What is the Role of Constantinople?

[Rawb]

The ranking of the Ancient Sees in the Canons of the Councils obviously puts Rome first and Constantinople second. Putting aside why this may be for both, I’m curious:

Rome’s primacy, in Roman Catholicism, allows him powers over other bishops found not in any other See. He has the oversight of the Canon Laws of the East for example. In his own patriarchate he can move or remove bishops (he may have this power in the East? Don’t the other patriarchs have to be approved by him? I know Rome has prevented married clergy in the West in at least some Eastern Churches)

How then does Constantinople, in your church, exercise her “second in primacy”? Would she be allowed, so long as it didn’t conflict with Rome, to do any of these things?

Rome’s position is argued often, but I can’t see how Constantinople’s place fits in the Roman view of things.

 

[ConstantineTG]

There is currently no Catholic Patriarch in Constantinople. I believe its one of the olive branches being extended by the Catholic Church to the Orthodox by abolishing the Latin Patriarch of Constantinople.

 

[Rawb]

There is currently no Catholic Patriarch in Constantinople. I believe its one of the olive branches being extended by the Catholic Church to the Orthodox by abolishing the Latin Patriarch of Constantinople.

Ok, well what *would *be the role of the Patriarch?

 

[mardukm]

The ranking of the Ancient Sees in the Canons of the Councils obviously puts Rome first and Constantinople second. Putting aside why this may be for both, I’m curious:

Rome’s primacy, in Roman Catholicism, allows him powers over other bishops found not in any other See. He has the oversight of the Canon Laws of the East for example. In his own patriarchate he can move or remove bishops (he may have this power in the East? Don’t the other patriarchs have to be approved by him? I know Rome has prevented married clergy in the West in at least some Eastern Churches)

How then does Constantinople, in your church, exercise her “second in primacy”? Would she be allowed, so long as it didn’t conflict with Rome, to do any of these things?

Rome’s position is argued often, but I can’t see how Constantinople’s place fits in the Roman view of things.

It’s pretty simple.

According to the Tradition of the first millenium, the See of Constantinople had primacy within Eastern Christendom and had appellate authority in the East, while the See of Rome had primacy in the whole Church, and had appellate authority in the whole Church

Normatively, an Eastern bishop appeals to the See of Constantinople for redress in the East. If the bishop is not satisfied, he still has Rome as the court of final appeal.

I think the problem is that the modern Low Petrine view, with its “mere primacy of honor” aberration, that is so popular in Eastern Orthodoxy has overturned the patristic ecclesiology, and so many EO can’t even conceive of such a thing as a head bishop with real authority.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Rawb]

It’s pretty simple.

According to the Tradition of the first millenium, the See of Constantinople had primacy within Eastern Christendom and had appellate authority in the East, while the See of Rome had primacy in the whole Church, and had appellate authority in the whole Church

Normatively, an Eastern bishop appeals to the See of Constantinople for redress in the East. If the bishop is not satisfied, he still has Rome as the court of final appeal.

I think the problem is that the modern Low Petrine view, with its “mere primacy of honor” aberration, that is so popular in Eastern Orthodoxy has overturned the patristic ecclesiology, and so many EO can’t even conceive of such a thing as a head bishop with real authority.

Blessings,
Marduk

So then say an Autocephalous American Catholic Church was set up, would they appeal first to Rome or to Constantinople? What about Russia, who should they appeal to? What are the divides of “East” and “West”?

Is your church still interested in the establishment of Local Churches? If not why not? If so why has it not been done? (Genuinely curious - I know why it hasn’t been done yet in Orthodoxy, but I’ve never even heard of it on the radar when I was Roman Catholic. Does this deserve it’s own thread?)

 

[ConstantineTG]

So then say an Autocephalous American Catholic Church was set up, would they appeal first to Rome or to Constantinople? What about Russia, who should they appeal to? What are the divides of “East” and “West”?

Is your church still interested in the establishment of Local Churches? If not why not? If so why has it not been done? (Genuinely curious - I know why it hasn’t been done yet in Orthodoxy, but I’ve never even heard of it on the radar when I was Roman Catholic. Does this deserve it’s own thread?)

The model of establishing Churches if different for East and West. That is why there is only one Patriarchate in the West with many “sub rites”, rather than separate autocephalous or sui juris Churches as it is in the East.

 

[Rawb]

The model of establishing Churches if different for East and West. That is why there is only one Patriarchate in the West with many “sub rites”, rather than separate autocephalous or sui juris Churches as it is in the East.

When did this difference begin?

Obviously to me the early Canons seem to imply and expect the type of establishment of churches found in Eastern Christianity. It seems the Early Church did establish local churches. Did the East change or did the West change? Which is correct? It doesn’t seem that both can be.

 

[Anthony_V]

When did this difference begin?

Obviously to me the early Canons seem to imply and expect the type of establishment of churches found in Eastern Christianity. It seems the Early Church did establish local churches. Did the East change or did the West change? Which is correct? It doesn’t seem that both can be.

Isn’t that the reason we have bishops? Sorry, I’m having a hard time following this thread!

 

[ConstantineTG]

When did this difference begin?

Obviously to me the early Canons seem to imply and expect the type of establishment of churches found in Eastern Christianity. It seems the Early Church did establish local churches. Did the East change or did the West change? Which is correct? It doesn’t seem that both can be.

Not sure, but my guess is that the West really was just one Patriarchate under one Western Roman Empire. Eventually this one large half of the empire fractured and broke into the separate kingdoms and into the states we know today. In the East there were already a variation of cultures at that time. Jerusalem were for the Jews, Antioch for the Gentiles, Constantinople eventually when Constantine established it, and Alexandria for Egypt. My bet here is that the East were never really united from a political perspective, and thus necessitated separate Churches so that Bishops do not cross political lines where the king would question their loyalty. The West started with a united model, and then the empire fell and other lands colonized, they just maintained the same model.

 

[Wesley7]

What is the Role of Constantinople?

From a quick review of Rome,Constantinople,Moscow by Meyendorff, Constantinople was the “central city” of the Byzantine Empire of the East.

As for its role; Constantinople once served as “The Second City to Imperial Rome.” where a patriarchate was once established.

Just note, my summarizing and opinions are not concrete historical facts.

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Anthony,

Isn’t that the reason we have bishops? Sorry, I’m having a hard time following this thread!

Yes, each local Church under one bishop is a “Church” in its full and proper sense, and the Catholic Church has never stopped creating new bishops when needed.

So Rawb’s question might seem strange - even a bit of a straw man - but I think he is referring to establishing new patriarchates.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Rawb]

So Rawb’s question might seem strange - even a bit of a straw man - but I think he is referring to establishing new patriarchates.

I don’t mean to propagate a straw man, but ultimately yes I am referring to Patriarchates (or even Metropolitans).

Who’s the primate of the American Catholic Church? Is there one? I don’t remember hearing anything about him when I was Roman Catholic.

Orthodoxy will eventually form an American Orthodox Church; is Roman Catholicism moving towards that? Why or why not? Are the Eastern Catholic Churches attempting any such thing? If so will their ethnicities blend together to form one Eastern Catholic Church? If not, why not, since this was their style of government when they were Orthodox? Should not, if not by the Western then at least by the Eastern perspective, all parishes in certain localities be governed by bishops united into one Synod with one Primate? How then do the Eastern churches justify their current ecclesiology? Do they recognize, as we Orthodox do, that it is noncanonical and will it eventually be changed?

Constantin, your historical perspective makes a lot of sense, but is the Roman Church acting in accordance with the Canons then?

I still haven’t received a response as to what the role of the Patriarch of Constantinople exactly would be in your church. Mardukm said he would be a source of appeal in the East, but what are the boundaries of the East, if an American Catholic Church were in the works who would they fall under and why, and are there any official documents defining his role?

Wow I asked a lot of questions.

 

[mardukm]

There are a lot of issues to cover in your first paragraph.

So then say an Autocephalous American Catholic Church was set up,

First of all, personally, I don’t believe the idea of autocephaly as understood today by the Orthodox (both Eastern and Oriental) is patristic. I believe the only truly autocephalous Church is the Catholic Church herself. All other Churches (Western, Eastern, Oriental) are Local Autonomous Churches in relation to the one Catholic Church of Christ. This is proven by the fact that all Churches must submit to the authority of an Ecumenical Council, so it is illogical to claim that in any of the Churches today that are called “autocephalous,” there is no higher authority on earth than the head bishop of that “autocephalous” Church. Further, if the primordial Church truly believed in the concept of several autocephalous authorities, over which there is no greater authority (as it is understood in Orthodoxy today), then the principle that Rome is the court of final appeal for ALL bishops would never have found any kind of support in the early Church. It is illogical to claim that Patriarchal See A is autocephalous, while simultaneously admitting that one of its bishops can appeal beyond the Patriarchal authority to the See of Rome as court of final appeal. This is especially relevant for me as a Copt, because the Council that affirmed that Rome was the court of final appeal had the approval of one of our greatest Patriarchs in history, Pope St. Athanasius. Pope St. Cyril was true to this patristic Tradition when he wrote to Pope St. Celestine during the Nestorian controversy:
“We have not confidently abstained from communion with [Nestorius] before informing you of this. Condescend, therefore, to unfold your judgment that we may clearly know whether we ought to communicate with him who cherishes such erroneous doctrine.”

I suppose that in a united Church, local Churches can still call themselves “autocephalous,” but it should be recognized that Rome is the Court of final appeal for a bishop even beyond the decision of a patriarchal synod. In other words, Eastern Churches should simply adhere to the Tradition of the Church in the first millenium.

NOTE: I’m not questioning the notion of “patriarchate”; only the notion of multiple autocephalous Churches.

would they appeal first to Rome or to Constantinople? What about Russia, who should they appeal to?

It’s not “either/or” as far as Rome is concerned, because ancient Tradition establishes that Rome is the final court of appeal for the ENTIRE Church. The canonical procedure, of course, is that a bishop, though he has the prerogative of appealing to Rome, does not have the prerogative to bypass his own local judicial process and go directly to Rome.

As far as the hierarchy of the appeal process, I believe each Apostolic See (i.e. one of the original Pentarchy) is an autonomous entity. Constantinople gained appellate authority over the other Eastern Apostolic Sees only because of the secular authority. As that secular authority no longer exists today, in a united Church, bishops in the Sees of Alexandria, Antioch and Jerusalem, if they wish to appeal beyond their Patriarchate should appeal directly to Rome, not through Constantinople. Bishops from all the non-Apostolic Patriarchal Sees should appeal first to their Mother Church, and then on to Rome (if necessary). The EP will have to work out the jurisdictional issues with the MP, but on principle, the EP is higher in appellate authority than the MP because the MP is not an Apostolic See.

So who would be regarded as the mother Church of an American Patriarchal Church? Thinking about it gives me a headache. In truth, I don’t believe that in any of the countries outside the Old World, Patriarchal Churches would be feasible and fair for the Eastern/Oriental Churches, because the Latins will always be the majority. I believe the best we should hope for as a united Church in the “New World” are territorial Metropolitan Churches. In areas where a certain Tradition dominates, each local Metropolitan Church will establish its own canons for the proper care of the minority Tradition.

OR

We can live by the principle of personal jurisdiction within territorial jurisdiction where a local Church of a certain Tradition in the territorial jurisdiction of another Tradition is under the direct omophor of a foreign head bishop, but the bishop of that local Church must work in the Synodal context of the territorial jurisdiction.

What are the divides of “East” and “West”?

It would be according to theological Tradition. Don’t forget the Orientals, and the Church of the East.

Is your church still interested in the establishment of Local Churches? If not why not? If so why has it not been done?

Each bishop is the head of a true Church, and the Catholic Church has continuously established new Churches as the need arises, so I’m not sure I understand you. Are you talking about Patriarchates? Can you please clarify your question?

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Rawb]

First of all, personally, I don’t believe the idea of autocephaly as understood today by the Orthodox ]…This is proven by the fact that all Churches must submit to the authority of an Ecumenical Council, so it is illogical to claim that in any of the Churches today that are called “autocephalous,” there is no higher authority on earth than the head bishop of that “autocephalous” Church."

How you’re explaining autocephaly is not how it has been explained to me by multiple sources, but I’m not sure this would be the place to get into it. As a basis for this discussion, however, understand that if I say “Autocephalous” what you’re describing above is not what I mean exactly and is probably closer to what you call “autonomous”.

It’s not “either/or” as far as Rome is concerned, because ancient Tradition establishes that Rome is the final court of appeal for the ENTIRE Church. The canonical procedure, of course, is that a bishop, though he has the prerogative of appealing to Rome, does not have the prerogative to bypass his own local judicial process and go directly to Rome.

But could such a church appeal to Constantinople? After all, wouldn’t it be debatable whether they were in the “East” or “West”? You defined in an earlier post that Constantinople’s “Second” position was in reference to the Constantinople being a source of appeal before Rome in the East - well, is America East (does that East include the Oriental Catholics?) and thus can appeal to Constantinople in a case of disagreement?

Constantinople gained appellate authority over the other Eastern Apostolic Sees only because of the secular authority.

This seems irrelevant to me. *How *a Patriarchate was elevated would be irrelevant, the point, it would seem, to me, would be that until another Council re-arranges the Patriarchates Constantinople, by the authority of the Canons, *is *second.

As that secular authority no longer exists today, in a united Church, bishops in the Sees of Alexandria, Antioch and Jerusalem, if they wish to appeal beyond their Patriarchate should appeal directly to Rome, not through Constantinople.

Why would that be? Why should how that authority was given be taken into account if the Canons of Ecumenical Councils still say that Constantinople is second? By what authority should the other Eastern Patriarchates not act in accord how you said the Canons should be interpreted?

Bishops from all the non-Apostolic Patriarchal Sees should appeal first to their Mother Church, and then on to Rome (if necessary). The EP will have to work out the jurisdictional issues with the MP, but on principle, the EP is higher in appellate authority than the MP because the MP is not an Apostolic See.

Yes, this I can easily see.

So who would be regarded as the mother Church of an American Patriarchal Church? Thinking about it gives me a headache. In truth, I don’t believe that in any of the countries outside the Old World, Patriarchal Churches would be feasible and fair for the Eastern/Oriental Churches, because the Latins will always be the majority. I believe the best we should hope for as a united Church in the “New World” are territorial Metropolitan Churches. In areas where a certain Tradition dominates, each local Metropolitan Church will establish its own canons for the proper care of the minority Tradition.

This would make sense to me, but is it even on the radar of anybody in your church?

We can live by the principle of personal jurisdiction within territorial jurisdiction where a local Church of a certain Tradition in the territorial jurisdiction of another Tradition is under the direct omophor of a foreign head bishop, but the bishop of that local Church must work in the Synodal context of the territorial jurisdiction.

Isn’t that basically what is being done now? I don’t understand the last sentence about working within the Synodal context though - are you saying the foreign bishop (foreign as in living outside the territory?) should work within the local territory’s Synod? Do you mean something like a Serbian bishop having a small diocese within a larger Latin Diocese, and being part of the local Synod, which is Latin?

Each bishop is the head of a true Church, and the Catholic Church has continuously established new Churches as the need arises, so I’m not sure I understand you. Are you talking about Patriarchates? Can you please clarify your question?

I’m talking basically about autonomous churches. Is your church interested in setting up local, autonomous churches, recognizing of course that no church is ever truly autonomous in Christendom but relies upon her sister churches always?

 

[mardukm]

I don’t mean to propagate a straw man, but ultimately yes I am referring to Patriarchates (or even Metropolitans).

From what I understand, the Catholic Church is very resistant to the idea of establishing new Patriarchates (as are the Oriental Orthodox - though it has happened begrudginngly) because Patriarchates are only of Apostolic establishment. That has been the historic understanding of the Catholic Church, so it has not changed at all. So the Catholic Church works on the principle of the ancient Pentarchy. In a united Church, Rome will no doubt respect the existence of the new Patriarchates created within Orthodoxy, but, IMO, these Patriarchates will never have the same kind of authority as the Apostolic Patriarchates of the original Pentarchy.

Who’s the primate of the American Catholic Church? Is there one? I don’t remember hearing anything about him when I was Roman Catholic.

In the early American Church, it was the Bishop of Baltimore. I don’t know who it is today.

Orthodoxy will eventually form an American Orthodox Church; is Roman Catholicism moving towards that?

I don’t know. But it’s definitely possible – I believe this will be one of the practical fruits of the Pope giving up the title “Patriarch of the West.” However, as noted in my prior post, I think Metropolitan Churches will be more viable and realistic.

I am curious if the existence of an “autocephalous” American Orthodox Church will be detrimental to ecumenical talks. Why? Because Latins still outnumber the Eastern and Oriental Orthodox and Catholics put together in the U.S. It might seem like hubris to Latins for the non-Latins to claim territorial jurisdiction in a land that was watered MOSTLY by the sweat and blood of Latin Catholics.

Are the Eastern Catholic Churches attempting any such thing?

If so will their ethnicities blend together to form one Eastern Catholic Church? If not, why not, since this was their style of government when they were Orthodox? Should not, if not by the Western then at least by the Eastern perspective, all parishes in certain localities be governed by bishops united into one Synod with one Primate? How then do the Eastern churches justify their current ecclesiology? Do they recognize, as we Orthodox do, that it is noncanonical and will it eventually be changed?

Non-latins in the traditional Latin lands exist in a constant state of oikonomia, having bishops who have “personal jurisdiction” within the territorial jurisdiction of Latin bishops. I don’t know if Eastern Catholics are generally aware of that. I am leaning towards “no” because I have met several Easterns who treat their local Churches as being a territorial jurisdiction. This reality exists also among the Oriental Orthodox, which have three distinct Traditions within its Communion. EO have not experienced it because there is only one Tradition in EO’xy.

Wow I asked a lot of questions.

GOOD ONES, though.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Rawb]

From what I understand, the Catholic Church is very resistant to the idea of establishing new Patriarchates (as are the Oriental Orthodox - though it has happened begrudginngly) because Patriarchates are only of Apostolic establishment.

Ok. I don’t agree with it, but I can understand more now why your church is operating how it is.

In the early American Church, it was the Bishop of Baltimore. I don’t know who it is today.

Well knock me over with a feather. I had never heard of any primate in America as a Roman Catholic. Does he actually have any authority? He’s not prayed for during the Mass apparently.

I am curious if the existence of an “autocephalous” American Orthodox Church will be detrimental to ecumenical talks. Why? Because Latins still outnumber the Eastern and Oriental Orthodox and Catholics put together in the U.S. It might seem like hubris to Latins for the non-Latins to claim territorial jurisdiction in a land that was watered MOSTLY by the sweat and blood of Latin Catholics.

This would make sense from the RC perspective, but obviously you can see why we don’t agree. Heck technically (and admittedly, arguably) the foundation of the American Orthodox Church has been established via the OCA (His All-Holiness may have a few issues with that. From what I hear though he treats OCA parishoners quite cordially.)

Non-latins in the traditional Latin lands exist in a constant state of oikonomia, having bishops who have “personal jurisdiction” within the territorial jurisdiction of Latin bishops.

I’m guessing America is viewed as a traditionally Latin territory? This is sort of what you were referring to in that last post I made, yes? How would that have been determined, because the Latins were the first to start missions here from your church?

 

[mardukm]

This is a wonderful topic you have brought up, and I would love to continue this conversation, but I need to go. I’ll address one thing before I go:

This seems irrelevant to me. *How *a Patriarchate was elevated would be irrelevant, the point, it would seem, to me, would be that until another Council re-arranges the Patriarchates Constantinople, by the authority of the Canons, *is *second.

Why would that be? Why should how that authority was given be taken into account if the Canons of Ecumenical Councils still say that Constantinople is second? By what authority should the other Eastern Patriarchates not act in accord how you said the Canons should be interpreted?

You have to understand I am coming from an Oriental perspective. I imagine all Oriental Catholics have the same perspective (if my Oriental brother Malphono is reading this, I would appreciate his (name removed by moderator)ut). And I imagine there would be a difference of opinion on this matter with my Eastern Catholic brethren, so I would love their (name removed by moderator)ut, as well.

I seriously doubt that in a united Church with the Oriental Orthodox, any Apostolic Patriarchal Oriental Church will view Constantinople as having a higher appellate authority than their own Patriarchate. The fact that the Chalcedonian Schism is often viewed by Orientals as a political conflict with Constantinople is going to be a definite factor. We will recognize Rome as court of final appeal, as Popes St. Athanasius and St.Cyril affirmed, according to the Council of Sardica.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Rawb]

I seriously doubt that in a united Church with the Oriental Orthodox, any Apostolic Patriarchal Oriental Church will view Constantinople as having a higher appellate authority than their own Patriarchate. The fact that the Chalcedonian Schism is often viewed by Orientals as a political conflict with Constantinople is going to be a definite factor. We will recognize Rome as court of final appeal, as Popes St. Athanasius and St.Cyril affirmed, according to the Council of Sardica.

Interesting.

This is a wonderful topic you have brought up, and I would love to continue this conversation, but I need to go. I’ll address one thing before I go:

Yeah, I’m betting we’re in the same time zone (or else you’re up reeeeally late or reeeeeally early). You mean you don’t think 2:00am is a good time for discussing the finer points of contemporary ecclesiology?! LoL, see you in the morning, mardukm.

 

[Paul_theApostle]

The Latins set up Patriarchs in Jerusalem and Constantinople ? do they still exist?

mardukm you said that the Cath Church is resistant to set up other Patriarchates?

but it set up Jeru and Constan Patriarchs?

An Apostle didnt start that particular latin Jerusalem Patriarchate did they?

 

[Hesychios]

Not sure, but my guess is that the West really was just one Patriarchate under one Western Roman Empire.

That is not exactly right.

Patriarchs (great fathers) came later, originally there were just provinces or kingdoms with their own collections of bishops (what we would call synods) and the chairs or leaders of these synods in the biggest or most important cities. This was true in the west and east the same. Roma was a Metropolitan See for central Italy, and Milan was a Metropoiltan See further north. Each of these synods elected and installed their own bishops (including their own Metropolitans).

The west had just one apostolic (established by Apostles) See. But it had many Metropolitans.

Roma, although shrinking in size over time was still regarded as the greatest city in the west (the ‘west’ was otherwise fairly rustic, low in population density, generally less well educated and economically underdeveloped with a weaker economy). It was a great pilgrimage site, was well respected by all Orthodox Catholic Christians and had a wealthy Christian church.

Over several centuries the See at Roma was able tocontrol the process of naming bishops outside of it’s own synod and it thereby magnified it’s influence and centralized control in those areas.