C
ConstantineTG
Guest
There was no reason to have different Rites back then.
- Status
W
Wandile
Guest
Isn’t the order of honour Rome first, Alexandria second and Antioch third?
C
ConstantineTG
Guest
You are correct. I got them mixed up.
But then again, perhaps the Patriarch of Antioch was the one presiding because they are in his See.
M
MorEphrem
Guest
I’m quite sure Antioch precedes Alexandria in honor because Antioch is a see of Peter whereas Alexandria is the see of Mark. That’s why the Patriarch of Alexandria is enthroned by the Patriarch of Antioch, yet not vice versa (instead, the Malankara Catholicos installs the Patriarch of Antioch). That’s what I’ve read, anyway.
M
malphono
Guest
Actually, and strangely enough, I believe the order of precedence is Alexandria before Antioch. It’s rather illogical, but that’s the way it came down.
S
SyroMalankara
Guest
Sure there was. The Copts, Syriacs and Armenians who accepted Byzatinization could have retained their Traditions when joining the EO Communion, the anathema and treatises against the Miaphysites could have been prevented. The Russian Old Rite persecution could have been prevented. Possibly, the entire Old Catholic Communion could have been Western Orthodox and never fell into heterodoxy. Even during the periods of schism between Greek and Syriac, Greek and Copt, Greek and Latin, if multiple Liturgical Traditions were accepted within the EO, the persecution of the Latins would have been avoided.
C
ConstantineTG
Guest
I looked it up to be sure this time, Alexandria is ahead of Antioch. Truthfully, this “see of this or that saint” has no bearing on the rankings of the Patriarchates. It was the political importance of the city that determines rank. Because if it is true that it was based on “who”, then why aren’t we questioning Jerusalem being down in 5th place?
C
ConstantineTG
Guest
Don’t forget that at the time of the splits, the Liturgical Rites have not developed to where they are today. I’m not an expert on the subject and I can’t tell how distinct the Rites were back then, perhaps not a lot. Even most of what is in the Divine Liturgy in the Greek and Slavic Churches today were not present by the 5th and 6th centuries. For all we know there was no difference at the time of the schism, and all the difference we see today is the result of 1500 years apart.
S
SyroMalankara
Guest
It’s quite the opposite in practice. While the Greek Patriarchs and Syriac Patriarchs were jousting with each other, in the Catholic Communion they are fully united to each other and many other Traditions. How many Syriacs did the Greek Church of Antioch allow to join its membership and retain all there Liturgical and Spiritual Patrimony?
Here is some good info.
Originally the order of precedence was Rome then Alexandria then Antioch.
First Council of Nicaea, Canon VII:
“Since there prevails a custom and ancient tradition to the effect that the bishop of Aelia [aka Jerusalem] is to be honoured, let him be granted everything consequent upon this honour, saving the dignity proper to the metropolitan.”
The order of precedence was Rome then Alexandria then Antioch then Jerusalem.
The First Council of Constantinople had a canon that added and placed the See of Constantinople after Rome. This was not originally ratified or accepted by Rome or Alexandria.
St Cyril of Alexandria never acknowledged it. He only used the original shorter Creed defined in the Council of Nicaea and he only ever spoke of the Holy Fathers of Nicaea.
Rome eventually did ratify Constantinople as second in rank during the 8th Ecumenical Council (AD 869 - 870).
The finale order of precedence was Rome then Constantinople then Alexandria then Antioch then Jerusalem.
- Status