May i ask a question?

[rko]

I am a 'lapsed" Catholic considering Orthodoxy. so far, my exposure has been to eastern Orthodoxy (Antichian and Greek) because there are no oriental churches within 100 miles of me.

Unfortunately, because of my 50 years in the RCC, I am studying orthodoxy in a very Aristoliam=n way. And so my question relates to the claim of supremacy or primacy by the early popes.

before the Chalcedonian question came about in 451AD, what was the level of authority given the pope by the non-chalc churches? did they see the pope as the RCC would have us see him? Or is it as i have learned from the EO Churches, a 'primacy of honor?"

This is an important question to me, as the Chalcedonian issue was so very early in christianity.

[Michał Kalina]

What Pope? There were two of them.

[Jonathan]

Definitely primacy of honour. Keep in mind that before the schism over Chalcedon, there was no division, so rather than asking in terms of EO/OO, it might make more sense to ask in terms of how did Alexandria, Jerusalem, Antioch, later Constantinople, and other smaller bishoprics relate to Rome.

If you read Eusebius' Church History, the picture you see is Rome repeatedly trying to exercise greater authority, and soundly being shot down or ignored by everyone else. Even the bishop of Gaul, hardly a prominent see, rebuked Rome for excommunicating the bishops of Asia Minor for following their traditional Pascal practice. Alexandria was more often an arbitrator in theological disputes than Rome in the early Church.

Today, the Patriarchs of Alexandria, Ethiopia, India, Armenia, Syria, all cooperate as equals, as brothers. No one has felt the need to try to "replace" Rome as the bully of the Communion.

[Jonathan]

What Pope? There were two of them.

Actually before 451 (the time frame the OP asked about), there was only one Pope, the Pope of Alexandria. The Bishop of Rome didn't assume that title until several centuries later. However, I assume the OP was referring to the Bishop of Rome, if wrong please correct me.

[The least of all]

It seems that the Patriarchs of Alexandria always seemed to see the Pope of Rome in the same capacity as the Orthodox have always seen him. A primacy of honour, a big brother to turn to when needed. The authority of the Pope of Rome rests in his diocese and he can not extend it unequivocally beyond its borders without the approval of other bishops.

In a letter to Pope St. Dioscorus of Alexandria, Pope Leo of Rome seemed to assert that Alexandria should follow the lead of Rome and should change their custom in Alexandria to follow the Roman ones;

http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf212.ii.iv.ix.html

It seems that St. Dioscorus entirely ignored this letter, seeing it to hold no claim over him as the Archbishop of Alexandria or over his diocese.

[Michał Kalina]

What Pope? There were two of them.

Actually before 451 (the time frame the OP asked about), there was only one Pope, the Pope of Alexandria. The Bishop of Rome didn't assume that title until several centuries later. However, I assume the OP was referring to the Bishop of Rome, if wrong please correct me.

It looks like you are right.

[The least of all]

LOL Jonathan about the modern 'bully patriarchate" comment

[rko]

BAsed on what I'm finding, I'm not surprised. I am in the middle of a fairly significant paradigm shift!

Thanks for responding!

[Cyrillic]

I have been reading your other thread on another forum about the OO and the papacy, and it seems you found your way here. Welcome 

[Jonathan]

BAsed on what I'm finding, I'm not surprised. I am in the middle of a fairly significant paradigm shift!

Thanks for responding!

I went through it too Many people here did. If there's anything you need to talk through, feel free to pm or post again.

[rko]

Thanks again.
Jonathon, I just started reading Eusibius, based on your earlier comment.

[NicholasMyra]

Thanks again.
Jonathon, I just started reading Eusibius, based on your earlier comment.

Take him with a grain of salt. At his time "history" was as much a storytelling/propaganda endeavor as an attempt to convey the past.

[Father Peter]

Is that true? I am not sure that it is.

[NicholasMyra]

Is that true? I am not sure that it is.

I think Eusebius embellished a lot, such as the amount of martyrs in a given city, or the radiance of St. Constantine. Eusebius wasn't lying or being malicious, that's just the style of an ancient or classical history.

[Father Peter]

i am not disagreeing with you. But if you read his Life of Constantine, for instance, he is very careful to provide the text of letters from Constantine, for instance, providing a very close approximation, within his wider purpose, of accurate historical reporting.

[NicholasMyra]

if you read his Life of Constantine, for instance, he is very careful to provide the text of letters from Constantine

Yes, and they have proved an invaluable resource.

[Tags:]

OrthodoxChristianity.net > Moderated Forums > Oriental Orthodox Discussion (Moderator: Salpy) > Topic: May i ask a question?