DOCSLIB.ORG

The Status of the Patriarch of Constantinople 65 the Status of the Patriarchate of Constantinople Before 1198 Innocent III's E

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
The Status of the Patriarch of Constantinople 65 the Status of the Patriarchate of Constantinople Before 1198 Innocent III's E the status of the patriarch of constantinople 65 The Status of the Patriarchate of Constantinople before 1198 Innocent III’s explanations for patriarchy did not develop without con- text: he drew upon, developed and ignored centuries of discussion and practice. This paper will only indicate those elements in the development of the concept of patriarch that resonate in Innocent’s work, or those that are conspicuously absent.3 In particular, and not surprisingly, the Byzantine understanding of patriarchy and pentarchy does not gure strongly in Innocent’s account. Concerning terminology in this paper: “pentarchy” refers to the notion that, at the head of the Church are the patriarchs of Rome, Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch and Jerusalem, that is, the “idea” of pentarchy and not necessarily a full-blown theory. “Papal monar- chy” indicates the idea that the patriarch of Rome rules the other Churches, including the patriarchates. So understood, “pentarchy” and “papal monarchy” are not mutually exclusive, notwithstanding the literal meaning of the Greek terms. Indeed, much of Innocent’s effort consists in adapting the notion of pentarchy to the requirements of papal monarchy. Part of his solution lies in another terminological distinction. “Apostolic foundation” signi es the claim that an apostle founded a certain Church, whether directly or (in the case of Alex- andria) through a disciple. “Apostolicity” broadly indicates the claim that one or more Churches inherit their authority from that granted to the apostles. Innocent’s letters associate two distinct notions with apostolicity: the authority deriving from apostolic foundation and the authority as having the rank (dignitas) of apostle. While Innocent does not deny apostolicity in the rst sense to the patriarchs, his presenta- tion treats apostolicity as insuf\ cient, rooting patriarchal authority in an association (foundational or national) with the four Evangelists. Innocent reserves “apostolic rank” for the bishop of Rome by virtue of Petrine succession. 3 For the status of patriarchs and the notion of pentarchy, see V. Peri, “La Pentarchia: istituzione ecclesiale (IV–VII sec.) e teoria canonico-teologica,” Bisanzio, Roma e l’Italia nell’Alto Medioevo, Centro Italiano di studi sull’Alto Medioevo, vol. 1 (Spoleto, 1988), pp. 209–311; F. R. Gahbauer, Die Pentarchietheorie: ein Modell der Kirchenleitung von den Anfängen bis zur Gegenwart (Frankfurt, 1993). Peri’s discussion traces the practical operation and theoretical foundation of the ve patriarchs in the Greek and Latin worlds up to the end of the 12th century—in other words, right before the conquest of Constantinople and the period considered here. Gahbauer details globally the development of the idea and the theory of pentarchy. 66 william o. duba The notion of patriarch nds its origins in the Council of Nicaea (325), 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.4 In canon 7, the bishop of Jerusalem is assigned “the next place of honour.” By these determinations, the council established a level of jurisdiction above that of the archbishops, and based in the major population centres of the fourth century. The basis for this division appeared purely administrative: the large cities housed the centres of Roman government, and hence there should be the centres of the Church. The Western emperors did not remain long in Rome, however, and the importance of Constantinople grew rapidly. The bishops of Rome insisted that their authority and prominence came not from the rapidly declining importance of the city of Rome and the Western emperors, but on apostolic grounds, as the bishopric founded by Saint Peter. Meanwhile, New Rome, the centre of Eastern Christianity, made its own claim to administrative superiority. The Councils of Constanti- nople (381) and Chalcedon (451) included canons declaring that, since the imperial city of Constantinople was the New Rome, therefore the Church of Constantinople was to enjoy the rights and privileges of Rome and be second to it.5 The Roman popes rejected this canon, or rather its logic: their rank derived from apostolic foundation, not imperial sanction; Antioch, Alex- andria and Rome were all founded by Saint Peter, whence they derive their prestige and authority. Constantinople, a relative newcomer, could not leap past Antioch and Alexandria and enjoy second place for purely political reasons.6 Thus Pope Leo I sternly rebuffed what he saw as an infringement of the Nicene arrangement and refused to recognize the relevant canon of the Council of Chalcedon.7 4 F. Dvornik, The Idea of Apostolicity in Byzantium and the Legend of the Apostle Andrew (Cambridge, Mass., 1958), p. 8. 5 Ibid., pp. 45ff. 6 Peri, “La pentarchia,” pp. 240–243. 7 Leo Magnus, Letter 56, Acta Conciliorum Oecumenicorum, ed. E. Schwarz, t. 2, vol. 4 (Berlin, 1932), pp. 59–62..
Load more

Recommended publications
  • The Mesopotamian Origins of Byzantine Symbolism and Early Christian Iconography
    The Mesopotamian Origins of Byzantine Symbolism and Early Christian Iconography BY PAUL JOSEPH KRAUSE The eagle-god is a prominent iconographic symbol of ancient Mesopotamian religion which wielded tremendous power in the Mesopotamian imagination. The eagle-like gods of Mesopotamia eventually evolved into double-headed gods whose depictions became widespread in imperial and religious symbolism and iconography in Sumer and Akkad.1 These symbols now have common misapprehension as in the common public as being tied to Byzantine Empire of Late Antiquity and the Middle Ages. Rather, the Byzantines most likely inherited these Mesopotamian symbols and employed them in a similar manner as the Sumerians, Akkadians, and Hittites did. Likewise, the iconographic symbols of the moon god Nanna-Sin, who had the power to render the fate of humans,2 re-appeared in early Christian iconography depicting Christ in the Last Judgment. To best understand the iconographic practices and symbols used by the Byzantine Empire and emerging early Christian Church is to understand the foundational contexts by which these symbols first arose and the common religious practice of transferring and re-dedicating prior religious shrines to new deities. “Today the Byzantine eagle flutters proudly from the flags of nations from Albania to Montenegro, and though each state has its local version of the church, the heritage they all bear 1 C.N. Deedes, “The Double-Headed God,” Folklore 46, no. 3 (1935): 197-200. 2 See Samuel Noah Kramer, The Sumerians: Their History, Culture, and Character (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1971), 132; Georges Roux, Ancient Iraq (New York: Penguin Books, 1992), 88.
    [Show full text]
  • The Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople1
    STEFANOS ATHANASIOU The Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople1 A Religious Minority and a Global Player Introduction In the extended family of the Orthodox Church of the Byzantine rite, it is well known that the Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople takes honorary prece- dence over all other Orthodox autocephalous and autonomous churches.2 The story of its origins is well known. From a small church on the bay of the Bos- porus in the fishing village of Byzantium, to the centre of Eastern Christianity then through the transfer of the Roman imperial capital from Rome to Constantinople in the fourth century, and later its struggle for survival in the Ottoman Empire and Turkey. Nevertheless, a discussion of the development of the Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople is required to address the newly- kindled discussion between the 14 official Orthodox autocephalous churches on the role of the Ecumenical Patriarchate in today’s Orthodox world. A recalling of apposite historical events is relevant to this discussion. As Karl Löwith remarks, “[H]istorical consciousness can only begin with itself, although its intention is to visualise the thinking of other times and other people. History must continually be recalled, reconsidered and re-explored by each current living generation” (Löwith 2004: 12). This article should also be understood with this in mind. It is intended to awaken old memories for reconsideration and reinterpretation. Since the fall of Constantinople in 1453, the Ecumenical Patriarchate has taken up the role of custodian of the Byzantine tradition and culture and has lived out this tradition in its liturgical life in the region of old Byzantium (Eastern Roman Empire) and then of the Ottoman Empire and beyond.
    [Show full text]
  • The Great and Holy Synod and Why It Is Important for Orthodoxy
    The Great and Holy Synod And Why It is Important for Orthodoxy Background Information—The Ecumenical Councils In the year 325, the Emperor Constantine convened the First Ecumenical Council in Nicea. Why? To put order where there was chaos. In the first three centuries of Christianity, the church was underground and persecuted. When Christianity became the legal religion of the Roman Empire in the early 4th century, as the churches of the various cities began communicating openly, there was disagreement, even scandal and heresy, because there was not agreement on basic tenets of the faith. The First Ecumenical Council gathered all the bishops of all the churches together, and after deliberation and prayer, the result of this Council was the Nicene Creed (our confession of faith) and the Canon of Scripture. Between 325 and 787, seven such Councils were held, which have given us the backbone of our Orthodox theology and praxis. For a Council to be truly “Ecumenical”, it means that all the churches are involved. Following the Great Schism in 1054, and now the further fracturing of Christianity into thousands of denominations, it is not possible to have a Council that is truly “Ecumenical.” The Autocephalous Churches In the Ancient Church, there were five “Patriarchates”—Rome, Constantinople, Jerusalem, Antioch and Alexandria. It is not the Orthodox “tradition” to have one “pope” who speaks infallibly for the whole church. Rather, our system of governance is “collegial” or “synodical.” There were, in the beginning, five autocephalous, or self- governing churches, each being led by a “Patriarch.” The Patriarch of Constantinople is recognized as the “Ecumenical Patriarch.” While he does not have administrative authority over the “Autocephalous” Churches, when all the churches gather together, he sits as the “first among equals.” The Seven Ecumenical Councils, or Synods, were convened under the “synodical” system that was the “tradition” among the ancient Patriarchates.
    [Show full text]
  • The Fener Greek Patriarchate
    PERCEPTIONS JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS March - May 1998 Volume III - Number 1 THE FENER GREEK PATRIARCHATE A. SUAT BİLGE Dr. A. Suat Bilge is Professor of International Relations and Ambassador (retired). A controversy concerning the Fener Greek Patriarchate started in Turkey in 1997. It was stated that the Patriarchate could be used both for and against the interests of Turkey. On the one hand, it was claimed that the Patriarchate had intentions to establish itself as an ecumenical church and become a state like the Vatican; that the Orthodox world was trying to gain power in Turkey. On the other hand, some people stated that Turkey could benefit from the prestigious position of the Patriarchate and suggested an improvement in its status. First of all, I want to stress that the Patriarchate no longer enjoys the importance it once possessed in Greek-Turkish relations. Today, the Patriarchate is trying to become influential in Turkish-American relations. The Fener Greek Patriarchate is a historical religious institution. After the division of the Roman Empire, it became the church of the Byzantine Empire and obtained the status of an ecumenical church. With the collapse of the Byzantine Empire, the Patriarchate became the church of the Greeks living within the Ottoman Empire. Besides its functions as a religious institution, the Patriarchate was also granted the right to act as a ministry of Greek affairs by Mehmet II. He granted increased authority and privileges to the Patriarch. After the collapse of the Ottoman Empire, the Fener Greek Patriarchate became the church of the Greeks living within the Republic of Turkey.
    [Show full text]
  • Vernacular Religion in Diaspora: a Case Study of the Macedono-Bulgarian Group in Toronto
    Vernacular Religion in Diaspora: a Case Study of the Macedono-Bulgarian Group in Toronto By Mariana Dobreva-Mastagar A Thesis submitted to the Faculty of Trinity College and the Theological Department of the Toronto School of Theology In partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Theology awarded by the University of St. Michael's College © Copyright by Mariana Dobreva-Mastagar 2016 Vernacular Religion in Diaspora: a case Study of the Macedono-Bulgarian group in Toronto PhD 2016 Mariana Dobreva-Mastagar University of St.Michael’s College Abstract This study explores how the Macedono-Bulgarian and Bulgarian Eastern Orthodox churches in Toronto have attuned themselves to the immigrant community—specifically to post-1990 immigrants who, while unchurched and predominantly secular, have revived diaspora churches. This paradox raises questions about the ways that religious institutions operate in diaspora, distinct from their operations in the country of origin. This study proposes and develops the concept “institutional vernacularization” as an analytical category that facilitates assessment of how a religious institution relates to communal factors. I propose this as an alternative to secularization, which inadequately captures the diaspora dynamics. While continuing to adhere to their creeds and confessional symbols, diaspora churches shifted focus to communal agency and produced new collective and “popular” values. The community is not only a passive recipient of the spiritual gifts but is also a partner, who suggests new forms of interaction. In this sense, the diaspora church is engaged in vernacular discourse. The notion of institutional vernacularization is tested against the empirical results of field work in four Greater Toronto Area churches.
    [Show full text]
  • Durham E-Theses
    Durham E-Theses Methodios I patriarch of Constantinople: churchman, politician and confessor for the faith Bithos, George P. How to cite: Bithos, George P. (2001) Methodios I patriarch of Constantinople: churchman, politician and confessor for the faith, Durham theses, Durham University. Available at Durham E-Theses Online: http://etheses.dur.ac.uk/4239/ Use policy The full-text may be used and/or reproduced, and given to third parties in any format or medium, without prior permission or charge, for personal research or study, educational, or not-for-prot purposes provided that: • a full bibliographic reference is made to the original source • a link is made to the metadata record in Durham E-Theses • the full-text is not changed in any way The full-text must not be sold in any format or medium without the formal permission of the copyright holders. Please consult the full Durham E-Theses policy for further details. Academic Support Oce, Durham University, University Oce, Old Elvet, Durham DH1 3HP e-mail: [email protected] Tel: +44 0191 334 6107 http://etheses.dur.ac.uk 2 METHODIOS I PATRIARCH OF CONSTANTINOPLE Churchman, Politician and Confessor for the Faith Submitted by George P. Bithos BS DDS University of Durham Department of Theology A thesis submitted in fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy Orthodox Theology and Byzantine History 2001 The copyright of this thesis rests with the author. No quotation from it should be published in any form, including' Electronic and the Internet, without the author's prior written consent All information derived from this thesis must be acknowledged appropriately.
    [Show full text]
  • An Analysis of the Rhetoric of St. John Chrysostom with Special Reference to Selected Homilies on the Gospel According to St
    Loyola University Chicago Loyola eCommons Master's Theses Theses and Dissertations 1949 An Analysis of the Rhetoric of St. John Chrysostom with Special Reference to Selected Homilies on the Gospel According to St. Matthew Henry A. Toczydlowski Loyola University Chicago Follow this and additional works at: https://ecommons.luc.edu/luc_theses Part of the Classical Literature and Philology Commons Recommended Citation Toczydlowski, Henry A., "An Analysis of the Rhetoric of St. John Chrysostom with Special Reference to Selected Homilies on the Gospel According to St. Matthew" (1949). Master's Theses. 702. https://ecommons.luc.edu/luc_theses/702 This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by the Theses and Dissertations at Loyola eCommons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Master's Theses by an authorized administrator of Loyola eCommons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 License. Copyright © 1949 Henry A. Toczydlowski AN AN!LYSIS OF THE RHETORIC OF ST. JOHN CHRYSOSTOK WITH SPECIAL REFERENCE TO SELECTED HOMILIES ON mE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO ST. MATTHEW' by Henry A. Toozydlowski A Thesis Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the Requ1r~ents tor the Degree of Master of Arts in Loyola University June 1949 LIFE Henry A. Toczydlowski was born in Chicago, Illinois, October 20, Be was graduated trom Quigley Preparatory Saainary, Chicago, Illinois, June, 1935, and trom St. Mary ot the Lake Seminary, Mundelein, Ill1Doil, June, 1941, with the degree ot Master ot Arts, and ot Licentiate .t Sacred Theology. He waa ordained priest by Hia Eminenoe Saauel Cardinal &tritoh, Kay 3, 1941.
    [Show full text]
  • What Pope Francis Brings to Latin America by Daniel H
    CLALS WORKING PAPER SERIES | NO. 11 Religion and Democratic Contestation in Latin America What Pope Francis Brings to Latin America by Daniel H. Levine MARCH 2016 Pullquote Daniel H. Levine is professor emeritus of political science at the University of Michigan. His numerous publications include Religion, Politics, and Society in Latin America (Lynne Rienner, 2012), The Quality of Democracy in Latin America (coedited with José E. Molina, Lynne Rienner, 2011), Popular Voices in Latin American Catholicism (Princeton University Press, 1992), and Religion and Politics in Latin America: The Catholic Church in Venezuela and Colombia (Princeton University Press, 1981) TheCenter for Latin American and Latino Studies (CLALS) at American University, establishd in January 2010, is a campus-wide initiative advancing and disseminating state- of-the-art research. The Center’s faculty affiliates and partners are at the forefront of efforts to understand economic development, democratic governance, cultural diversity and change, peace and diplomacy, health, education and environmental well-being. CLALS generates high-qual- ity, timely analysis on these and other issues in partnership with researchers and practitioners from AU and beyond.. Cover photo credit: Catholic Church England and Wales / Flickr / Creative Commons 2 AU CENTER FOR LATIN AMERICAN & LATINO STUDIES | CHAPTER TITLE HERE Table of Contents I. Introduction ...............................................................................2 II. Setting the Scene ......................................................................4
    [Show full text]
  • Coptic Interpretations of the Fourth Ecumenical Council of Chalcedon
    1 1 Coptic interpretations of the Fourth Ecumenical Council Table of contents 1 The Chalcedon Crisis and Monophysitism 1.1 Introduction 1.2 Misunderstanding 1.3 Common Declaration 1.4 Monophysitism and the Council of Chalcedon 1.5 Two Different Traditions 1.6 Mia Physis 1.7 Mia Physis and Soteriology 1.8 Common Faith 1.9 Recent Efforts for Unity 1.10 Conclusion 2 Agreed Official Statements on Christology with the Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Churches 2.1 Eastern Orthodox Opponents of the Chambesy Union 3 Article by Fr. John S. Romanides 4 Chalcedon (An Analysis) 5 After Chalcedon - Orthodoxy in the 5th/6th Centuries 6 Pope Saint Dioscorus I of Alexandria (Coptic POV) 6.1 Related Saint: St. Timothy Aelurus of Alexandria 6.1.1 The Consecration of St. Timothy 6.1.2 The Murder of Proterius 6.1.3 The Exile of St. Timothy 6.1.4 The Return of St. Timothy from Exile 6.1.5 The Christology of St. Timothy of Alexandria 6.2 Related Event: The Martyrdom of Thirty Thousand Christians in Alexandria 6.3 Related Saint: St. Acacius, Patriarch of Constantinople 6.4 Pope Timothy III of Alexandria, Empress Theodora, and Patriarch Anthimus I of Constantinople 7 The Orthodox Christology of St. Severus of Antioch 8 The Humanity of Christ (What Oriental Orthodox Believe) 9 The One Will and the One Act, By HH Pope Shenouda III of Alexandria 10 Additional/Miscellaneous Notes 2 2 The Chalcedon Crisis and Monophysitism Monophysitism: Reconsidered Mia-Physis By Fr. Matthias F. Wahba St. Antonius Coptic Orthodox Church Hayward, California USA Introduction The Coptic Orthodox Church of Alexandria, in which I am a priest, is one of the Oriental Orthodox Churches.
    [Show full text]
  • Understanding the Eastern Christian Churches
    UNDERSTANDING THE EASTERN CHRISTIAN CHURCHES John M. Samaha SM Introducing the Question When you think of the Church, what image comes to mind? What image do you think the average Catholic forms when the Church is mentioned? Usually the image is that of a highly centralized, worldwide institution with headquarters in Rome. Or, of one's neighbourhood parish church. All in the West who share the heritage of European civilization tend to identify the Catholic Church with the Latin Rite (Roman Rite). Similarly, Eastern Orthodox and other Eastern Christians may think of the church of their own country of origin with its chief bishop and centre in the ancient capital city. Seldom do we think of the church as the Mystical Body of Christ, the Head united with his many, diverse groups of members comprising the People of God. Attitudes among Eastern Catholic and Orthodox peoples not only stem from their strong national feelings, but are also deeply rooted in their ecclesiastical history and religious thought. For while the one, holy, catholic, arid apostolic Church founded by Jesus Christ is unified, the Church certainly is not uniform in all aspects. Basic Understandings To understand clearly the situation it is important to establish basic understanding of some fundamental points. In the context of studying the Church, a rite refers to a local Church or specific tradition, not to ceremony or ritual. A particular Church means a style or way of living Christianity, a cultural mentality toward practicing the Gospel, a community of faith with a distinct, ancient tradition. 18 John M.
    [Show full text]
  • The Autocephalous Churches and the Institution of the 'Pentarchy'
    The Autocephalous Churches and the Institution of the ‘Pentarchy’ Metropolitan Hierotheos of Nafpaktos and St Vlassios Translation of the article in Greek Οἱ Αὐτοκέφαλες Ἐκκλησίες καί ὁ θεσμός τῆς «Πενταρχίας» Much has been written recently as a result of the Ukrainian issue, both positively and negatively, from whichever side one looks at it. In particular, there has been very harsh criticism of the Ecumenical Patriarchate. Prompted by this, it has been necessary for me to write articles so as to explain some aspects of the subject as a whole, without dealing with it exhaustively. In particular, I have clarified that the regime of the Church is not papal, neither is it a Protestant confederation, but it is synodical and hierarchical at the same time [‘The Regime of the Orthodox Church’]. I insist on this subject, because I consider that it is the basis of the problem that has arisen. There are certainly many sides to the Ukrainian ecclesiastical issue. The most fundamental aspect, however, is that many people have not understood what ‘autocephaly’ means in the Orthodox Church; what ‘Autocephalous Churches’ are; how the sacred institution of the Church functions; to what extent ‘Autocephalous Churches’ can function independently of the Ecumenical Throne, which is the first throne and presides over all the Orthodox Churches, and has many powers and responsibilities; and also how the Ecumenical Throne operates in relation to the ‘Autocephalous Churches’. Unless someone has an adequate understanding of the way in which ‘Autocephalous Churches’ function, the way in which the Pentarchy worked in the first millennium, but also of the role of the Ecumenical Patriarch during the second millennium in relation to the more recent Patriarchates and the new Autocephalous Churches, he will not grasp the essence of this issue.
    [Show full text]
  • The Lamentations of the Theotokos at the Patriarchate
    THE LAMENTATIONS OF THE THEOTOKOS AT THE PATRIARCHATE On Monday, August 14/27, 2018, the Service of the Lamentations of the Theotokos was held at the Tomb of the Theotokos in Gethsemane. This service is perhaps unique in the Orthodox Church, and preserved by the Typikon of the Church of Jerusalem and Mother of Churches. For this Service, the Hagiotaphite Brotherhood marched down Via Dolorosa, headed by its Hegoumen, His Beatitude and our Father the Patriarch of Jerusalem Theophilos. After arriving at the Hegoumeneion, His Beatitude’s welcome reception took place at the courtyard of the Church of the Dormition of the Theotokos, as the Priests who were dressed in their liturgical vestments chanted the hymns of the Dormition under the lead of the Choir Leader of the Patriarchate Mr. Constantinos Spyropoulos. After the veneration of the Theotokos’ Tomb and the icon of the Theotokos on the south side of the Tomb, His Beatitude put on His Patriarchal vestments, the Archbishops and the Priests did likewise, and having taken the Epitaph of the Theotokos in the middle of the Church the Service of the Lamentations with the 3 stases began. At the end of the Lamentations, the Most Reverend Metropolitan Theologos of Serres delivered a Sermon, then the Eulogitaria, the Praises and the Doxology were chanted and His Beatitude with the Archbishops venerated the Epitaph. The procession of the Epitaph at the entrance of the Church followed, and a special prayer was read. Finally the procession of the Epitaph returned at the south side of the Church, to be followed by veneration and dismissal.
    [Show full text]