How do the Eastern Orthodox defend their Patriarchates?
#1
I was thinking, the Eastern Orthodox argue that the "you are Peter" episode was referring Peter's faith, not his Papacy whatever that means. (By the way, who invented that argument? Was it the Orthodox who first came up with that, or did they steal it from the Protestants?) The Orthodox believe that St. Peter was just another Patriarch, but none of the other Patriarchates (as far as I know) are mentioned in the Bible. If a Protestant were to challenge an Orthodox on the legitimacy of the other Patriarchies, how would an Orthodox respond?
[Image: Blessed_Virgin_Mary_Holding_Jesus_with_S...abriel.jpg]
Glory to God
and
Hail Mary!
Reply
#2
Well, Peter was the first Bishop of Antioch, before he became Bishop of Rome. St Mark the Evangelist was the first Bishop of Alexandria. However, being a Patriarchate has absolutely nothing to do with being founded by an Apostle. It has to do with how important the City was in the Empire. Legend has it that the first Bishop of Byzantium was St Andrew, but it was just a Suffragan See until Constantine built New Rome (Constantinople) there. And Jerusalem was a Suffragan See until 451.

In that year, the Council of Chalcedon established the Pentarchy, raised Jerusalem to a Patriarchate, and said,

Quote:"the Fathers rightly granted privileges to the throne of old Rome, because it was the royal city", and that the First Council of Constantinople, "actuated by the same consideration, gave equal privileges to the most holy throne of New Rome, justly judging that the city which is honoured with the Sovereignty and the Senate, and enjoys equal privileges with the old imperial Rome, should in ecclesiastical matters also be magnified as she is, and rank next after her".
Jovan-Marya of the Immaculate Conception Weismiller, T.O.Carm.

Vive le Christ-roi! Vive le roi, Louis XX!
Deum timete, regem honorificate.
Kansan by birth! Albertan by choice! Jayhawk by the Grace of God!
  “Qui me amat, amet et canem meum. (Who loves me will love my dog also.)” 
St Bernard of Clairvaux

My Blog 'Musings of an Old Curmudgeon'


[-] The following 1 user Likes jovan66102's post:
  • MaryLover
Reply
#3
(03-27-2018, 08:27 PM)jovan66102 Wrote: Well, Peter was the first Bishop of Antioch, before he became Bishop of Rome. St Mark the Evangelist was the first Bishop of Alexandria. However, being a Patriarchate has absolutely nothing to do with being founded by an Apostle. It has to do with how important the City was in the Empire. Legend has it that the first Bishop of Byzantium was St Andrew, but it was just a Suffragan See until Constantine built New Rome (Constantinople) there. And Jerusalem was a Suffragan See until 451.

In that year, the Council of Chalcedon established the Pentarchy, raised Jerusalem to a Patriarchate, and said,

Quote:"the Fathers rightly granted privileges to the throne of old Rome, because it was the royal city", and that the First Council of Constantinople, "actuated by the same consideration, gave equal privileges to the most holy throne of New Rome, justly judging that the city which is honoured with the Sovereignty and the Senate, and enjoys equal privileges with the old imperial Rome, should in ecclesiastical matters also be magnified as she is, and rank next after her".

Okay than, so a Protestant wouldn't have problem with this except in regards to this involving bigger issues like Sacred Tradition, Apostolic Succession, the Priesthood, and (in the case of Eastern Orthodoxy) Caesaropapism.
[Image: Blessed_Virgin_Mary_Holding_Jesus_with_S...abriel.jpg]
Glory to God
and
Hail Mary!
Reply
#4
(03-27-2018, 09:05 PM)MaryLover Wrote: Okay than, so a Protestant wouldn't have problem with this except in regards to this involving bigger issues like Sacred Tradition, Apostolic Succession, the Priesthood, and (in the case of Eastern Orthodoxy) Caesaropapism.

Well, with the exception of the Anglicans and some Scandinavian Lutherans, I think protestants would have a major problem with Bishops in general.
Jovan-Marya of the Immaculate Conception Weismiller, T.O.Carm.

Vive le Christ-roi! Vive le roi, Louis XX!
Deum timete, regem honorificate.
Kansan by birth! Albertan by choice! Jayhawk by the Grace of God!
  “Qui me amat, amet et canem meum. (Who loves me will love my dog also.)” 
St Bernard of Clairvaux

My Blog 'Musings of an Old Curmudgeon'


Reply
#5
(03-27-2018, 07:42 PM)MaryLover Wrote: I was thinking, the Eastern Orthodox argue that the "you are Peter" episode was referring Peter's faith, not his Papacy whatever that means. (By the way, who invented that argument? Was it the Orthodox who first came up with that, or did they steal it from the Protestants?) The Orthodox believe that St. Peter was just another Patriarch, but none of the other Patriarchates (as far as I know) are mentioned in the Bible. If a Protestant were to challenge an Orthodox on the legitimacy of the other Patriarchies, how would an Orthodox respond?
Peace....."you are Peter" meant - Peter means "rock" and when the Orthodox say it was about his faith, it was because his faith was as solid as a rock and that is why Jesus said following that, "On this rock, I will build my Church."  This made Peter the first, but in the Orthodox view, the first among equals - not exalted above all the others - like, the Pope.  God bless, angeltime :heart:
Reply
#6
(03-27-2018, 07:42 PM)MaryLover Wrote: I was thinking, the Eastern Orthodox argue that the "you are Peter" episode was referring Peter's faith, not his Papacy whatever that means. (By the way, who invented that argument? Was it the Orthodox who first came up with that, or did they steal it from the Protestants?) The Orthodox believe that St. Peter was just another Patriarch, but none of the other Patriarchates (as far as I know) are mentioned in the Bible. If a Protestant were to challenge an Orthodox on the legitimacy of the other Patriarchies, how would an Orthodox respond?

To be fair, many of the Church Fathers also say that "this Rock" refers to Peter's faith, St. Augustine notably among them. At the same time you also have the example of the Syriac tradition, from St. Aphrahat and St. Ephrem, whom the Catholic Church recognizes as saints, through later miaphysite Fathers like Jacob of Serug and many others, who take "this Rock" to apply to the person of St. Peter, and yet these churches do not recognize the papal claims. It pays to remember in honest discussion of these issues that the papal claims do not come from this passage in Matthew 16; it has been pointed out as supporting evidence for a long time, but popes were asserting authority before anyone ever adduced this passage in support of the Pope's authority. History is never as clear as apologetics make it out to be.

As Jovan mentioned, the Orthodox do not consider the patriarchates to be of divine institution; they are pragmatic arrangements based on a city's regional importance. Orthodox patriarchs, and the metropolitans next in rank, do not have direct authority over other bishops; bishops are subject to the Synod of their church, which is presided over by the patriarch. A patriarch cannot depose, suspend, or otherwise punish another bishop; the Synod must do this. In reality, of course, a patriarch has more "pull" than lower-ranking bishops, but he is still subject to the Synod. The Patriarch of Constantinople has certain prerogatives other patriarchs do not have that were granted by various councils, some of them ecumenical.

Also, in a scenario where Rome was not considered heterodox, the Orthodox would recognize the bishop of Rome as primus inter pares. They do not deny Roman primacy, though they consider it to be of ecclesiastical rather than dominical origin; they object to the Catholic understanding of primacy as supremacy.
O unashamed intercessor of Christians, ever loyal advocate before the Creator, do not disregard the prayerful voice of sinners but in your goodness hasten to assist us who trustfully cry out to you: Intercede always, O Mother of God, in behalf of those who honor you!
[-] The following 3 users Like aquinas138's post:
  • angeltime, formerbuddhist, MaryLover
Reply
#7
Isn't there also a line of Orthodox thinking that says that while Peter may have had such a papal authority, such authority died with him and wasn't something that passed on in perpetuity?
Blood of Christ, relief of the burdened, save us.

“It is my design to die in the brew house; let ale be placed in my mouth when I am expiring, that when the choirs of angels come, they may say, “Be God propitious to this drinker.” – St. Columbanus, A.D. 612
Reply
#8
(03-28-2018, 12:20 PM)GangGreen Wrote: Isn't there also a line of Orthodox thinking that says that while Peter may have had such a papal authority, such authority died with him and wasn't something that passed on in perpetuity?

There is that, but it is more common to hear the Orthodox say that ALL bishops sit in the chair of Peter.
[-] The following 1 user Likes Melkite's post:
  • formerbuddhist
Reply
#9
(03-28-2018, 12:26 PM)Melkite Wrote:
(03-28-2018, 12:20 PM)GangGreen Wrote: Isn't there also a line of Orthodox thinking that says that while Peter may have had such a papal authority, such authority died with him and wasn't something that passed on in perpetuity?

There is that, but it is more common to hear the Orthodox say that ALL bishops sit in the chair of Peter.

Now that's something I'd like to see.

Must be a pretty big chair!   :D
[-] The following 1 user Likes Sacred Heart lover's post:
  • MaryLover
Reply
#10
(03-28-2018, 05:53 PM)Sacred Heart lover Wrote:
(03-28-2018, 12:26 PM)Melkite Wrote:
(03-28-2018, 12:20 PM)GangGreen Wrote: Isn't there also a line of Orthodox thinking that says that while Peter may have had such a papal authority, such authority died with him and wasn't something that passed on in perpetuity?

There is that, but it is more common to hear the Orthodox say that ALL bishops sit in the chair of Peter.

Now that's something I'd like to see.

Must be a pretty big chair!   :D

Sounds kinda gay tbh
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)