OrthodoxChristianity.net
October 20, 2014, 08:56:30 PM *
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: patriarchalism  (Read 1466 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
deusveritasest
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: None
Jurisdiction: None
Posts: 7,528



WWW
« on: June 16, 2010, 06:25:39 PM »

I'm trying to figure out what place patriarchalism as found in EOy has in OO history.

The sixth canon of Nicaea I appears to evidence the early provincial form of administration by metropolitans: "Let the ancient customs in Egypt, Libya and Pentapolis prevail, that the Bishop of Alexandria have jurisdiction in all these, since the like is customary for the Bishop of Rome also.  Likewise in Antioch and the other provinces, let the Churches retain their privileges.  And this is to be universally understood, that if any one be made bishop without the consent of the Metropolitan, the great Synod has declared that such a man ought not to be a bishop.  If, however, two or three bishops shall from natural love of contradiction, oppose the common suffrage of the rest, it being reasonable and in accordance with the ecclesiastical law, then let the choice of the majority prevail."

The second canon of Constantinople II, however, seems to be beginning to move on to the diocesan form of administration by exarchs, who seemed to have had jurisdiction over numerous metropolitans: "The bishops are not to go beyond their dioceses to churches lying outside of their bounds, nor bring confusion on the churches; but let the Bishop of Alexandria, according to the canons, alone administer the affairs of Egypt; and let the bishops of the East manage the East alone, the privileges of the Church in Antioch, which are mentioned in the canons of Nice, being preserved; and let the bishops of the Asian Diocese administer the Asian affairs only; and the Pontic bishops only Pontic matters; and the Thracian bishops only Thracian affairs. And let not bishops go beyond their dioceses for ordination or any other ecclesiastical ministrations, unless they be invited.  And the aforesaid canon concerning dioceses being observed, it is evident that the synod of every province will administer the affairs of that particular province as was decreed at Nice.  But the Churches of God in heathen nations must be governed according to the custom which has prevailed from the times of the Fathers." It does explicitly use the word "diocese" rather than "province" or "metropolis". On top of that, "Egypt", "the East", "Asia", "Pontus", and "Thrace" were all among the civil dioceses which were made up of numerous provinces.

It appears that in the 4th century and the first half of the 5th century, the only instances where the jurisdiction of an exarch extended beyond the boundaries of his corresponding civil diocese were in territories outside of the Empire. For instance, at the time when the Catholicos of the Kingdom of Armenia was subject of the Exarch of Caesarea Mazica; and also Egypt's authority over Ethiopia.

The first instance I have found so far of Exarchs actually being given authority beyond the bounds of their corresponding civil diocese was at the Council of Chalcedon. There, the Bishop of Constantinople was not only recognized as having authority over his corresponding Thracian diocese, but also over the Asian and Pontian dioceses. This appears that it may be the first instance of patriarchalism as it later came to be understood in the EO tradition.

On the other hand, I have heard the OO actually rebuked such a move and even restored Ephesus'/Asia's independence from Constantinople at the Third Council of Ephesus.

Is it thus possible that the OO didn't really believe in the concept of patriarchate as it came to be developed by the Byzantines in the Pentarchy?
Logged

I stopped posting here in August 2011 because of stark disagreement with the policies of the administration and moderating team of the forums. If you desire, feel free to PM me, message me on Facebook (link in profile), or email me: cddombrowski@gmail.com
rakovsky
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America
Posts: 4,551



WWW
« Reply #1 on: June 16, 2010, 07:07:19 PM »

Basically the call the Patriarch of Alexandria "the Pope." Armenians call their leader the "Catholicos". Orientals cover alot of distance and I am sure have more bishops than they do Patriarchates- I mean I assume there are more bishoprics/dioceses than patriarchs and in that case Orientals have accepted a Patriarchal system.
Logged
deusveritasest
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: None
Jurisdiction: None
Posts: 7,528



WWW
« Reply #2 on: June 17, 2010, 12:35:33 AM »

Basically the call the Patriarch of Alexandria "the Pope." Armenians call their leader the "Catholicos". Orientals cover alot of distance and I am sure have more bishops than they do Patriarchates- I mean I assume there are more bishoprics/dioceses than patriarchs and in that case Orientals have accepted a Patriarchal system.

...

I explained in my post that patriarchalism is not the only system that has intra-episcopal hierarchy. First, the Metropolitan system subjected numerous bishops in a given Roman province to the bishop of its capital. Then the Exarchal system subjected numerous Metropolitans in a given Roman diocese to the bishop of its capital. It would appear that in the late 4th and early 5th centuries there were about 14 of these Exarchs. The term "patriarch" came to be predominantly used when exarchs started to become subject to a higher exarch, and all of Christendom became associated with one of the Pentarchy.
Logged

I stopped posting here in August 2011 because of stark disagreement with the policies of the administration and moderating team of the forums. If you desire, feel free to PM me, message me on Facebook (link in profile), or email me: cddombrowski@gmail.com
rakovsky
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America
Posts: 4,551



WWW
« Reply #3 on: June 17, 2010, 12:02:32 PM »

Sounds like gradual centralization. Fortunately, the Orthodox Church does not have a Pope.

Selam.
« Last Edit: June 17, 2010, 12:03:06 PM by rakovsky » Logged
Alpo
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Jerkodox
Posts: 6,850



« Reply #4 on: June 17, 2010, 12:13:45 PM »

Fortunately, the Orthodox Church does not have a Pope.

Say that to the Alexandrians. Wink
Logged

rakovsky
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America
Posts: 4,551



WWW
« Reply #5 on: June 17, 2010, 12:58:00 PM »

Fortunately, the Orthodox Church does not have a Pope.

Say that to the Alexandrians. Wink

I just did.
Logged
WetCatechumen
Roman Catholic
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic Christianity
Jurisdiction: Latin Rite - Archdiocese of Santa Fe; Ruthenian Byzantine Catholic Eparchy of Phoenix
Posts: 297



« Reply #6 on: June 17, 2010, 06:09:17 PM »

Fortunately, the Orthodox Church does not have a Pope.

Say that to the Alexandrians. Wink

I just did.
LOL, that was really funny.
Logged

"And because they have nothing better to do, they take cushion and chairs to Rome. And while the Pope is saying liturgy, they go, 'Oh, oh, oh, filioque!' And the Pope say, 'Filioque? That-uh sound nice! I think I divide-uh the Church over it!'" - Comrade Real Presence
deusveritasest
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: None
Jurisdiction: None
Posts: 7,528



WWW
« Reply #7 on: June 17, 2010, 08:24:40 PM »

Sounds like gradual centralization.

It is. But I am wondering if perhaps the OO tradition did not take the next step of centralization that the Chalcedonian churches did.

Fortunately, the Orthodox Church does not have a Pope.

The title "Pope" doesn't really have the inherent connotation you are suggesting. Not only does the Coptic Pope of Alexandria not have the same degree of general prerogatives as the Romanist Pope, but he doesn't even have the same amount of prerogatives as the Ecumenical Patriarch; Bartholomew I is ultimately more of a "Pope" in the way you are using it than Shenouda III is.
Logged

I stopped posting here in August 2011 because of stark disagreement with the policies of the administration and moderating team of the forums. If you desire, feel free to PM me, message me on Facebook (link in profile), or email me: cddombrowski@gmail.com
deusveritasest
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: None
Jurisdiction: None
Posts: 7,528



WWW
« Reply #8 on: June 17, 2010, 08:25:25 PM »

Fortunately, the Orthodox Church does not have a Pope.

Say that to the Alexandrians. Wink

I just did.

Both the Coptic and Greek Patriarchs of Alexandria are called Pope.
Logged

I stopped posting here in August 2011 because of stark disagreement with the policies of the administration and moderating team of the forums. If you desire, feel free to PM me, message me on Facebook (link in profile), or email me: cddombrowski@gmail.com
rakovsky
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America
Posts: 4,551



WWW
« Reply #9 on: June 18, 2010, 01:59:35 AM »

Fortunately, the Orthodox Church does not have a Pope.

Say that to the Alexandrians. Wink

I just did.

Both the Coptic and Greek Patriarchs of Alexandria are called Pope.

SO DO YOU ADMIT THAT WE "ORTHODOX" HAVE A LEGITIMATE POPE?
Logged
deusveritasest
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: None
Jurisdiction: None
Posts: 7,528



WWW
« Reply #10 on: June 18, 2010, 11:37:34 PM »

Fortunately, the Orthodox Church does not have a Pope.

Say that to the Alexandrians. Wink

I just did.

Both the Coptic and Greek Patriarchs of Alexandria are called Pope.

SO DO YOU ADMIT THAT WE "ORTHODOX" HAVE A LEGITIMATE POPE?

...

I'm not sure what you are asking. What do you mean by "legitimate pope"? The Bishop of Alexandria is not somehow greater than the rest of the bishops. It's just an honorific title particular to his patriarchate.
Logged

I stopped posting here in August 2011 because of stark disagreement with the policies of the administration and moderating team of the forums. If you desire, feel free to PM me, message me on Facebook (link in profile), or email me: cddombrowski@gmail.com
aiernovi
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic Archdiocese of North America
Posts: 15

ghaly8
« Reply #11 on: June 20, 2010, 12:02:42 AM »

Not exactly. He is the "first among equals" in the Coptic Church. He is the head of the church. In fact, the term pope (papa) was first used by Copts long before Rome. Now of course, he is not infallible or greater than the heads of any of our sister churches, but he is definitely the leader of the Coptic Church.
Logged
Salpy
Moderator
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Armenian Church
Posts: 12,722


Pray for the Christians of Iraq and Syria.


« Reply #12 on: June 20, 2010, 01:20:24 AM »

Welcome to the forum!
Logged

ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
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: 37,960



« Reply #13 on: June 20, 2010, 10:52:17 AM »

I'm trying to figure out what place patriarchalism as found in EOy has in OO history.

The sixth canon of Nicaea I appears to evidence the early provincial form of administration by metropolitans: "Let the ancient customs in Egypt, Libya and Pentapolis prevail, that the Bishop of Alexandria have jurisdiction in all these, since the like is customary for the Bishop of Rome also.  Likewise in Antioch and the other provinces, let the Churches retain their privileges.  And this is to be universally understood, that if any one be made bishop without the consent of the Metropolitan, the great Synod has declared that such a man ought not to be a bishop.  If, however, two or three bishops shall from natural love of contradiction, oppose the common suffrage of the rest, it being reasonable and in accordance with the ecclesiastical law, then let the choice of the majority prevail."

The second canon of Constantinople II, however, seems to be beginning to move on to the diocesan form of administration by exarchs, who seemed to have had jurisdiction over numerous metropolitans: "The bishops are not to go beyond their dioceses to churches lying outside of their bounds, nor bring confusion on the churches; but let the Bishop of Alexandria, according to the canons, alone administer the affairs of Egypt; and let the bishops of the East manage the East alone, the privileges of the Church in Antioch, which are mentioned in the canons of Nice, being preserved; and let the bishops of the Asian Diocese administer the Asian affairs only; and the Pontic bishops only Pontic matters; and the Thracian bishops only Thracian affairs. And let not bishops go beyond their dioceses for ordination or any other ecclesiastical ministrations, unless they be invited.  And the aforesaid canon concerning dioceses being observed, it is evident that the synod of every province will administer the affairs of that particular province as was decreed at Nice.  But the Churches of God in heathen nations must be governed according to the custom which has prevailed from the times of the Fathers." It does explicitly use the word "diocese" rather than "province" or "metropolis". On top of that, "Egypt", "the East", "Asia", "Pontus", and "Thrace" were all among the civil dioceses which were made up of numerous provinces.

It appears that in the 4th century and the first half of the 5th century, the only instances where the jurisdiction of an exarch extended beyond the boundaries of his corresponding civil diocese were in territories outside of the Empire. For instance, at the time when the Catholicos of the Kingdom of Armenia was subject of the Exarch of Caesarea Mazica; and also Egypt's authority over Ethiopia.

The first instance I have found so far of Exarchs actually being given authority beyond the bounds of their corresponding civil diocese was at the Council of Chalcedon. There, the Bishop of Constantinople was not only recognized as having authority over his corresponding Thracian diocese, but also over the Asian and Pontian dioceses. This appears that it may be the first instance of patriarchalism as it later came to be understood in the EO tradition.

On the other hand, I have heard the OO actually rebuked such a move and even restored Ephesus'/Asia's independence from Constantinople at the Third Council of Ephesus.

Is it thus possible that the OO didn't really believe in the concept of patriarchate as it came to be developed by the Byzantines in the Pentarchy?

The only real difference is that the EO has a hiearchy it fights over (the diptych thing is supposed to be one of the items on the agenda for the "Great Coucil") while the OO exist in parrallel.  I'm coming from this from an EO perspective, but I have spent a lot of time amongst the Copts, and they seem more aware of the Greek Orthodox than they do the Armenian or Syriac Orthodox. They are aware of the Ethiopian Orthodox, but basically in that Ethiopia is in Alexandria's jurisdiction.

Ephesus II was the culmination of the first phase of what you are talking about here. It might have started with the Meletian Schism in Antioch, where Rome and Alexandria refused recognition of Patriarch St. Meletius, which went on to support of his rival Paulinus.  Rome insisted that Paulinus be recongized after St. Meletius' death, but the Second Ecumenical Council elected St. Flavian instead.  This I think is the first instance of one see, without a coucil to back him up, insisting on placing his choice on another's sees throne.  Then Alexandria came at the Synod of the Oak, and Alexandria and Rome battled over who should sit in Constantinople, something that they didn't agree on until the Ecumenical Council of Ephesus.  Then came Ephesus II.  Pope Dioscoros deposed the Patriarchs of Constantinople and Antioch, and detatched Jerusalem from Antioch and made it's own Patriarchate.  IN opposition to all of the above it became Rome vs. Alexandria.  With Pope Dioscoros issuing an order of deposition of Pope Leo of Rome, and it was the first time in history in which one primate exercised (or claimed to exercize) authority to remove and elevate on the thrones of the major sees.  When Alexandria lost at Chalcedon, Jerusalem and Antioch lost as well (as it became determined that the series Ephesus II-Chalcedon, and not the sees themselves, were determining their fate).  It then became a show down between the Old and New Capital, a pox on both their houses.

But back to the jurisdiction thing: Alexandria was the first to have its jurisdiction cross civil boundaries, at it had jurisdiction of the Pentapolis in Libya, which is what occasioned the issuance of canon 6 of Nicea I in the first place.
« Last Edit: June 20, 2010, 10:54:56 AM by ialmisry » 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
Salpy
Moderator
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Armenian Church
Posts: 12,722


Pray for the Christians of Iraq and Syria.


« Reply #14 on: June 20, 2010, 04:51:55 PM »

Just some clarification:

Then came Ephesus II.  Pope Dioscoros deposed the Patriarchs of Constantinople and Antioch,   

The patriarchs of Constantinople and Antioch were deposed by a council that had been called by an emperor.  They were not unilaterally deposed by St. Dioscoros.

Quote
With Pope Dioscoros issuing an order of deposition of Pope Leo of Rome, and it was the first time in history in which one primate exercised (or claimed to exercize) authority to remove and elevate on the thrones of the major sees.

St. Dioscoros only excommunicated Pope Leo after Pope Leo had excommunicated him.


Isa,
If you want to make statements like this about St. Dioscoros, that's fine, but it needs to be in the private forum.  The only reason I did not move your above post there is because it has some information that otherwise seems helpful to the subject.  Let's try to keep the Dioscoros-bashing to a minimum.  Thanks.   Smiley

Logged

john_morcos
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic Orthodox Church
Posts: 68


« Reply #15 on: June 21, 2010, 04:39:40 AM »

We, Coptic Orthodox, believe our "Papa" is the leader of our church, however he is only one of equals in the Church.
We don't see him over the heads of Armenian or Syriac Churches for example.

The term "Papa" is only to express that the Alexandrian bishop is a "Father" to every one of the jurisdiction, rather than a master.
It has nothing to do with papacy as you know it.
Logged
deusveritasest
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: None
Jurisdiction: None
Posts: 7,528



WWW
« Reply #16 on: June 22, 2010, 01:24:59 AM »

Not exactly. He is the "first among equals" in the Coptic Church. He is the head of the church. In fact, the term pope (papa) was first used by Copts long before Rome. Now of course, he is not infallible or greater than the heads of any of our sister churches, but he is definitely the leader of the Coptic Church.

I'm well aware.

I was mostly speaking of his place in the international Oriental Orthodox communion.

And I was addressing the question about "legitimate pope". The Coptic Pope is not at all a Pope in the sense that the Roman Pope is.
Logged

I stopped posting here in August 2011 because of stark disagreement with the policies of the administration and moderating team of the forums. If you desire, feel free to PM me, message me on Facebook (link in profile), or email me: cddombrowski@gmail.com
rakovsky
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America
Posts: 4,551



WWW
« Reply #17 on: June 24, 2010, 02:17:17 AM »

Not exactly. He is the "first among equals" in the Coptic Church. He is the head of the church. In fact, the term pope (papa) was first used by Copts long before Rome. Now of course, he is not infallible or greater than the heads of any of our sister churches, but he is definitely the leader of the Coptic Church.

I'm well aware.

I was mostly speaking of his place in the international Oriental Orthodox communion.

And I was addressing the question about "legitimate pope". The Coptic Pope is not at all a Pope in the sense that the Roman Pope is.

So you admit that The Coptic Pope is not a "legitimate pope?"  Grin  He is a "Pope" in name only?
(Joke) Don't pay attention to me. Me silly.

It may be interesting to discuss how the term "Pope" came about for the Alexandrian Patriarch as an official title that was not used by other Patriarchs until Rome took it. And whether when Rome took it it Rome originally meant it as something different than Alexandria did.
« Last Edit: June 24, 2010, 02:21:49 AM by rakovsky » Logged
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
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: 37,960



« Reply #18 on: June 24, 2010, 07:40:47 AM »

Not exactly. He is the "first among equals" in the Coptic Church. He is the head of the church. In fact, the term pope (papa) was first used by Copts long before Rome. Now of course, he is not infallible or greater than the heads of any of our sister churches, but he is definitely the leader of the Coptic Church.

I'm well aware.

I was mostly speaking of his place in the international Oriental Orthodox communion.

And I was addressing the question about "legitimate pope". The Coptic Pope is not at all a Pope in the sense that the Roman Pope is.

So you admit that The Coptic Pope is not a "legitimate pope?"  Grin  He is a "Pope" in name only?
(Joke) Don't pay attention to me. Me silly.

It may be interesting to discuss how the term "Pope" came about for the Alexandrian Patriarch as an official title that was not used by other Patriarchs until Rome took it. And whether when Rome took it it Rome originally meant it as something different than Alexandria did.
It came about because of the patriarchate being HIGHLY centralized, much more than any patriarchate.  For over a century, the bishop of Alexandria was the only full bishop (as opposed to chorbishop) in the patriarchate.  The difference is that the other bishops refrained from using the title out of deference to the Pope of Alexandria.  Rome forbade its use by anyone but herself. Indeed, the three "popes" of Alexandria in submission to the Vatican cannot use the title, unlike the usual policy of Eastern prelates in submission.
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
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,254


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #19 on: June 24, 2010, 11:10:53 AM »

Not exactly. He is the "first among equals" in the Coptic Church. He is the head of the church. In fact, the term pope (papa) was first used by Copts long before Rome. Now of course, he is not infallible or greater than the heads of any of our sister churches, but he is definitely the leader of the Coptic Church.

I'm well aware.

I was mostly speaking of his place in the international Oriental Orthodox communion.

And I was addressing the question about "legitimate pope". The Coptic Pope is not at all a Pope in the sense that the Roman Pope is.

So you admit that The Coptic Pope is not a "legitimate pope?"  Grin  He is a "Pope" in name only?
(Joke) Don't pay attention to me. Me silly.

It may be interesting to discuss how the term "Pope" came about for the Alexandrian Patriarch as an official title that was not used by other Patriarchs until Rome took it. And whether when Rome took it it Rome originally meant it as something different than Alexandria did.
I remember hearing some where that one of the councils determined that there could be three popes. One in Rome, perhaps one in Alexandria and one somewhere else. Does anyone have any knowledge of this?
Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
rakovsky
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America
Posts: 4,551



WWW
« Reply #20 on: June 24, 2010, 09:04:36 PM »

Indeed, the three "popes" of Alexandria in submission to the Vatican cannot use the title, unlike the usual policy of Eastern prelates in submission.

 Huh
Logged
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
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: 37,960



« Reply #21 on: June 24, 2010, 09:15:36 PM »

Not exactly. He is the "first among equals" in the Coptic Church. He is the head of the church. In fact, the term pope (papa) was first used by Copts long before Rome. Now of course, he is not infallible or greater than the heads of any of our sister churches, but he is definitely the leader of the Coptic Church.

I'm well aware.

I was mostly speaking of his place in the international Oriental Orthodox communion.

And I was addressing the question about "legitimate pope". The Coptic Pope is not at all a Pope in the sense that the Roman Pope is.

So you admit that The Coptic Pope is not a "legitimate pope?"  Grin  He is a "Pope" in name only?
(Joke) Don't pay attention to me. Me silly.

It may be interesting to discuss how the term "Pope" came about for the Alexandrian Patriarch as an official title that was not used by other Patriarchs until Rome took it. And whether when Rome took it it Rome originally meant it as something different than Alexandria did.
I remember hearing some where that one of the councils determined that there could be three popes. One in Rome, perhaps one in Alexandria and one somewhere else. Does anyone have any knowledge of this?
I think you may be conflating canon 6 of Nicea I with Pope St. Gregory's letter (on his fight over the EP title) that Rome, Alexandria and Antioch were Petrine Sees, or rather the three sees of St. Peter's Throne.
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
CoptoGeek
of Alexandria, the Christ-loving City
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic Orthodox Church
Posts: 1,435



« Reply #22 on: June 25, 2010, 12:39:36 AM »

It may be interesting to discuss how the term "Pope" came about for the Alexandrian Patriarch as an official title that was not used by other Patriarchs until Rome took it. And whether when Rome took it it Rome originally meant it as something different than Alexandria did.

I had assumed "Pope" or Papa was simply a term of endearment by the people of Egypt that later became a title, but only an honorific one. The Coptic Pope's authority and primacy as a Patriarch would still be the same with or without the title.
Logged

"Be oppressed, rather than the oppressor. Be gentle, rather than zealous. Lay hold of goodness, rather than justice." -St. Isaac of Nineveh

“I returned to the Coptic Orthodox Church with affection, finding in her our tormented and broken history“. -Salama Moussa
Tags: ecclesiology 
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 0.104 seconds with 50 queries.