Three apostolic sees

[Xeno.of.athens]

PS: with humour, I see all sorts of likes, and agrees, and friendly, etcetera assessment for posts in this thread but none of you have shown any appreciation for my efforts, and they do take a lot of time to write and think through, you ought to be nicer to me.

PPS: thumbs up to @tampasteve for making me smile. and to @prodromos for being a good sport.

 

[prodromos]

It is much more official than my opinion. But I use the quote marks to indicate that the phase is not exactly accurate.

"not exactly accurate" is a gross understatement. The authors have done their level best to demonize St Photius.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

"not exactly accurate" is a gross understatement. The authors have done their level best to demonize St Photius.

I am not so sure about that, and this is my opinion. They wrote in their time with the evidence that they had and the culture that they were in. Besides there is really rather a lot of evidence about Photius stirring anti-Catholic feeling in his speeches and writings. So, I think that their assessment may be stained by some exaggerated language but the overall evidence with which they contended justified most of what they wrote. Besides I think Photius was anti-Catholic in the sense of being implacably opposed to Rome on a number of matters and he really did ferment ill feeling in the east towards Catholics from the west. As evidence I offer this:

Dogmatic and polemical works.---Many of these bear on his accusations against the Latins and so form the beginning of the long series of anti-Catholic controversy produced by Orthodox theologians. The most important is "Concerning the Theology about the Holy Ghost" ( Peri tes tou hagiou pneumatos mystagonias , P. G., CII, 264-541), a defence of the Procession from God the Father alone, based chiefly on John, xv, 26. An epitome of the same work, made by a later author and contained in Euthymius Zigabenus's "Panoplia", XIII, became the favourite weapon of Orthodox controversialists for many centuries. The treatise "Against Those who say that Rome is the First See", also a very popular Orthodox weapon, is only the last part or supplement of the "Collections", often written out separately. The "Dissertation Concerning the Reappearance of the Manichæans" ( Diegesis peri tes manichaion anablasteseos , P. G., CII, 9-264), in four books, is a history and refutation of the Paulicians. Much of the "Amphilochia" belongs to this heading. The little work "Against the Franks and other Latins" (Hergenröther, "Monumenta", 62-71), attributed to Photius, is not authentic. It was written after Cærularius (Hergenröther, "Photius", III, 172-224). [Photius of Constantinople - Encyclopedia Volume - Catholic Encyclopedia - Catholic Online]​

 

[Fervent]

My premise is that I am a Catholic and it is pointless to pretend otherwise but at the same time I am following the Lord Jesus the best I can, what else can I do? I have looked into Protestantism of the Presbyterian and Baptist kinds, I have looked into the AoG and Charismatic movement, I have look into Anglicanism, now I encounter Lutherans and a host of others online. I read their posts, attended some churches, and now that I am older and retired I remain Catholic because it seems true to me and it is where I find the Holy Spirit and the Son and the Father present and in me.

CC to @dzheremi.

The issue is, your tribalism makes clear that any ecumenical sentiments are done with at least some dingenuousness. And it boils down to the fact that you've effectively chosen a single episcopate to be the entirety of the church. You may equivocate, as the Catholic church does, and offer some concilitory words but by claiming that the Roman Catholic Church is the sole, true, church that is meant in "One Lord, one faith, one baptism" is to deny the authenticity of every other church. The Roman Catholic Church's ecclesiology effectively divides the body of Christ and then attempts to accuse those who rightfully disagree with the usurping of such authority of being the ones who are being divisive.

 

[prodromos]

I am not so sure about that, and this is my opinion. They wrote in their time with the evidence that they had and the culture that they were in. Besides there is really rather a lot of evidence about Photius stirring anti-Catholic feeling in his speeches and writings. So, I think that their assessment may be stained by some exaggerated language but the overall evidence with which they contended justified most of what they wrote. Besides I think Photius was anti-Catholic in the sense of being implacably opposed to Rome on a number of matters and he really did ferment ill feeling in the east towards Catholics from the west. As evidence I offer this:

Dogmatic and polemical works.---Many of these bear on his accusations against the Latins and so form the beginning of the long series of anti-Catholic controversy produced by Orthodox theologians. The most important is "Concerning the Theology about the Holy Ghost" ( Peri tes tou hagiou pneumatos mystagonias , P. G., CII, 264-541), a defence of the Procession from God the Father alone, based chiefly on John, xv, 26. An epitome of the same work, made by a later author and contained in Euthymius Zigabenus's "Panoplia", XIII, became the favourite weapon of Orthodox controversialists for many centuries. The treatise "Against Those who say that Rome is the First See", also a very popular Orthodox weapon, is only the last part or supplement of the "Collections", often written out separately. The "Dissertation Concerning the Reappearance of the Manichæans" ( Diegesis peri tes manichaion anablasteseos , P. G., CII, 9-264), in four books, is a history and refutation of the Paulicians. Much of the "Amphilochia" belongs to this heading. The little work "Against the Franks and other Latins" (Hergenröther, "Monumenta", 62-71), attributed to Photius, is not authentic. It was written after Cærularius (Hergenröther, "Photius", III, 172-224). [Photius of Constantinople - Encyclopedia Volume - Catholic Encyclopedia - Catholic Online]​

Photius' polemics were in response to the completely uncanonical replacement of Eastern Bishops in Bulgaria with Latin bishops and their non-Orthodox teaching.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

The issue is, your tribalism makes clear that any ecumenical sentiments are done with at least some dingenuousness

That's insulting, right? You intend it that way?

And it boils down to the fact that you've effectively chosen a single episcopate to be the entirety of the church.

I haven't chosen that. I am inclined to think that until around 1970 "official Catholic lay opinion" was that way.

You may equivocate, as the Catholic church does, and offer some concilitory words but by claiming that the Roman Catholic Church is the sole, true, church that is meant in "One Lord, one faith, one baptism" is to deny the authenticity of every other church. The Roman Catholic Church's ecclesiology effectively divides the body of Christ and then attempts to accuse those who rightfully disagree with the usurping of such authority of being the ones who are being divisive.

You know, why wouldn't a Church's officials be ardent supporters of its dogmatic teaching?

You "tag" yourself as "Christian" and that means what? Why do that? What is the motive? I do not think of it in a negative way, but it is not informative in the same way that choosing "Catholic" or "Oriental Orthodox" or "Anglican" would be. So, here I am, a Catholic who labels his avatar as Catholic and presents Catholic ideas and offers both "official opinion" and my own opinions occasionally, and what do I get?

If I were to tag my avatar "Christian" and present only my personal opinions what would be the point. I'd be saying things like, "Love one another because that is why we are here, to be Christ's people and to try to understand one another" and I can write about what I believe saying "I pray to the Lord our God and pray for you all, it delights my heart to do so and to share with you all." because these are the things that are my personal opinions and my personal thoughts. They are warm and fuzzy. But are they very informative when someone asks what Catholics teach about this or that, or when an inaccurate statement is made by another poster about Catholic people, their beliefs, their practises, and their Church?

The majority of my posts are reactions to things that other posters on CF say about Catholicism. So, the majority of my posts are in general Theology and deal with fairly contentious matters. Do not be deceived, participating in contentious General Theology does not make me contentious or hard hearted or tribal or anything else that posts may suggest about me. It only makes my posts a little contentious in a contentious subforum. And I am improving, I think, taking a little more time to proofread what I write, spending some extra time sourcing claims, relaxing a little. But there is a whole story in real life behind my posts, and I haven't revealed most of it here. What I have revealed is that I am retired, I spend rather a lot of time typing responses on CF, and there are reasons for that. So how about being a little understanding towards me as I am trying to be towards others. Sound fair?

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

Photius' polemics were in response to the completely uncanonical replacement of Eastern Bishops in Bulgaria with Latin bishops and their non-Orthodox teaching.

well, that is one point of view. Another point of view exists that is along the lines of the sources in the site I last linked to. My point of view is that Photius is long gone, and his issues are long gone too, and it is about time that Christians stopped letting the democracy of the dead rig the election of our current relationships as churches.

 

[Fervent]

That's insulting, right? You intend it that way?

My intent is not to insult, but if you are stung by my description then I am not bothered by that fact.

I haven't chosen that. I am inclined to think that until around 1970 "official Catholic lay opinion" was that way.

Certainly, but simply because it was Roman Catholic lay opinion doesn't mean it is an accurate reflection of Christian history nor of ontological reality.

You know, why wouldn't a Church's officials be ardent supporters of its dogmatic teaching?

The issue is, they aren't ardent enough. If the RCC held out that every Christian outside of its precincts is not actually a member of the body of Christ, then that would be a different story. As it stands, the attempt for Rome to lord it over all other Christian authorities is a blatant act of disregard for the teachings of Christ.

You "tag" yourself as "Christian" and that means what? Why do that? What is the motive? I do not think of it in a negative way, but it is not informative in the same way that choosing "Catholic" or "Oriental Orthodox" or "Anglican" would be. So, here I am, a Catholic who labels his avatar as Catholic and presents Catholic ideas and offers both "official opinion" and my own opinions occasionally, and what do I get?

It means I belong to Christ, not a denomination. I view myself as ecumenical, that there are Christians and non-Christians in every denomination that exists. That the church is a mystery that exists within institutions, rather than the institutions themselves.

If I were to tag my avatar "Christian" and present only my personal opinions what would be the point. I'd be saying things like, "Love one another because that is why we are here, to be Christ's people and to try to understand one another" and I can write about what I believe saying "I pray to the Lord our God and pray for you all, it delights my heart to do so and to share with you all." because these are the things that are my personal opinions and my personal thoughts. They are warm and fuzzy. But are they very informative when someone asks what Catholics teach about this or that, or when an inaccurate statement is made by another poster about Catholic people, their beliefs, their practises, and their Church?

It seems that such would force you to humble yourself and recognize that we are all just lost sheep trying to follow whatever light we are shown.

The majority of my posts are reactions to things that other posters on CF say about Catholicism. So, the majority of my posts are in general Theology and deal with fairly contentious matters. Do not be deceived, participating in contentious General Theology does not make me contentious or hard hearted or tribal or anything else that posts may suggest about me. It only makes my posts a little contentious in a contentious subforum. And I am improving, I think, taking a little more time to proofread what I write, spending some extra time sourcing claims, relaxing a little. But there is a whole story in real life behind my posts, and I haven't revealed most of it here. What I have revealed is that I am retired, I spend rather a lot of time typing responses on CF, and there are reasons for that. So how about being a little understanding towards me as I am trying to be towards others. Sound fair?

Attempting to defend your tribe against those tribes that don't accept their claims makes you tribal. If we are not your Christian brothers and sisters, then just say so. If you recognize that brothers and sisters in Christ exist outside of your denomination, then consider what that says about the special claims your denomination makes about being the body of Christ.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

Attempting to defend your tribe against those tribes that don't accept their claims makes you tribal.

well, writing like that makes your post tribal and contentious. Is what you want it to be? Are my posts "worse"? What is behind this critique?

 

[Fervent]

well, writing like that makes your post tribal and contentious. Is what you want it to be? Are my posts "worse"? What is behind this critique?

Tu quo quo?

I don't defend a particular tribe of Christianity, which seems to have been something you complained about in the post I responded to. So am I being tribal, or is it a fault that I simply identify myself as "Christian"?

 

[tampasteve]

FWIW, I am not sure that "tribalism" is necessarily a bad thing in this subject, I envy people like @Xeno.of.athens that have such a steadfast and staunch belief. I am not currently in that place, hence my choice of the "Christian" faith label here. My beliefs don't fit squarely into any one denomination, but they do lean a certain way and I have been through enough denominations to know where my beliefs don't align.

I find that in these discussions it helps for us to keep an open mind, to be OK with reading about different perspectives and opinions. We probably are not going to change our view of whatever the subject is (does anyone really change their mind based off of internet debates??), but at least we can come away with a better idea of why someone else believes what they do.

 

[Fervent]

FWIW, I am not sure that "tribalism" is necessarily a bad thing in this subject, I envy people like @Xeno.of.athens that have such a steadfast and staunch belief. I am not currently in that place, hence my choice of the "Christian" faith label here. My beliefs don't fit squarely into any one denomination, but they do lean a certain way and I have been through enough denominations to know where my beliefs don't align.

I find that in these discussions it helps for us to keep an open mind, to be OK with reading about different perspectives and opinions. We probably are not going to change our view of whatever the subject is (does anyone really change their mind based off of internet debates??), but at least we can come away with a better idea of why someone else believes what they do.

I know I may come across as oppositional at times, but I don't tend to view my participation in these forums with the intent of "debate." Debate is done with the intention of "winning" an argument, but the way I see it not having such arguments is just as unhealthy as becoming too deeply entrenched in them. So tribalism can be a problem, not because someone finds comfort in having a well-defined denominal view of the faith, but because tribalism divides the body of Christ. When its a battle between "us" and "them" for who are the real Christians, and who are just practicing an ersatz form of Christianity without having the authentic substance its a problem. Which is why I find the RCC's ecclesiology particularly an issue, because Rome has set itself against the rest of the church.

 

[The Liturgist]

The first in honour is Rome, and Antioch in Syria as well as Alexandria are next. All three are Petrine sees, Saint Peter the apostle was bishop of Rome and he was also bishop of Antioch at a different time, and Alexandria, how is it Petrine? It was founded by Saint Peter's disciple and helper, Mark, who was bishop there.

The Nicene council includes a canon about the three sees.

Canon 6 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 here is a map of the five sees of the Pentarchy

Rome, Antioch in Syria, and Jerusalem are mentioned in the scriptures of the New Testament, but Alexandria is not, nor is Byzantium (later known as Constantinople).

This is interesting from a theological perspective.

Actually, Alexandria is generally regarded as being ahead of Antioch in precedence, probably because it was slightly larger and more important in antiquity, and also was the home of St. Athanasius, who gave us our 27-book New Testament in addition to defending the doctrine of the Incarnation against Arius.

 

[The Liturgist]

So "honor" means that he has jurisdiction outside of his own see? Because the same prerogatives that are said to be customary to Rome are likewise said to be recognized as customary to Alexandria and Antioch within their own spheres going back as far as Nicaea (really before that, as the wording of the canon is "Let the ancient customs in Egypt, Libya and Pentapolis prevail", meaning that they were already in place since long before the council itself), yet neither Alexandria nor Antioch have ever claimed anything like the jurisdictional reach of the Roman Pope. The same is true, as far as I can tell without having a claimant to Constantinople proper in exactly the same sense that the Greeks do (the Armenian Patriarchate of Constantinople is a product of the Ottoman millet system of the 15th century, and at any rate its patriarch recognizes the authority of Catholicos of All Armenians at Holy Etchmiadzin, so there's no claim to any greater jurisdiction on his part anyway), of the Patriarch of Constantinople himself, recent kerfuffle over the status of Ukraine notwithstanding (since HAH is not asserting a right over Ukraine jurisdictionally -- only recognizing a body there that some of the other EO disagree with him about).

So I don't see how you can get from "privileges of honor" to "the Roman Pope has universal jurisdiction over all Christians" unless you already have such an ecclesiological vision in mind and are working backwards to find places to insert it into ancient contexts where it is absent.

Indeed, Canons 6 and 7 of the Council of Nicaea explicitly grant the same status to Alexandria, Antioch and Jerusalem as had been enjoyed by Rome.

What Rome had, according to Eastern Orthodoxy, but not Oriental Orthodoxy, is a primacy of honor, primus inter pares, as opposed to primus sine paribus.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

FWIW, I am not sure that "tribalism" is necessarily a bad thing in this subject, I envy people like @Xeno.of.athens that have such a steadfast and staunch belief. I am not currently in that place, hence my choice of the "Christian" faith label here. My beliefs don't fit squarely into any one denomination, but they do lean a certain way and I have been through enough denominations to know where my beliefs don't align.

I find that in these discussions it helps for us to keep an open mind, to be OK with reading about different perspectives and opinions. We probably are not going to change our view of whatever the subject is (does anyone really change their mind based off of internet debates??), but at least we can come away with a better idea of why someone else believes what they do.

I agree with a lot of your post, so I gave it an "agree", but I do not agree with all of it. That's a conundrum isn't it. To agree and disagree at the same time.

I believe that the Catholic church is, as her documents say, the fullest expression of the Church of Christ on earth.

 

[The Liturgist]

It doesn't really matter what you personally want or what I personally want, as it's not the place of laypeople to outpace our respective synods in their dealings with other communions (or since I guess you guys don't have synods, whatever body in the RC world is in charge of ecumenical relations). It matters what our respective churches affirm as being true. Your church affirms something that literally no other church has ever believed in the realm of ecclesiology.

Actually the RCC does have synods, but what they lack is a continual Holy Synod that has authority over the Pope, like the Holy Synod of the Coptic Orthodox Church, of which the Coptic Orthodox Pope of Alexandria (and his Greek Orthodox counterpart, for that matter) is merely the President. Primus inter pares, rather than an infallible primus sine paribus with universal jurisdiction.

Indeed the recent unpleasant experience the Coptic Orthodox Church had with the Extra Diocesan Areas which were directly under the Pope, but which were too vast and too dispersed for him to manage, and the attempt by some evangelical groups to take these over, by promoting books like The Purpose Driven Life and the use of praise and worship music, in places like Washington, DC, and Muqattam, near Cairo, and the dramatic improvement brought about by converting these into regular dioceses with strong bishops, demonstrates the problems with universal jurisdiction.

It is possible, as a silver lining to the very problematic papacy of Pope Francis, that our Roman Catholic friends will now begin to understand the danger of granting too much power to one single bishop, given the numerous problems Pope Francis has caused traditional Catholics to experience, and various scandals such as the Amazonian synod, Amoris Laetitia, the mistreatment of the Traditional Latin Mass communities, the repudiation of Summorum Pontificum, the extremely poor way in which Raymond Cardinal Burke, Gerhard Cardinal Muller, and other traditionalists have been treated, the failure to properly suppress the inappropriate pilgrimages to Medjugorje, and now the Synod on Synodality, which threatens to compromise Roman Catholic doctrine on homosexuality.

 

[tampasteve]

I agree with a lot of your post, so I gave it an "agree", but I do not agree with all of it. That's a conundrum isn't it. To agree and disagree at the same time.

It can be difficult, to know how to react or reach out - the reaction ratings are not perfect by any stretch. May I ask what part you disagree with? My assumption would be that one can change people's minds in online discussion. My experience is that it is very, very rare to do so. The only people that tend to change their minds in such discussions are usually the ones that initiate the conversation as they were already questioning whatever the subject is, not the ones coming out to defend a different point of view, as most threads are here.

I believe that the Catholic church is, as her documents say, the fullest expression of the Church of Christ on earth.

I know that you do I used to as well, but I have come to a different conclusion.

 

[prodromos]

Photius is long gone, and his issues are long gone too

Unfortunately many of the issues remain.

 

[Always in His Presence]

By now it must be clear that the history of three Apostolic Sees plays a significant role in the theology of the church (ecclesiology).

Theology - evidently to everyone other than Roman Catholics it the Study of the nature of God. As demonstrated in every NON Romana Catholic Seminary. I had five courses on theology going towards my Masters degree - and the church - Roman Catholic or otherwise was never part of the Nature of God.

Then there is Ecclesiology (which is found in this sub forum) which is

1. The branch of theology that is concerned with the nature, constitution, and functions of a church.
2. The study of ecclesiastical architecture and ornamentation.
3. The science of the church as an organized society, and of whatever relates to its outward expression or manifestation.

It is a branch (sub section) of theological studies.

Here is the issue - this is a General Theology Forum - your posts might be better received in the Traditional Theology forum. Most likely welcomed there. Just a suggestion.

Because to those of us who are not Roman Catholic they are not generally accepted as truth.

Not trying to be rude, just pointing out there are others here.

 

[Always in His Presence]

I know that you do I used to as well, but I have come to a different conclusion.

You are not alone in that - so have I.