Topic: Is there any good reason for many patriarchs?

[Αριστοκλής]

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?

Better yet, why did the Pope of Rome stop using his title Patriarch of the West?

[NicholasMyra]

In 431, Which other Patriarchates existed already?

Rome, Antioch, Jerusalem and Alexandria.

Right, and before that?

they were founded in this order by Sts. Peter and Paul, and for Alexandria St. Mark: Jerusalem, Antioch, then Rome 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.

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

It's pretty much a holdover from medieval times, like how the Pope is head of the "Papal States" that no longer really exist.

[podkarpatska]

If you enter the bull ring with a fancy suit and wave a red flag, you know what's coming next. Don't feed the trolls!

[Inquisitor]

So we reach the petrine sees, the reason for these sees to be was not that they were the capital of the empire, but PETER. All patriarchates after these three patriarchates come to exist for political reasons, not for apostolic reasons. the apostolic tradition is that patriarchates were Petrine sees, though alexandria never received Peter himself they received Mark, his envoy.

[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?

Better yet, why did the Pope of Rome stop using his title Patriarch of the West?

Is the catholic Church confined to the West?

[NicholasMyra]

So we reach the petrine sees, the reason for these sees to be was not that they were the capital of the empire, but PETER.

And Paul, but yeah.

All patriarchates after these three patriarchates come to exist for political reasons, not for apostolic reasons.

No, they came into being as new lands were evangelized and cultures changed. That's not just politics.

[NicholasMyra]

Is the catholic Church confined to the West?

Are the Russians confined to Russia?

[ialmisry]

Christ is ascended!

If the church is One, why many independent patriarchs?

Why did Christ, Who is One, have 12 disciples and send out the 72 Apostles?

[podkarpatska]

For what it is worth, I see that our new friend has failed to address the issue of Eastern Catholic patriarchates as well as their veneration of post-schism Saints of the east.  He must be a graduate of the 'Archbishop Ireland School of East/West Intra-Catholic Sui Juris Relations.'

[Inquisitor]

Christ is ascended!

If the church is One, why many independent patriarchs?

Why did Christ, Who is One, have 12 disciples and send out the 72 Apostles?

Go to Luke 22, 31 -32

{22:31} And the Lord said: “Simon, Simon! Behold, Satan
 has asked for you, so that he may sift you like wheat.
{22:32} But I have prayed for you, so that your faith may
 not fail, and so that you, once converted, may confirm your brothers.”

[NicholasMyra]

Christ is ascended!

If the church is One, why many independent patriarchs?

Why did Christ, Who is One, have 12 disciples and send out the 72 Apostles?

Go to Luke 22, 31 -32

{22:31} And the Lord said: “Simon, Simon! Behold, Satan
 has asked for you, so that he may sift you like wheat.
{22:32} But I have prayed for you, so that your faith may
 not fail, and so that you, once converted, may confirm your brothers.”

So you're a protestant?

[Inquisitor]

For what it is worth, I see that our new friend has failed to address the issue of Eastern Catholic patriarchates as well as their veneration of post-schism Saints of the east.  He must be a graduate of the 'Archbishop Ireland School of East/West Intra-Catholic Sui Juris Relations.'

I am a Catholic, in my neighborhood there are no eastern catholics.

[Inquisitor]

Christ is ascended!

If the church is One, why many independent patriarchs?

Why did Christ, Who is One, have 12 disciples and send out the 72 Apostles?

Go to Luke 22, 31 -32

{22:31} And the Lord said: “Simon, Simon! Behold, Satan
 has asked for you, so that he may sift you like wheat.
{22:32} But I have prayed for you, so that your faith may
 not fail, and so that you, once converted, may confirm your brothers.”

So you're a protestant?

No, why?

[NicholasMyra]

Christ is ascended!

If the church is One, why many independent patriarchs?

Why did Christ, Who is One, have 12 disciples and send out the 72 Apostles?

Go to Luke 22, 31 -32

{22:31} And the Lord said: “Simon, Simon! Behold, Satan
 has asked for you, so that he may sift you like wheat.
{22:32} But I have prayed for you, so that your faith may
 not fail, and so that you, once converted, may confirm your brothers.”

So you're a protestant?

No, why?

Because you're posting prooftexts. 

[ialmisry]

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

The NT is a Greek Tradition, and so too the Apostles' OT, the Septuagint.

Only one nation in the Church was under the Old Covenant. I see that you Judaizing, and therefore faulting us for bringing all the nations into the Church, as the Lord instructed us.

The Patriarchates of Jerusalem and Antioch (and the Autocephalous Church of Cyprus) predate the Patriarchate of Rome, and the Patriarchate of Alexandria (which has the original Pope) followed soon thereafter "in the beggining." That's the way it was. And is.

[NicholasMyra]

Inquisitor, have you studied the difference between Orthodox Catholic Papal Primacy and Roman Catholic Papal Supremacy?

[Inquisitor]

Christ is ascended!

If the church is One, why many independent patriarchs?

Why did Christ, Who is One, have 12 disciples and send out the 72 Apostles?

Go to Luke 22, 31 -32

{22:31} And the Lord said: “Simon, Simon! Behold, Satan
 has asked for you, so that he may sift you like wheat.
{22:32} But I have prayed for you, so that your faith may
 not fail, and so that you, once converted, may confirm your brothers.”

So you're a protestant?

No, why?

Because you're posting prooftexts. 

And? does that imply that we real christians are forbiden to read the bible, to understand the source of dogma?

[ialmisry]

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.

St. James, the Brother of God Acts 15:19

[FormerReformer]

In 431, Which other Patriarchates existed already?

Rome, Antioch, Jerusalem and Alexandria.

Right, and before that?

they were founded in this order by Sts. Peter and Paul, and for Alexandria St. Mark: Jerusalem, Antioch, then Rome and Alexandria.

Alexandria was founded by St Mark around AD 43, St Paul didn't make it to Rome until about AD 57.

So we reach the petrine sees, the reason for these sees to be was not that they were the capital of the empire, but PETER. All patriarchates after these three patriarchates come to exist for political reasons, not for apostolic reasons. the apostolic tradition is that patriarchates were Petrine sees, though alexandria never received Peter himself they received Mark, his envoy.

The only see that could be said to come into existence for "political reasons" would be Constantinople, but even then Asia Minor had long been an important Greek Christian center thanks to St John.  The fifth patriarchate existed not due to political events, but entirely spiritual reason- Jerusalem's only claim to Patriarch status at the time it was brought into the Pentarchy was it's status as the birthplace of Christianity.

[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

The NT is a Greek Tradition, and so too the Apostles' OT, the Septuagint.

Only one nation in the Church was under the Old Covenant. I see that you Judaizing, and therefore faulting us for bringing all the nations into the Church, as the Lord instructed us.

The Patriarchates of Jerusalem and Antioch (and the Autocephalous Church of Cyprus) predate the Patriarchate of Rome, and the Patriarchate of Alexandria (which has the original Pope) followed soon thereafter "in the beggining." That's the way it was. And is.

Are you saying that Peter never was in Rome?

[NicholasMyra]

Christ is ascended!

If the church is One, why many independent patriarchs?

Why did Christ, Who is One, have 12 disciples and send out the 72 Apostles?

Go to Luke 22, 31 -32

{22:31} And the Lord said: “Simon, Simon! Behold, Satan
 has asked for you, so that he may sift you like wheat.
{22:32} But I have prayed for you, so that your faith may
 not fail, and so that you, once converted, may confirm your brothers.”

So you're a protestant?

No, why?

Because you're posting prooftexts. 

And? does that imply that we real christians are forbiden to read the bible, to understand the source of dogma?

Not by pulling proof quotes out of context.

[Αριστοκλής]

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?

Better yet, why did the Pope of Rome stop using his title Patriarch of the West?

Is the catholic Church confined to the West?

Nice dodge! No points however.

[Inquisitor]

Sorry I have to go to work, I will try to answer latter, God Bless You all.

[ialmisry]

Christ is ascended!

If the church is One, why many independent patriarchs?

Why did Christ, Who is One, have 12 disciples and send out the 72 Apostles?

Go to Luke 22, 31 -32

{22:31} And the Lord said: “Simon, Simon! Behold, Satan
 has asked for you, so that he may sift you like wheat.
{22:32} But I have prayed for you, so that your faith may
 not fail, and so that you, once converted, may confirm your brothers.”

Go to Matthew 16:23
{16:23} But He turned and said to Peter, "Get behind Me, Satan!  You are an offense to Me, for you are not mindful of the things of God but the things of men!"

[ialmisry]

Christ is ascended!

Sorry I have to go to work, I will try to answer latter, God Bless You all.

So you weren't working, eh? Proof positive that idle hands are the devil's workshop.

[ialmisry]

Christ is ascended!

Christ is ascended!

If the church is One, why many independent patriarchs?

Why did Christ, Who is One, have 12 disciples and send out the 72 Apostles?

Go to Luke 22, 31 -32

{22:31} And the Lord said: “Simon, Simon! Behold, Satan
 has asked for you, so that he may sift you like wheat.
{22:32} But I have prayed for you, so that your faith may
 not fail, and so that you, once converted, may confirm your brothers.”

So you're a protestant?

No, why?

Because you're posting prooftexts. 

And? does that imply that we real christians are forbiden to read the bible, to understand the source of dogma?

You have a history of posting texts you do not understand.

[JamesRottnek]

Inquisitor, you raise a GREAT question!  I completely agree.  We should have ONE Patriarch.  Oh, but before we get that all settled, let me just make a quick phone call:

*Ring, Ring; Ring, Ring; Ring, Ring*

Me: "Hello, is this Heaven?"
Operator: "Yes, who may I ask is calling?"
Me: "James Patrick Rottnek II.  I live in Bagdad, Arizona.  I was hoping to talk to Jesus for a sec."
Operator: "Oh, ok.  He has a lot of stuff he'd like to get past your thick skull, but I'm sure he'd answer a question for you.  Let me just transfer you."
Jesus: "Hello, are you there?"
Me: "Hi Jesus, I'm glad you weren't too busy to talk.  I have a real problem.  You see, I think there ought to be one Patriarch, why do we need all these bishops all over the place?  But, I'm sure that if I bring up the point, my priest will say "But Jesus had 12 disciples" so I have a favor."
Jesus: "What's that?"
Me: "I want you to either let everyone know you only really meant to have one disciple, and it was a mistake to pick the other eleven, or please unselect the last eleven.  You do have an "undo" button up there right?"

In all seriousness, if we were meant to have just one Bishop, why did Jesus have twelve disciples?  And why did the Disciples replace Judas?

Besides, instead of a substitute for Christ, here on earth, we have Christ leading us from heaven, much as a President doesn't go out to the front lines of a war zone, but rather runs the war from the capital city.  That's where Jesus is - the capital of His Kingdom.

[Irish Hermit]

Is there?

Really keen to see the day when we have an Irish Patriarch. 

[Wyatt]

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.

I love the way you say "even" as if secular historians don't have an agenda and a reason to discredit the Catholic Church. 

[deusveritasest]

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.

Yeah, Saint Peter totally had the last word on the circumcision matter. 

[deusveritasest]

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

If that were the case then we would not have a Gentillic church today.

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.

The jurisdiction of certain bishops extended far beyond simply their city quite quickly, certainly within the early history of the "Catholic Church". First the city bishops gained authority over the country bishops, then the metropolitan bishops gained authority over the city bishops, and then the diocesan bishops gained authority over the metropolitan bishops; the completion of this process was already indicated in a canon of the First Council of Constantinople in 381.

[deusveritasest]

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.

Don't forget Milan!

[deusveritasest]

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.

This conversation is pointless if all you're going to do is state the bare Romanist teaching.

[deusveritasest]

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?

The Church at that time was not yet even organized into Patriarchates. There were really about a dozen different churches called Exarchates.

[deusveritasest]

In 431, Which other Patriarchates existed already?

Rome, Antioch, Jerusalem and Alexandria.

Jerusalem was still subject to Caesarea Palestina at that point (which itself was subject to Antioch).

[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.

This conversation is pointless if all you're going to do is state the bare Romanist teaching.

Well said, and I am glad to see that for the most part we Orthodox are going beyond the barest of Orthodox understanding of this complicated and long-festering issue in this thread. Fortunately, many modern theologians and scholars of the western church are attempting to cut through the gloss of history to better understand the role and true function of the first millenium's 'primus inter pares'.