New Rome” in his title, given him by the Imperial Roman Caesars who made their abode in the imperial “City of Constantine.” The Turks, for example, refer to him still as the “Patriarch of the Romans.”

However, when the schisms between East and West occurred, both sides kept their title of “Roman” but refused this title to the side that was in schism, each from their point of view.

Thus, the “Roman Catholic Church” is the “Latin Church” in the East since the RC’s fell away from the fullness of not only the Orthodox Catholic faith, but from the fullness of that Rhoum Christian heritage. In the West, the Orthodox are referred to as the “Greeks” since they, from the RC point of view, have fallen away from the same fullness of “Romanity.”

All Orthodox Christians would proudly refer to themselves as being “Romaioi” or “Rhoum.”

Alex

 

[FRANKYG]

Many books have been written pondering the questions you raise!

Rome was indeed the only Patriarchate, properly so called, in the West after the East-West schism became solidified (especially at the time of the Sack of Constantinople).

Some have suggested that the fact that Rome was the only Apostolic See in the West, where the Apostles Sts Peter and Paul had died, led to a kind of papal triumphalism. In the East, where St Peter, St Paul and the other Apostles established bishoprics not only at Antioch, Alexandria etc. but also in very many towns and villages, the idea that this or that See had a primacy because the “Apostles were there” would have made little impression as an argument for such primacy.

It was actually the patriarchate of Alexandria that developed as the first Papacy in the Church. That Patriarch/Pope had full jurisdiction over every priest and small parish throughout Christian Africa. He was a powerful political figure as well, ruling over the Greek city of Alexandria and was also referred to as the “New Pharaoh” and the “Ecumenical (universal) Archbishop.” His See was and is the “Evangelical See” of St Mark who acted with the authority of St Peter himself as Peter’s closest assistant. St Mark’s Gospel is, in reality, the Gospel of St Peter. The Last Supper was held in St Mark’s parents’ home and the young man in the Garden when Christ was arrested who escaped naked etc. was St Mark himself. Every single Pope/Patriarch of Alexandria since St Mark’s time has been canonized a saint by the Coptic Church and Pope St Cyrillos is wildly popular by many Christians outside the Alexandrian tradition as a great miracle-worker. The Alexandrian Churches remain faithful to the Christology of St Cyril of Alexandria and to his terminology and the schisms between them and the “Roman Churches” i.e. of Rome and Byzantium had much to do with politics and who decided which Church was where in the Pentarchical hierarchy. Alexandria did not see how Constantinople, a Johnny come lately, could have primatial pretensions in the East . . .

This was all at a time when Rome’s primate bore the modest title of “Bishop” and barely had immediate jurisdiction over Italy.

You raise the equally fascinating question of the origina of the title “Roman Catholic.”

Although the link with Rome itself was made by the Protestant Reformation, the term “Roman” has a much more ancient origin.

To be a “Roman” of “Rhoum” meant to be a citizen of a civilization that reached its apex with its acceptance of Christianity.

Romans were not limited to the West only - there were Western and Eastern “Romans.” The Roman nation had two national languages - Latin and Greek, not Latin only. The Roman Empire included both the Eastern and Western parts of “Romania.” The Romans/Rhoum/Rum were Christians, both Orthodox in Faith and Catholic by way of ecclesial name - Orthodox Catholic.

This is why the Patriarch of Constantinople maintains “New Rome” in his title, given him by the Imperial Roman Caesars who made their abode in the imperial “City of Constantine.” The Turks, for example, refer to him still as the “Patriarch of the Romans.”

However, when the schisms between East and West occurred, both sides kept their title of “Roman” but refused this title to the side that was in schism, each from their point of view.

Thus, the “Roman Catholic Church” is the “Latin Church” in the East since the RC’s fell away from the fullness of not only the Orthodox Catholic faith, but from the fullness of that Rhoum Christian heritage. In the West, the Orthodox are referred to as the “Greeks” since they, from the RC point of view, have fallen away from the same fullness of “Romanity.”

All Orthodox Christians would proudly refer to themselves as being “Romaioi” or “Rhoum.”

Alex

Thanks for all that info… Can anybody recommend any books that deal with this issue. Both from a Catholic and Orthodox Perspective… Links are fine too…

I appreciate all your guy’s (name removed by moderator)ut, I hope Markdum responds to this thread as well

 

[militantsparrow]

It was actually the patriarchate of Alexandria that developed as the first Papacy in the Church. That Patriarch/Pope had full jurisdiction over every priest and small parish throughout Christian Africa. He was a powerful political figure as well, ruling over the Greek city of Alexandria and was also referred to as the “New Pharaoh” and the “Ecumenical (universal) Archbishop.” His See was and is the “Evangelical See” of St Mark who acted with the authority of St Peter himself as Peter’s closest assistant.

Alex,
I have never heard this claim before about the Patriarch of Alexandria being the first “Pope.” Could you provide some references.

Thank you,
Lawrence

 

[Alveus_Lacuna]

I don’t have any sources to back this up, only reiterating what I’ve heard a thousand times, which is that the title “Pope” started in Alexandria and was later adopted by Rome. It was not used by Rome for at least 300-400 years if not more if I remember correctly. Today the Coptic “Miaphysite” Patriarch as well as the Eastern (Greek) Orthodox Patriarch of Alexandria both retain the title “Pope.” Rome grants no such honor to its various titular heads of Alexandria.

 

[militantsparrow]

I don’t have any sources to back this up, only reiterating what I’ve heard a thousand times, which is that the title “Pope” started in Alexandria and was later adopted by Rome. It was not used by Rome for at least 300-400 years if not more if I remember correctly. Today the Coptic “Miaphysite” Patriarch as well as the Eastern (Greek) Orthodox Patriarch of Alexandria both retain the title “Pope.” Rome grants no such honor to its various titular heads of Alexandria.

That I have heard before, that the term Pope was first used in Alexandria. I didn’t realize that’s what you were saying. I thought your were saying that Alexandria was the first/head patriarchate.

 

[Aramis]

That I have heard before, that the term Pope was first used in Alexandria. I didn’t realize that’s what you were saying. I thought your were saying that Alexandria was the first/head patriarchate.

It’s the first patriarchate to extend ordinary authority to the patriarch over the individual bishops outside his own metropolia.

 

[militantsparrow]

It’s the first patriarchate to extend ordinary authority to the patriarch over the individual bishops outside his own metropolia.

Interesting. So Rome was not doing this from the beginning? Does that fact give any strength to the argument that Antioch is the true See of Peter–the Protos? How did Rome claim that title/position/role from Antioch?