The See At Constantinople

Status
Not open for further replies.

Perceivence

Defend.
Sep 7, 2003
1,012
96
London, UK
Visit site
✟9,154.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
I've been trying to educate myself on the RC-EO schism recently. So far, I've read a few comprehensive RC views on the issue. I have not been able to find any EO ones as comprehensive as those RC ones or that deal with the main question of this topic.

That question is How and why did the Patriarchate at Constantinople gain primacy above the other Eastern Sees?

(I'd also appreciate any Eastern Orthodox sites that outline the schism and other Orthodox doctrine and such.)

Thank You.
 

The Virginian

Senior Member
Sep 15, 2004
645
93
✟16,393.00
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Perceivence said:
I've been trying to educate myself on the RC-EO schism recently. So far, I've read a few comprehensive RC views on the issue. I have not been able to find any EO ones as comprehensive as those RC ones or that deal with the main question of this topic.

That question is How and why did the Patriarchate at Constantinople gain primacy above the other Eastern Sees?

(I'd also appreciate any Eastern Orthodox sites that outline the schism and other Orthodox doctrine and such.)

Thank You.
Are you talking about the Ecumenical Patriarchate, and Patriarch Bartholomew! At this point he has a place of honor as "First among Equals", but cannot claim any autority over the other Sees. As far as the USA is concerned he does have authority to appoint the Greek Metropolitian, as he did the current one , MERTROPOLITIAN DEMETRIOS. The historical stance since the origination of the "Five Ancient Sees", has always been that which also figures into the schism with Rome, i.e., no partiarch has jurisdiction over the entire Church.
There were, and probably is to this date, instances where a particular See may prove to be of political and cultural importance. However, this does not give it unilateral authority. I would hazard the guess; that, politics and pride have more to do with such a claim than anything else!:groupray:


the sinful and unworthy servant
 
Upvote 0

ufonium2

Seriously, stop killing kids.
Nov 2, 2003
2,953
389
Visit site
✟12,536.00
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
To echo and add to what Jeff said, it was a deference to the secular importance of the city, just like Rome was. I know that Rome claims primacy (well, they claim supremacy, but that's a whole nother can of worms) based on Peter being the "rock," but if that were the case, Peter was Bishop of Antioch before he was Bishop of Rome, so why doesn't Antioch have primacy?

Also, know that we're really serious about the EP (Patriarch of Constantinople) being the first among equals. He has no authority over any other bishop's jurisdiction, much less Orthodoxy as a whole. It's a primacy of honor.
 
Upvote 0

Xpycoctomos

Well-Known Member
Aug 15, 2004
10,133
679
45
Midwest
✟13,419.00
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Married
Everything posted here is good stuff and well explained. It's very true that Rome was considered first among equals mostly becuase it was the center of the world at that time. His eminence, Bishop Ware, also points out that, in the first centuries, Rome was the bishopric that stood up most faithfully against heresies and so the honor give to Her was more deserved (earned). While I am very sympathetic towards my Western brethern and would probably be labeled a flaming liberal by most here in regards to my views on the RCC and what really divides us, I cannot say in all honesty and good conscience that this virtue (of standing up against heresies) is true anymore although I would stop short of calling them "heretics" (I prefer heterodox since I usually attribute "heretic" to the individual who is knowingly ignoring the teachings of the Church). But, I completely digressed. So, while from an Eastern point of view this is no longer true of Rome (and hasn't been even before the official schism), this was also indeed another reason (even if secondary) for attributing such a title (Primus inter pares- First among Equals) to the Roman See. It is also true that another MAJOR reason she was given such honor (and is missed to this day by the Orthodox Church) is that this is the See where Sts Peter and Paul were both martyred. That's a big deal. We don't see Rome as "Peter's" but rather as "Peter and Paul's" (if we're going to necessarily attribute it to any apostles).

Well, I hope this gave a little bit of insight into the Eastern point of view, but really take a look at the suggested articles and books above. Great stuff!

John
 
Upvote 0

prodromos

Senior Veteran
Site Supporter
Nov 28, 2003
21,561
12,108
58
Sydney, Straya
✟1,178,632.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Married
tizziale said:
I'm reading a book titled The Papacy by a former Roman Catholic priest who lived in the 19th century. He converted to Orthodoxy, and the book was translated by the Anglicans (whew).

Here it is: http://www.odox.net/Orthodox-Practice.htm
You can also find this book with the chapters split up on different web pages at this site:
http://www.geocities.com/trvalentine/orthodox/essays.html
Scroll down to Books
I recommend reading Mr Valentine's comments on the book before you start reading the book itself.
This is a polemical work. There are many times where Guettée engages in snide digs, which in this writer's opinion, detract from the overall work. It would be better, in this writer's opinion, to demonstrate that the papal claims consistently contradict historical facts and allow the reader to conclude that the supporters of papal pretensions are dishonest than to baldly state it.

The reader should bear in mind that this book was written in the mid-nineteenth century. Some of Guettée's facts have been slightly altered by modern scholarship, although not substantially. Some have expressed resentment that, in the introduction, Guettée writes "The Pope is a king . . .". Although the statement may seem harsh to contemporary ears, it is much more understandable if the readers considers that in the mid-nineteenth century, the pope of Old Rome was the sovereign of the Papal States, the Vatican functioned as a palace, and standard protocol required people to kowtow to the pope (and even kiss his feet).

The Editor's comments from the published edition have been retained, despite misgivings. These comments demonstrate a pronounced Protestant bias. It seems obvious to this writer that Editor wanted Guettée's work only for its evidence against the Latin papacy, being unwilling and/or unable to accept all the historical facts. This should not be too surprising since historical facts, although they disprove the claims of the papacy, are even less kind to Protestantism. Taking on Protestantism with history is like "shooting fish in a barrel". A very small barrel. With very large fish. And with a large piece of artillery. For a Protestant to use history against the papacy is ironic and requires a great deal of selectivity. This selectivity seems to the present writer as fundamentally dishonest. Nevertheless, the Editor's comments have been retained so as to present the book as it was originally published.

Those who accept the papal claims will regard Guettée's book as "anti-Catholic". It is not. Those who accept papal claims seem to reflexively label anything which challenges the view with which they have been indoctrinated as "anti-Catholic". This is unfortunate because it prevents them from seeing the truth. It is no kindness to not speak the truth as Guettée has done.

To this writer's knowledge, no defender of the papacy has composed a rebuttal to Guettée's work. Denunciations, yes. Rebuttals, no. That alone speaks volumes.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

ExOrienteLux

The thread killer
Jul 30, 2004
1,568
112
38
✟9,795.00
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Democrat
I don't really have much to add, except welcome to TAW, Perceivance!

And I find this quote to be rather funny:

T.R. Valentine said:
Taking on Protestantism with history is like shooting fish in a barrel. A very small barrel. With very large fish. And with a large piece of artillery. For a Protestant to use history against the papacy is ironic and requires a great deal of selectivity.
And now, back to the regularly scheduled discussion.

+IC XC NIKA+
Josh.
 
Upvote 0

Perceivence

Defend.
Sep 7, 2003
1,012
96
London, UK
Visit site
✟9,154.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Thank you ALL for the comments, welcome, and book recommendatinons! :)

I'll check those out, but right now I have a few other questions on Orthodoxy.

1. Why don't you agree with the Catholic doctrine of the Immaculate Conception of Mary? I heard that it's because of a different view of Original Sin. If that's true, then what is that view and how does it differ from the Catholics'?

2. Do you believe in Purgatory, Infant Baptism, Intercession of the Saints, the Perpetual Virginity of Mary or the Assumption of Mary?

3. What is your view (as on Orthodox) and/or the Orthodox Church's view on the Charismatic Movement? How has that Movement affected Orthodoxy?

Thanks in advance!

Peace in Christ
 
Upvote 0

ufonium2

Seriously, stop killing kids.
Nov 2, 2003
2,953
389
Visit site
✟12,536.00
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Perceivence said:
3. What is your view (as on Orthodox) and/or the Orthodox Church's view on the Charismatic Movement? How has that Movement affected Orthodoxy?
Fr. Seraphim Rose dealt extensively with the Charismatic movement in his book "Orthodoxy and the Religion of the Future." There are also chapters about other Christian groups, and some on Eastern religions (other than Christianity, which is of course an Eastern religion) but the charismatic chapter is especially good.

My personal opinion is that the charismatic movement is a dangerous thing. I do believe that Spiritual Gifts are still manifested when need be, but I don't believe that they happen to whole congregations of people at a regular time each week. For instance, there are well-documented cases of Orthodox monks being able to speak languages they didn't know in order to converse with foreigners who sought their spiritual guidance. That is "speaking in tongues" in the Biblical sense, the way the Apostles did it, for the same reason that the Apostles did it. Fifty or a hundred people all "speaking in tongues" at once every Sunday night from 7-8pm, with nobody listening and nobody understanding, is pointless. Requiring people to manifest that as a sign of their faith is un-Biblical. Opening yourself up to that realm for the purpose of attaining the gift of tongues is exceedingly dangerous, since demons can and do take on the appearance of holiness.

Bottom line: I believe most of what goes on in the charismatic movement is the result of peer pressure. A good part of the manifestations that are legitimately the work of spirits is the work of demons and not the Holy Spirit. Only a very few of the "Spiritual Gifts" manifested in the charismatic movement are actually Spiritual Gifts from God as recorded in the New Testament. The good that comes from these few does not outweigh the prelest that the movement has brought into the world.

Hey, you asked for my opinion! ;)
 
Upvote 0

gzt

The age of the Earth is 4.54 ± 0.07 billion years
Jul 14, 2004
10,598
1,868
Abolish ICE
Visit site
✟117,283.00
Country
United States
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Private
1. I'm not qualified to comment on Catholic belief.
2. No, yes, yes, yes, yes, in accordance with the ancient belief of the Church.
3. If you want to see real charismatics, look no further than Mount Athos. Look to St. Seraphim of Sarov's conversation with Motovilov. Most so-called Charismaticism I've run into seems well-intentioned but shallow at best, though I'm certain there may be some real good to the movement. I don't imagine it's made much of an impact on Orthodoxy because of the movement's completely American nature and because Orthodoxy has a responsible mystical theology.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Eusebios
Upvote 0

Marjorie

Senior Veteran
Sep 5, 2004
2,873
176
36
✟11,440.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Single
Perceivence said:
Thank you ALL for the comments, welcome, and book recommendatinons! :)

I'll check those out, but right now I have a few other questions on Orthodoxy.

1. Why don't you agree with the Catholic doctrine of the Immaculate Conception of Mary? I heard that it's because of a different view of Original Sin. If that's true, then what is that view and how does it differ from the Catholics'?
Orthodox opinions probably differ a lot from person to person on this. But what you're generally referring to is the fact that Orthodox theology generally sees original sin as something that contaminated the world, affected all things, infected all things, brought death into the world, and through death, sin. The idea of original sin as a legal status passed on from generation to generation is something that became popular in the West with Blessed Augustine.

2. Do you believe in Purgatory, Infant Baptism, Intercession of the Saints, the Perpetual Virginity of Mary or the Assumption of Mary?
Purgatory-- no, and yes. We don't believe in the Catholic version of Purgatory. However many Orthodox have believed in a sort of intermediary point between the particular judgment and the Final Judgment in which we grow in theosis. Beyond this, however, there is very little similarity between the Orthodox belief(s) and the Catholic one on the matter.

Intercession of the saints-- yes. All in Christ are alive in Christ, and just as I can intercede for you, so can those asleep in Christ.

Infant baptism-- yes.

Perpetual Virginity of Mary-- yes.

Assumption of Mary-- we celebrate the Dormition ("falling-asleep"), or death of Mary. It is not a required belief to believe that she was assumed into heaven, but it is nevertheless a popular belief among many Orthodox Christians. Mary is the icon of the Church, as the Theotokos-- the Birth-giver of God through her assent to God, as Christ is to be formed in us (Galatians 4:19) through our faith. She represents all of Israel (in fact it can be said that God created a chosen people in order to bring about a mother for the messiah) and all of the True Israel, the Church. Therefore her presence in heaven physically would represent our future resurrection in Christ.

3. What is your view (as on Orthodox) and/or the Orthodox Church's view on the Charismatic Movement? How has that Movement affected Orthodoxy?
1. This article may help-- http://www.philthompson.net/pages/library/wareonhs.html

2. It has not affected Orthodoxy because a) the movement is generally a movement in the West in reaction to the general "lesser place" given to the Holy Spirit in the West and b) Orthodoxy in its doctrine is not affected by any outside force but is the Ark of Salvation in the world, the voice of the Holy Spirit.

Hope this helps!

In IC XC,
Marjorie
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
Jun 24, 2003
3,870
238
71
The Dalles, OR
✟5,260.00
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
If you want to visit a charismatic church, visit an Orthodox Parish. Miracles are part of life for Orthodox, and we do not make a big show of them. If you one of the most powerful witnesses to the Holy Spirit read the Discourses of St Symeon the New Theologian. The vision of the Divine Light An article on St Symeon the New Theologian.
Jeff the Finn
 
Upvote 0
Status
Not open for further replies.