To which churches do the original 5 Patriarchates correspond?

  • Thread starter Thread starter St_Nephi
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
S

St_Nephi

Guest
I understand that throughout the history of schism, the “schismatic” patriarchs were replaced with “true” patriarchs by each of the various churches (and each church will claim that their patriarch is the true patriarch of that given patriarchate).

I don’t much care about the theological pissing contest in this, rather I’d like to know which patriarchates correspond to the churches which did not accept either the Council of Chalcedon or Ephesus.

For example, The Patriarch of Rome is the Pope and therefore the Roman Patriarchate corresponds to the Roman Catholic Church. The Patriarch of Constantinople is also one of a kind and so the Patriarchate of Constantinople corresponds to the Eastern Orthodox Church. The Current Pope of the Coptic Orthodox Church (i.e. Oriental Orthodox) is the actual successor to the original Alexandrian Patriarch, compared to the Latin and Greek substittues, for the purpose of this exercise I’d say the Patriarchate of Alexandria corresponds to Oriental Orthodoxy.

But what about Antioch and Jerusalem? I know the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox (and maybe even the Oriental Orthodox) churches each have their own equivalent for them. HISTORICALLY speaking, which churches are the true successors of the original Patriarchates?
 
Well there is an “eastern” orthodox patriarch in Alexandria who would claim legitimate succession from the apostles within that church and as far as Antioch or Jeruselum are concerned I think the “eastern” orthodox church has more historical connection to these communions.
 
It is impossible to answer the question as worded. As IgnatianPhilo mentions, there are Antiochian and Jerusalemite Chalcedonian Patriarchs (as well as Alexandrian) who would be seen as legitimate within that confession.

One of the problems with the idea of the OP is that the post-Chalcedonian fallout often made who was continuing what line a very confusing question. In the case of Antioch, for instance, rival Chalcedonian and non-Chalcedonian Patriarchs were deposed on separate occasions by different emperors. Indeed, the first few patriarchs of the See following Chalcedon were Chalcedonians (this should not be terribly surprising), until Zeno deposed Martyrius in 469, replacing him with Peter the Fuller, who was subsequently deposed in 471 by Leo I. Things went back and forth like this for quite some time. Peter the Fuller would be non-Chalcedonian Patriarch no less than three separate times between 469 and 488. It probably was not until the time of St. Severus in the early 6th century (who was recognized by the non-Chalcedonians as the sole legitimate Patriarch until his death in 538) that the non-Chalcedonian line was stabilized, such that Sergius of Tella (ordained by Jacob Baradaeus, serving from 544 to 546) began a more or less unbroken line of the type that the Chalcedonians had been enjoying for a while as the imperial favorites.

So in that way I suppose IgnatianPhilo is right regarding the historical consistency of the Chalcedonians over the Patriarchate, in that their reigns began earlier and generally lasted longer than their non-Chalcedonian counterparts, but this must be kept within the historical context of the time in which the emperors sought to impose the Chalcedonian vision of Orthodoxy on all the subjects of the Byzantine Empire, whether their bishops had originally followed it or not. Zeno is sort of an exception, of course, due to his association with the Henotikon, which was thought of at the time by the non-Chalcedonians as annulling the Council of Chalcedon.

There are of course also cultural claims that muddy things, as well. I have had Chalcedonians tell me (seriously) that of course the Greek Orthodox Patriarchate of Antioch should be considered the legitimate one, and Alexandria likewise, since these were Greek-speaking cities. Sometimes I do not know whether to laugh or cry…
 
Rather than arguing between Churches, we should pray for a reunion of communion between Catholic, Orthodox, and Oriental Orthodox. The division of Christian Churches in the Muslim majority countries hurts our ability to resist the severe persecution of Christians in many of those countries.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top