OrthodoxChristianity.net
July 29, 2014, 04:53:03 AM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Reminder: No political discussions in the public fora.  If you do not have access to the private Politics Forum, please send a PM to Fr. George.
 
   Home   Help Calendar Contact Treasury Tags Login Register  
Pages: 1   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Canoncial validity of Patriarchates  (Read 3505 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
jmkora
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Indian Orthodox (Catholicate of the East)
Posts: 22

St. Gregorios, Pray for us.


« on: February 04, 2007, 06:54:43 PM »

Hi all. I have a question specifically for Armenian, Ethiopian, Eritrean, and Indian members of this forum. Suppose someone were to say that the patriarchates of the above churches lack canonical validity unless they are associated closely (under the spiritual guidance) of one of the "Great Sees" (Alexandria, Constantinople, Antioch, Rome,) because only those sees were truly declared as autocephalous apostolic sees by the ecumenical councils, and a church elevating an apostolic see by itself  without the approval of the Ecumenical council has no real credibility. What would you say to such a comment? Note, the above statement in no way reflects my own views.
« Last Edit: February 04, 2007, 11:27:15 PM by jmkora » Logged
Salpy
Moderator
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Armenian Church
Posts: 12,415


Pray for the Christians of Iraq and Syria.


« Reply #1 on: February 04, 2007, 10:18:19 PM »

I think that whole ranking of patriarchates and designation of five "Great Sees" started with Chalcedon, which the OO's don't recognize.  At least that is what I heard.  Consequently, we don't really have that concept.

The Armenian Catholicoi were originally consecrated by the archbishop of Caesarea.  According to a book I have, that stopped in 373, when an Armenian king decided to appoint the successor to the Catholicos St. Nerses the Great.  The archbishop of Caesarea (probably St. Basil?) didn't like the successor picked by the king and refused to recognize him.  That was when the Armenian Church became independent of Caesarea.  That was that.  We've been independent ever since then.  Perhaps in the beginning this caused tension between Caesarea and the Armenians, but I don't think it has been an issue for most of our history and it is not an issue now.
Logged

EkhristosAnesti
'I will say of the Lord, "He is my refuge and my fortress; My God, in Him I will trust."' - Psalm 91:2
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Posts: 2,743


Pope St Kyrillos VI


« Reply #2 on: February 04, 2007, 11:40:53 PM »

Quote
I think that whole ranking of patriarchates and designation of five "Great Sees" started with Chalcedon

Well, according to OO ecclesiology Jerusalem is not a "Great See"; it was elevated to such status by the Chalcedonians at the Council of Chalcedon. As far as I'm aware though, Rome, Alexandria, Antioch, and Constantinople were well established as Patriarchal Sees before Chalcedon (the latest being Constantinople as per the decrees of the Second Ecumenical Council)
Logged

No longer an active member of this forum. Sincerest apologies to anyone who has taken offence to anything posted in youthful ignorance or negligence prior to my leaving this forum - October, 2012.

"Philosophy is the imitation by a man of what is better, according to what is possible" - St Severus
jmkora
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Indian Orthodox (Catholicate of the East)
Posts: 22

St. Gregorios, Pray for us.


« Reply #3 on: February 05, 2007, 01:09:54 AM »

I think that whole ranking of patriarchates and designation of five "Great Sees" started with Chalcedon, which the OO's don't recognize.  At least that is what I heard.  Consequently, we don't really have that concept.
Really? I thought the original 4 sees were established prior to Chalcedon.
Logged
Salpy
Moderator
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Armenian Church
Posts: 12,415


Pray for the Christians of Iraq and Syria.


« Reply #4 on: February 05, 2007, 01:55:52 AM »

This is the first I heard of that.  When was that established?  What were the implications?  Was there actually something that said all churches have to be under the spiritual guidance of one of those four sees? 
Logged

surajiype
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Malankara Orthodox Church
Posts: 194


« Reply #5 on: February 05, 2007, 02:52:41 AM »

 

  Jason,

 Autocephaly technically has to be given, although in practice it has never hapenned. All have grabbed autocephaly, although within a century or so the Mother Churches have come around and grudgingly accepted the new status quo, and then granted  autocephaly. Cyprus received Autocephaly from the decrees of an ecumenical council, (Ephesus).

Same has  been the case in Ethiopia,Armenia, Bulgaria, Moscow etc. Similar thing is going in Macedonia and Estonia etc. I am just taking cases from both EO/OO communions for the scope of our discussion. 

There is as far as i see only one rule behind the entire thing, Get your bishops solidly behind you if you want autocephaly. What hapenned in India is that One Metropolitan Mor Paulose Kochuparambil dissented.  These are the facts, I am not getting into the rights and wrongs.

All local churches should be in communion with the Orthodox churches elsewhere. Anything that strains the bonds of communion need to be avoided lest genuineness end and schism start.

The great see are unanimously Alexandria and Antioch for the OO, does a local church need to be supervised by the others NO, but a local church should be in the position to be able to share the Chalice with the others.

Logged
surajiype
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Malankara Orthodox Church
Posts: 194


« Reply #6 on: February 05, 2007, 03:02:52 AM »

EA is right the Ancient Sees were first ranked in the Sixth Canon of Nicea.

Constantinople was elevated to the second rank at Constantinople 381.

Logged
Amdetsion
Worship God with all thy strength and all thy might
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christianity
Jurisdiction: Ethiopian Patriarchate; Addis Abebe Ethiopia
Posts: 931


HH Abuna Pawlos - Patriarch of Ethiopia


« Reply #7 on: February 05, 2007, 12:35:07 PM »

Ethiopia has always been a inner and intricate part of Holy tradition and movement of such on earth through the grace of God and the power of the Holy Spirit. Ethiopia is thus present ( and part of ) every stage of mans path to righteousness as reflected in Hebrew tradition. This includes the Holy Church

You can read in Holy scripture starting in Genisis Chapter 1 with regard to creation and the Garden of Eden to the era of the prophets where Ethiopia is favored  of God a Chosen people even before the advent of Christ (Read in the book of Amos when God asks: "Are you not the same unto me as the 'children of the Ethiopians' are O' Israel"?) and in the Messianic era where we have the Ethiopian Eunoch being baptised by the St. Philip through the power of the Holy spirit becoming the first fruit of the faith as the church began to reach out beyond Israel to the rest of the world. This Ethiopian became that bridge between the Church of Christ and the gentile world. Much commentary is written on this subject. What most people forget to add is that this Ethiopian was a member of the Royal Family during a time when Ethiopia was a vast empire which inlcuded of course todays Ethiopia but also what is called the Sudan down to Somalia, Kenya and south as far as Azania with pockets of influence in all parts of Africa (including Egypt) and southern Arabia. So We must visualize a much more complex 'Ethiopia' than what we today are familiar with. Also and most important When the Eunoch was baptised it effectively "christianised" the empire since he was a member of the royal family.

Their is much more in scripture to mention.

Ethiopia is a legitimate church patriarchate due to its standing in scripture.

We recognize HH the Pope of Alexandria as the true seat of the see of St Mark. We recognize all OO EO patriarchates and holy sees. The see of St Thomas the apostle included.
Logged

"ETHIOPIA shall soon stretch out her hands unto God".....Psalm 68:vs 31

"Are ye not as children of the ETHIOPIANS unto me, O children of Israel"?....Amos 9: vs 7
jmkora
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Indian Orthodox (Catholicate of the East)
Posts: 22

St. Gregorios, Pray for us.


« Reply #8 on: February 05, 2007, 01:17:42 PM »

Thanks to everyone for your input. So based on the responses I'm getting, an autocephalous patriarch need not be under the spiritual guidance of one of the four great sees. In addition, advocating such a concept is contrary to Orthodox tradition. Another doubt, if I may, what are the requirements for a prelate to claim that he is seated on the "apostolic throne" of an apostle? From what I understand, the prelate's church must have apostolic foundation. The title is more of an honorific, denoting the church's apostolic heritage, and unbroken lineage from the apostle in question is not required, only orthodox succession.
« Last Edit: February 05, 2007, 01:44:55 PM by jmkora » Logged
Salpy
Moderator
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Armenian Church
Posts: 12,415


Pray for the Christians of Iraq and Syria.


« Reply #9 on: February 05, 2007, 09:08:34 PM »

I don't know the exact requirements for a church to claim apostolic succession, but the Armenians have always called their Church the Armenian "Apostolic" Church.  This is specifically because we believe that Armenia was originally evangelized by Sts. Thaddeus and Bartholomew.  Our Catholicos is therefore considered by us to be the successor to these two apostles.   
Logged

Anastasios
Webdespota
Administrator
Merarches
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Old Calendarist
Posts: 10,440


Metropolitan Chrysostomos of Florina

anastasios0513
WWW
« Reply #10 on: February 05, 2007, 09:12:49 PM »

Armenians are covered--they already have patriarchs in Jerusalem and Constantinople Wink
« Last Edit: February 05, 2007, 09:13:09 PM by Anastasios » Logged

Met. Demetrius's Enthronement

Disclaimer: Past posts reflect stages of my life before my baptism may not be accurate expositions of Orthodox teaching.

I served as an Orthodox priest from June 2008 to April 2013, before resigning for personal reasons
Salpy
Moderator
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Armenian Church
Posts: 12,415


Pray for the Christians of Iraq and Syria.


« Reply #11 on: February 05, 2007, 09:46:50 PM »

Thanks, Anastasios!   Grin
Logged

minasoliman
Mr., Sir, Dude, Guy, Male, tr. Minas in Greek, Menes in white people Egyptologists :-P
Section Moderator
Merarches
*****
Online Online

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic Orthodox Archdiocese of North America
Posts: 10,350


Strengthen O Lord the work of Your hands(Is 19:25)


WWW
« Reply #12 on: February 06, 2007, 12:04:32 AM »

Armenians are covered--they already have patriarchs in Jerusalem and Constantinople Wink

that's really quite a blessing, not only are they a New Rome, but a New Jerusalem...Armenians seem to have honor written all over   Cheesy

And I think Jerusalem (given a different name later) was also given a Nicene honor on its own (fourth in Nicea, and an implied fifth in Constantinople) via a separate canon.

I'm convinced though that it seemed that these canons of primacy were quite effective in Roman/Byzantine government standards, of which these four (or five) cities were a major part.  Armenia seemed like an independant nation as well as countries of the Far East (Persia, India, and China).  It seems to me that such talks of primacy is negligent these days, and that such canons need to be revisited.

God bless.
Logged

Vain existence can never exist, for \\\"unless the LORD builds the house, the builders labor in vain.\\\" (Psalm 127)

If the faith is unchanged and rock solid, then the gates of Hades never prevailed in the end.
EkhristosAnesti
'I will say of the Lord, "He is my refuge and my fortress; My God, in Him I will trust."' - Psalm 91:2
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Posts: 2,743


Pope St Kyrillos VI


« Reply #13 on: February 06, 2007, 12:58:37 AM »

Quote
And I think Jerusalem (given a different name later) was also given a Nicene honor on its own (fourth in Nicea, and an implied fifth in Constantinople) via a separate canon.

I don't think that this sufficiently accounts for the differences in the treatment of the See of Jerusalem between the second Ecumenical Council and the Council of Chalcedon. The relevant canon of the former Council merely confers honory rights to the See of Jerusalem after Rome, Alexandria, and Antioch, but the See of Jerusalem nevertheless remained subject to the Jurisdiction and hence Metropolitan of Caesarea. Till this day, the Armenian Orthodox Patriarch of Jerusalem remains subject to the Catholicos of Armenia and of All Armenians (whose See is the Holy City of Etchmiadzin).

Ever since Chalcedon however, the Chalcedonian Orthodox Patriarch of Jerusalem has been released from subjection to anyone's jurisdiction, and has thence been counted amongst the Chalcedonian Orthodox as one of the five "Great Sees".
Logged

No longer an active member of this forum. Sincerest apologies to anyone who has taken offence to anything posted in youthful ignorance or negligence prior to my leaving this forum - October, 2012.

"Philosophy is the imitation by a man of what is better, according to what is possible" - St Severus
Salpy
Moderator
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Armenian Church
Posts: 12,415


Pray for the Christians of Iraq and Syria.


« Reply #14 on: February 06, 2007, 01:48:29 AM »

Till this day, the Armenian Orthodox Patriarch of Jerusalem remains subject to the Catholicos of Armenia and of All Armenians (whose See is the Holy City of Etchmiadzin).


It is true the Patriarch of Jerusalem is subject to the Catholicos of Etchmiadzin.  The Patriarch of Jerusalem is consecrated by the Catholicos and of course the Catholicos of Etchmiadzin is first in honor among the four patriarchs of the Armenian Church and is the "Universal Patriarch."  The Patriarch of Jerusalem, on the other hand, has a limited jurisdiction, I think Isreal and Jordan.

However, from what I understand the Patriarch of Jerusalem is chosen by the Brotherhood of St. James, not by the Catholicos, and it is pretty unheard of for the Catholicos to interfere with the Patriarch's affairs.  So there is a certain amount of autonomy there.

The Armenian Patriarch of Constantinople was of course set up by the Ottoman sultans to help them manage the "Armenian Millet," which I think was to include all OO's in the Empire and possibly even the Assyrians. 

I'm pretty surprised by all this talk of "Great Sees" among the OO's.  For some reason I always associated that with the EO's.  As Mina indicated, it is not really talked about much among the OO's, at least not that I have noticed.  Does it have any practical implications among the OO's?  I mean, does anybody out there actually question the validity of the Armenian Church just because we declared independence from Caesarea over sixteen hundred years ago?  I wouldn't even know how to respond to that.
Logged

surajiype
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Malankara Orthodox Church
Posts: 194


« Reply #15 on: February 06, 2007, 02:24:29 AM »

I agree with Salpy, for the OO it more of an afterthought that we dust out the old canons when we hear about the ranking of the Sees from the EO's and the RC's.

No body questions the full autonomy of the Armenians or the Ethiopians etc.

Interestingly the West Syrian Church had a patriarchate in Jerusalem. The West Syrian bishop who came to India in 1665 was titled Mor Gregorios of Jerusalem. Later the patriarchate was dropped and now insted they have a Patriarchal Vicar for Israel and Jordan who rules from the Monastery of St Mark in the Holy City.

Logged
paul2004
Paul
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 314

OC.net


« Reply #16 on: February 21, 2007, 09:32:05 PM »

Today no one follows any boundaries defined by Ecumenical councils. Ecumenical councils are important for the faith professed in these countils, but regarding boundaries within Roman empire, these boundaries are outdated and no one follows it strictly. Thus, Rome has churches in all parts of the world. Same is true about all other Byzantine Sees. Byzantine Sees received support from the Emperor, thus they gained much attention. But we cannot ignore ancient Churches outside the Byzantine empire.

There existed Apostolic Churches outside Byzantine empire. Patriarchates originated within Byzantine empire. But outside Byzantine empire ancient Churches retained their identity and Apostolic heritage - such as Armenian, Persian (Assyrian) and  Indian.  The heads of these Churches outside Byzantine empire were called 'Catholicos' (from 'Katholikos' meaning Universal). A Catholicos is the first among all Bishops and the administrative head of the Church. No other Patriarch can enter the jurisdiction of a Catholicos without permission.

Catholicate of the East, Catholicate of Armenia & Georgia  are related to the Edessan Syrian Church. Catholicate of the East is very ancient. According to Mar Gregorios Bar Ebraya Apostle Thomas is the first Archbishop of the East - first in the lineage of Catholicos of the East. This is true both according to the tradition of Orthodox (Indian Orthodox) Church and Assyrian Church of the East.  Indian Church strongly believes in the Apostolic origin. This is an important part of the heritage of the Church.

Read here:
http://www.1church.org/articles/stthomas.htm

http://www.religion-online.org/showchapter.asp?title=1553&C=1366

http://www.aina.org/books/itthotac/itthotac.htm


"It has long been an admitted fact that the lands of Mesopotamia and Adiabene, and in fact the whole of what we may call by anticipation the Sassanid Persian Empire, received the gospel from teachers whose head-quarters were at Edessa. The little kingdom of Osrhoene had but a precarious independence during the brief period of its existence; still that independence was sufficient to give, for as long as it lasted, a distinctive character to the Christianity that existed in its capital, and made it an appropriate "nursing mother" to the two national Churches founded by teachers who came from thence, those, namely, of Armenia and Persia. When the Edessene Church vas merged in that ecclesiastical circle that developed into the Patriarchate of Antioch, one at least of these "daughters" was strong enough to stand alone; and the circumstances of its infancy probably contributed to give it that instinct of independence that was always so marked a feature of its life.

The "Church of the Easterns" was the daughter, not of Antioch, but of Edessa, and was never included in the Patriarchate of the former city."

This explains the link between Syrian Church founded by Apostle Thomas in Edessa (mother of all Churches of Syriac tradition), The Eastern Syrian Church, Armenian Church and the Indian Church.  The Antiochian Church became Syrian when a section of Edessan Church merged with Antioch. Indian, Persian and Armenian Churches maintained freedom.

Hope this clarifies the commonly held western understanding about Sees and the position of ancient Churches of the East.

Paul
Logged
paul2004
Paul
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 314

OC.net


« Reply #17 on: February 21, 2007, 09:50:12 PM »

In India, the reason for dispute between two sections is a teaching that Antioch is the queen of all Sees (Supreme throne) - hence all should come under Antiochian rule. This teaching is in turn based on the writing of Mar Eusebius that St. Peter founded the Church in Antioch. Since St. Peter is the head of the Church according to an interpretation of the Scripture, all Churches should come under Antioch (SOC). This is the fundamental teaching of our Jacobite brothers in India, causing cosiderable difficulty in church life through a prolonged division. But the Indian Orthodox Church fathers consistently taught that it is a special honor given to Apostle Peter (and Paul) and it cannot be used to explain an universal rule by later bishops of Antioch or Rome.

Indian Orthodox rejects this idea, considering it an adaptation of RC model (Rome at the apex of church administration in the world). Many bishops under H.H. Zakka 1 misguide people based on this Roman model. Indian Jacobite Churches outside India are thus directly brought under the rule of Patriarch Zakka based on this model, while the Orthodox Churches are still under the Catholicos.

Adopting this RC model is the greatest impediment to Church unity.  According to Indian tradition, Catholicos of the East in the lineage of Apostle Thomas is the true head of the Eastern Church. Thus our Churches worldwide are under the Catholicos of the East. Antochian Church is a sister Church, not the Universal church ruling other sister Churches.  It is possible to establish peace through right teaching.

Peace
Paul
Logged
minasoliman
Mr., Sir, Dude, Guy, Male, tr. Minas in Greek, Menes in white people Egyptologists :-P
Section Moderator
Merarches
*****
Online Online

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic Orthodox Archdiocese of North America
Posts: 10,350


Strengthen O Lord the work of Your hands(Is 19:25)


WWW
« Reply #18 on: February 22, 2007, 09:02:39 PM »

In all fairness Paul, while I support your Church to be autocephalous, and I consider her a sister Church, I can't get myself to believe that HH Mar Ignatius Zakka Iwas believes he is Prime Patriarch of all Patriarchs having temporal jurisdiction over all.  This would give our own Coptic Church enough reason to condemn the Syrian Orthodox and allow us to separate from them as well.  I believe such a rumor spread around is either misunderstanding or over-exaggerating.

The main problem as debates have showed earlier is whether the Indian Orthodox Church is truly and legitimately autocephalous, or does Syria have a huge say on her?  This main problem to me can easily be solved, but unfortunately, I do not know why it can't be solved or why our other OO churches do not wish to touch the subject and confront it and get it over with.

God bless.
Logged

Vain existence can never exist, for \\\"unless the LORD builds the house, the builders labor in vain.\\\" (Psalm 127)

If the faith is unchanged and rock solid, then the gates of Hades never prevailed in the end.
surajiype
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Malankara Orthodox Church
Posts: 194


« Reply #19 on: February 24, 2007, 02:08:20 AM »

Mina,

What goes on in India sometimes is that theology becomes a easy weapon for both.  To show that autocepahly is an innovation, that Jacobite faction sometimes uses a very high Petrine argument, employing all the stuff like Keys of Peter, Peter being the chief apostle etc. Some of the stuff is out and out RC arguments.

To counter that some in my faction use arguments, which pretend like the notion of some authority to St.Peter never existed in the Syriac tradition ( it does, probably because Antioch claims to be  a Petrine See), yet I believe that ours is a more reasonable position in this matter.

These are both extreme positions, here neo- theological arguments are trumpeted to make a point. 



Logged
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,124



« Reply #20 on: December 24, 2008, 03:11:27 PM »

I don't know the exact requirements for a church to claim apostolic succession, but the Armenians have always called their Church the Armenian "Apostolic" Church.  This is specifically because we believe that Armenia was originally evangelized by Sts. Thaddeus and Bartholomew.  Our Catholicos is therefore considered by us to be the successor to these two apostles.   

How that happens though is a little bizarre: St. Gregory was begotten by his father on top of the relics of St. Thaddeus (the couple didn't know that the relics were underneath), according to Agathangelos (or was is Moses?).  It is clear that the Syriacs were there first, but the Armenians from St. Gregory on leaned towards the Greeks at Caesarea and Constantinople.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
Tags: Armenian Church ecclesiology Indian Orthodox Syriac Orthodox St. Peter Petrine Primacy schism 
Pages: 1   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.18 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.095 seconds with 49 queries.