Is there any good reason for many patriarchs?

[Inquisitor]

Is there?

[biro]

 

I'm sorry, can you be a little more specific?

[Michał Kalina]

Yes, it is. You have 3 Patriarchs of Antioch  (Melkite, Syriac and Maronite) and two Patriarchs of Alexandria (Melkite and Coptic) and of Jerusalem (Latin and Melkite) so you shoul better have one.

[Carl Kraeff (Second Chance)]

This could be a meaningful topic. Right now, we have no idea what the question is.

[Inquisitor]

If the church is One, why many independent patriarchs?

[Michał Kalina]

If the church is One, why many independent patriarchs?

Yes, it is. You have 3 Patriarchs of Antioch  (Melkite, Syriac and Maronite) and two Patriarchs of Alexandria (Melkite and Coptic) and of Jerusalem (Latin and Melkite) so you shoul better have one.

Maybe you'd like to answer.

[Shanghaiski]

If the church is One, why many independent patriarchs?

Why not direct your question to the Holy Apostles, to whom it seemed good to establish local churches, ruled by separate bishops, but in communion with one another in the Eucharist, in prayer, and in faith?

[Inquisitor]

If the church is One, why many independent patriarchs?

Yes, it is. You have 3 Patriarchs of Antioch  (Melkite, Syriac and Maronite) and two Patriarchs of Alexandria (Melkite and Coptic) and of Jerusalem (Latin and Melkite) so you shoul better have one.

Maybe you'd like to answer.

I think that the existance of many catholic eastern patriarch is due to the fact of their own tradition but as a Latin catholic I don't understand the sectioning of the church, in many patriarchates. mainly because in the beggining it was not that way.

But in the case of EO, they all are greek tradition, and yet they are many

[Inquisitor]

If the church is One, why many independent patriarchs?

Why not direct your question to the Holy Apostles, to whom it seemed good to establish local churches, ruled by separate bishops, but in communion with one another in the Eucharist, in prayer, and in faith?

The saint apostles had a primus, that primus had the last word on matters of doctrine as we can see it in the Acts of the apostles.

[NicholasMyra]

in the beggining it was not that way.

Actually, it was.

as a Latin catholic I don understant the sectioning of the church, in many patriarchates.

The church is not sectioned, it is headed on earth by many bishops who share one faith. Patriarchs are Bishops of important cities.

[NicholasMyra]

The saint apostles had a primus, that primus had the last word on matters of doctrine as we can see it in the Acts of the apostles.

No. And besides, a Primus and a Supremus are not the same. Constantinople Patriarch is our Primus but is not universally powerful.

[Michał Kalina]

I think that the existance of many catholic eastern patriarch is due to the fact of their own tradition but as a Latin catholic I don understant the sectioning of the church, in many patriarchates. mainly because in the beggining it was not that way.

In the Roman Catholic Church there are also multiple Patriarchs:
Patriarch of the East Indies
Latin Patriarch of Jerusalem
Patriarch of Lisbon
Patriarch of Venice

[Carl Kraeff (Second Chance)]

If the church is One, why many independent patriarchs?

Yes, that is the Roman Catholic approach and certainly is a logical one from Rome's perspective. The problem is it just does not follow the ecclesiology of the Church, which was and is a confederation of local churches. This situation does not conflict with the equally important principle that the Church, in other words, the Body of Christ, is one. I suppose the bottom line here is how one defines the word "one." As I said earlier, it seems logical for the word to mean one Patriarch/Pope/Archbishop/Metropolitan (all titles of the primate of a local church). However, that would be in human terms, but the Church is not a purely human institution. Don't forget that the Roman Church herself lived under the Orthodox understanding for 800 years?

[Carl Kraeff (Second Chance)]

If the church is One, why many independent patriarchs?

Why not direct your question to the Holy Apostles, to whom it seemed good to establish local churches, ruled by separate bishops, but in communion with one another in the Eucharist, in prayer, and in faith?

The saint apostles had a primus, that primus had the last word on matters of doctrine as we can see it in the Acts of the apostles.

I am sorry but you may have a different edition of the Acts. The last word on matters of doctrine, as expressed in my version of the Book of Acts was the Council of Jerusalem, which in a conciliar fashion decided to side with Apostle Paul rather than Apostle Peter. Furthermore, it was the Bishop of Jerusalem and President of the Council, rather than Saint Peter, who announced the decision of this Council.

[Inquisitor]

...

No it wasn't , Peter was the One who every body follow.

The many bishops in many cities was the way that Apostles organized local churches, but in the case of E.O. the patriarch is not a local bishop of a city, but is the head of a nationalistic church.

[Michał Kalina]

but in the case of E.O. the patriarch is not a local bishop of a city, but is the head of a nationalistic church.

In your Church too. Who the head of Vatican is?

[NicholasMyra]

...

No it wasn't , Peter was the One who every body follow.

And Peter and Paul founded Antioch first so Antiochians are Supreme Primate of Church, right?

but is the head of a nationalistic church.

Nationalistic? Silly.

Besides, you don't understand what it means to be the head of a church, to you, that means Patriarchs are just minipopes who rule smaller territories.


But they are not the only bishops there, you know. And EO Bishops aren't puppets.

[Inquisitor]

I think that the existance of many catholic eastern patriarch is due to the fact of their own tradition but as a Latin catholic I don understant the sectioning of the church, in many patriarchates. mainly because in the beggining it was not that way.

In the Roman Catholic Church there are also multiple Patriarchs:
Patriarch of the East Indies
Latin Patriarch of Jerusalem
Patriarch of Lisbon
Patriarch of Venice

In the Latin Church to be patriarch is not a position but a honor title. their jurisdictions are as large as a dioceses.

[Inquisitor]

but in the case of E.O. the patriarch is not a local bishop of a city, but is the head of a nationalistic church.

In your Church too. Who the head of Vatican is?

Am I a Vatican Citizen?,

[NicholasMyra]

I think that the existance of many catholic eastern patriarch is due to the fact of their own tradition but as a Latin catholic I don understant the sectioning of the church, in many patriarchates. mainly because in the beggining it was not that way.

In the Roman Catholic Church there are also multiple Patriarchs:
Patriarch of the East Indies
Latin Patriarch of Jerusalem
Patriarch of Lisbon
Patriarch of Venice

In the Orthodox Church to be Pope is not a position but a honor title. their jurisdictions are as large as a dioceses.

[NicholasMyra]

but in the case of E.O. the patriarch is not a local bishop of a city, but is the head of a nationalistic church.

In your Church too. Who the head of Vatican is?

Am I a Vatican Citizen?,

Am I an Antiochian Citizen?

[Carl Kraeff (Second Chance)]

...

No it wasn't , Peter was the One who every body follow.

The many bishops in many cities was the way that Apostles organized local churches, but in the case of E.O. the patriarch is not a local bishop of a city, but is the head of a nationalistic church.

Look here, Inquisitor, we all understand that that is the way that you were thought. No body here is trying to change your beliefs or convert you away from Roman Catholicism. However, you are in the odd position of being the champion for Papal Supremacy in an Eastern Orthodox forum. The question for us would normally be why in the world the Church of Rome believes in the heresy of Papal Supremacy and has chosen to schism from the One True Church? I apologize for having framed the situation in such stark fashion but I must tell you that you are barking the wrong tree here.

[bogdan]

The many bishops in many cities was the way that Apostles organized local churches, but in the case of E.O. the patriarch is not a local bishop of a city, but is the head of a nationalistic church.

So was the Pope of Rome, at least in the early times:



Let's not be silly and anachronistic.

[Inquisitor]

If the church is One, why many independent patriarchs?

Yes, that is the Roman Catholic approach and certainly is a logical one from Rome's perspective. The problem is it just does not follow the ecclesiology of the Church, which was and is a confederation of local churches. This situation does not conflict with the equally important principle that the Church, in other words, the Body of Christ, is one. I suppose the bottom line here is how one defines the word "one." As I said earlier, it seems logical for the word to mean one Patriarch/Pope/Archbishop/Metropolitan (all titles of the primate of a local church). However, that would be in human terms, but the Church is not a purely human institution. Don't forget that the Roman Church herself lived under the Orthodox understanding for 800 years?

No, The current Orthodox understanding was introduced years latter, before there only were petrine sees headed by Rome.

[Inquisitor]

Lunch Time, Wait a minute, besides it is like 3 against 1, just take it easy, I'll be back to you in few minutes.

[Michał Kalina]

besides it is like 3 against

It was you who has started it. Don't get surprised.

No, The current Orthodox understanding was introduced years latter, before there only were petrine sees headed by Rome.

Like Cyprus?

[NicholasMyra]

No, The current Orthodox understanding was introduced years latter, before there only were petrine sees headed by Rome.

Then why did Pope Gregory Diologos say that to claim to be Universal Bishop was blasphemy?

[podkarpatska]

I think that the existance of many catholic eastern patriarch is due to the fact of their own tradition but as a Latin catholic I don understant the sectioning of the church, in many patriarchates. mainly because in the beggining it was not that way.

In the Roman Catholic Church there are also multiple Patriarchs:
Patriarch of the East Indies
Latin Patriarch of Jerusalem
Patriarch of Lisbon
Patriarch of Venice

Don't forget about the Eastern Catholic  'sui juris' Patriarchs as well.

[podkarpatska]

If the church is One, why many independent patriarchs?

Yes, that is the Roman Catholic approach and certainly is a logical one from Rome's perspective. The problem is it just does not follow the ecclesiology of the Church, which was and is a confederation of local churches. This situation does not conflict with the equally important principle that the Church, in other words, the Body of Christ, is one. I suppose the bottom line here is how one defines the word "one." As I said earlier, it seems logical for the word to mean one Patriarch/Pope/Archbishop/Metropolitan (all titles of the primate of a local church). However, that would be in human terms, but the Church is not a purely human institution. Don't forget that the Roman Church herself lived under the Orthodox understanding for 800 years?

No, The current Orthodox understanding was introduced years latter, before there only were petrine sees headed by Rome.

Interesting as your Church's learned North American theologians do not seem to share your understanding of history or Catholic ecclesiology. http://www.scoba.us/resources/orthodox-catholic/conciliarityandprimacy.html

[Shanghaiski]

No, The current Orthodox understanding was introduced years latter, before there only were petrine sees headed by Rome.

Then why did Pope Gregory Diologos say that to claim to be Universal Bishop was blasphemy?

And the forerunner of Antichrist.

The story of papal supremacy was invented in the 11th century when the papacy was the victim of a hostile takeover by a cabal of barbarians--a takeover which was, sadly, never reversed. Papal supremacy over the Church and over secular governments was the outgrowth of an entirely new policy, unseen and unheard of before. It was a heretical innovation, later passed off by papal apologists as the way things always were. All those who objected to the innovation were deposed, exiled, anathematized, killed, tricked or forced into submission. Even secular historians agree with this.

[NicholasMyra]

No, The current Orthodox understanding was introduced years latter, before there only were petrine sees headed by Rome.

Then why did Pope Gregory Diologos say that to claim to be Universal Bishop was blasphemy?

And the forerunner of Antichrist.

He even affirmed Orthodox Papal Primacy at the same time, explaining that while Peter was chief of the Apostles, he was not their universal despot.

[Shanghaiski]

No, The current Orthodox understanding was introduced years latter, before there only were petrine sees headed by Rome.

Then why did Pope Gregory Diologos say that to claim to be Universal Bishop was blasphemy?

And the forerunner of Antichrist.

He even affirmed Orthodox Papal Primacy at the same time, explaining that while Peter was chief of the Apostles, he was not their universal despot.

And neither St. Peter nor St. Gregory claimed to have authority over kings.

[Inquisitor]

No, The current Orthodox understanding was introduced years latter, before there only were petrine sees headed by Rome.

Then why did Pope Gregory Diologos say that to claim to be Universal Bishop was blasphemy?

Would you mind to tell us what implies universal bishop?, do you know that Ecumenical meens that?, Do you know that Constantinople started to use such title and Pope rejected it by saying so?

[NicholasMyra]

do you know that Ecumenical meens that?, Do you know that Constantinople started to use such title and Pope rejected by saying so?

Yeah, I know that. But everything in Constantinople was Ecumenical (universal pertaining to the scope of the Roman Empire.) The palace chef would have been the Ecumenical chef.  

Clearly Gregory didn't see it that way, and his criticism of claiming Universal Bishop-hood still stands.

[Inquisitor]

besides it is like 3 against

It was you who has started it. Don't get surprised.

No, The current Orthodox understanding was introduced years latter, before there only were petrine sees headed by Rome.

Like Cyprus?

Is that a Petrine see?

[Michał Kalina]

Would you mind to tell us what implies universal bishop?, do you know that Ecumenical meens that?, Do you know that Constantinople started to use such title and Pope rejected it by saying so?

It means but he doesn't act like one in contrary to yours.

Is that a Petrine see?

No but it was declared autocephalous in 431 what demolishes your theory.

[NicholasMyra]

Would you mind to tell us what implies universal bishop?, do you know that Ecumenical meens that?, Do you know that Constantinople started to use such title and Pope rejected it by saying so?

It means but he doesn't act like one in contrary to yours.

^

[HabteSelassie]

Greetings in that Divine and Most Precious Name of Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ!

Before all those Ecumenism accusations get thrown out I'd just like to say, "Stop Hatin."

Now..

We have so many different Patriarchs for the same reason we have many Metropolitans, Archbishops, Bishops, Abbots, and Priests.  Simply put, we have a lot of very diverse Christians within Orthodox who have many convergent cultural, economic, political, psychological, emotional, and spiritual needs.  The Church is stratified across several layers of Apostolic Succession to fulfill the Apostolic Mission and dispensation as were Commissioned.  Now some will say we have many doctrinal, theological, or argumentative differences, and that so and so or such and such a Patriarch or Bishop is the only ONE, HOLY, APOSTOLIC, and TRUE priest of such and such Orthodox.  This is silly divisiveness and sectarianism.  Ones should be concerned with only the Orthodoxy of their own respective jurisdictions, and mind their business when it comes to others.  We should always assume the best of each other, and proffer the sincere benefit of the doubt.

I would say this, that in time when the Church is healed and reconciled in God's Grace, then we shall function as we did say before the splits in the 400s and the 1000s era, when the bishops served as equals. Realistically, it is only when folks get confused to think that the grace of Perfection applies to the clergy beyond the Mysteries themselves that things get twists into sectarianism.  Folks mistake the clergy and the Priesthood as in varying degrees of infallibility and this is where we fall.  Only the Mysteries themselves are perfect.  We should mutually respect each other so long which includes not necessarily stepping on each others toes, as it was in the distant past.

Stay Blessed,
Habte Selassie

[Inquisitor]

Would you mind to tell us what implies universal bishop?, do you know that Ecumenical meens that?, Do you know that Constantinople started to use such title and Pope rejected it by saying so?

It means but he doesn't act like one in contrary to yours.

Is that a Petrine see?

No but it was declared autocephalous in 431 what demolishes your theory.

In 431, Which other Patriarchates existed already?

[Inquisitor]

Would you mind to tell us what implies universal bishop?, do you know that Ecumenical meens that?, Do you know that Constantinople started to use such title and Pope rejected it by saying so?

It means but he doesn't act like one in contrary to yours.

Is that a Petrine see?

No but it was declared autocephalous in 431 what demolishes your theory.

Why the Patriarch of Constantinople doesn't reject tu use the title Ecumenical?

[NicholasMyra]

In 431, Which other Patriarchates existed already?

Rome, Antioch, Jerusalem and Alexandria.

[NicholasMyra]

Why the Patriarch of Constantinople doesn't reject tu use the title Ecumenical?

Because it doesn't mean he has universal jurisdiction or infallibility superpowers, it means he's the patriarch of the former imperial ecumene city.

[Inquisitor]

In 431, Which other Patriarchates existed already?

Rome, Antioch, Jerusalem and Alexandria.

Right, and before that?

[Inquisitor]

Why the Patriarch of Constantinople doesn't reject tu use the title Ecumenical?

Because it doesn't mean he has universal jurisdiction or infallibility superpowers, it means he's the patriarch of the former imperial ecumene city.

So what is the point in using such tittle? not even Istambul remains Constantinople, no empire at all.

[Shanghaiski]

In 431, Which other Patriarchates existed already?

Rome, Antioch, Jerusalem and Alexandria.

Right, and beore that?

Rome, Alexandria, and Antioch. Your point?

[Tags:]

OrthodoxChristianity.net > Moderated Forums > Orthodox-Other Christian Discussion > Orthodox-Catholic Discussion (Moderator: username!) > Topic: Is there any good reason for many patriarchs?