I ask this question honestly...

[Veritas_et_Puritas]

Hello everyone,

I've been interested in the Orthodox church for some time now. It's probably been for the last two years that I have been reading, researching, and asking questions, because there is something about the Orthodox church that I can't quite put my finger on. I am full of questions, so I hope that you will not mind if I post the odd topic here or there.

I have an honest question that is not intended to spark debate. I've been reading a lot about early Christian history and ecclesiology, and as I mentioned in the other thread, I find it interesting that the papacy was a gradual development that arose from the western Church.

But I was reading about Saints last night - Orthodox ones, yes - and I came upon the story of the patriarch St. Methodius of Constantinople (d.AD 847). I'm sure you know him well - defender of icons!

What I am curious about is why he went to/was sent to Rome after Nicephorus was deoposed/exiled to inform the Bishop of Rome of the situation and ask him to request that Nicephorus be reinstated. What could the bishop of Rome do that the other bishops could not? Why did Methodius have to go there and ask the bishop to speak with the Emperor Leo V?

I guess I am confused because this situation seems to contradict the many things I have read about the communal nature of early ecclesiology. And... well, the Catholic in me is used to looking at things from the viewpoint of papal primacy. ;)

Sometimes it is a struggle to see things in a different light, and I guess I'm just looking to see if any of you can help me out here. Maybe I am just hung up on something that merely appears confusing, but is actually quite simple. :doh:

Peace be with you.

V&P:angel:

[Shubunkin]

Well, the split happened in 1054 A. D., as my memory serves. The split hadn't happened yet, and as far as the rest of your question, I don't know... I'm too new to Orthodoxy to answer. I'd be interested to know too. ;)

[Veritas_et_Puritas]

Well, the split happened in 1054 A. D., as my memory serves. The split hadn't happened yet, and as far as the rest of your question, I don't know... I'm too new to Orthodoxy to answer. I'd be interested to know too. ;)

That is why I am asking... this is pre-schism and the patriarch of Constantinople went to/was sent to Rome to ask the bishop of Rome to request that Nicephorus be reinstated. If the bishop of Rome is the first among equals and has no jurisdiction outside of his own bishopric, then why would his opinion or request matter?

[Padraig]

Hello everyone,

I've been interested in the Orthodox church for some time now. It's probably been for the last two years that I have been reading, researching, and asking questions, because there is something about the Orthodox church that I can't quite put my finger on. I am full of questions, so I hope that you will not mind if I post the odd topic here or there.

I have an honest question that is not intended to spark debate. I've been reading a lot about early Christian history and ecclesiology, and as I mentioned in the other thread, I find it interesting that the papacy was a gradual development that arose from the western Church.

But I was reading about Saints last night - Orthodox ones, yes - and I came upon the story of the patriarch St. Methodius of Constantinople (d.AD 847). I'm sure you know him well - defender of icons!

What I am curious about is why he went to/was sent to Rome after Nicephorus was deoposed/exiled to inform the Bishop of Rome of the situation and ask him to request that Nicephorus be reinstated. What could the bishop of Rome do that the other bishops could not? Why did Methodius have to go there and ask the bishop to speak with the Emperor Leo V?

I guess I am confused because this situation seems to contradict the many things I have read about the communal nature of early ecclesiology. And... well, the Catholic in me is used to looking at things from the viewpoint of papal primacy. ;)

Sometimes it is a struggle to see things in a different light, and I guess I'm just looking to see if any of you can help me out here. Maybe I am just hung up on something that merely appears confusing, but is actually quite simple. :doh:

Peace be with you.

V&P:angel:
Hello. The primacy of Rome was never in question in the early Church. Only papal supremacy is an issue. In other words, all bishops accepted that Rome was the "president" of bishops. It was this see that was first among equals. But this primacy is not what Rome claims today. The Church was conciliar (and still is) so it was perfectly legitimate for a bishop in Constantinople to appeal to any of the other patriarchs. You will find in Church history that appeals were made to Alexandria or Antioch, or Rome, or Constantinople on many occasions from bishops or priests in other patriarchates.

The highest governing body in the Church is the Council, a general or ecumenical council if needs be. There is a chain of command that one goes through if one has been deposed. Let's say Bishop A is deposed by his ruling hierarch, Patriarch X (who would've consulted the synod of said patriarchate in order to accomplish the deposition). Since Patriarch X represents in his person the highest canonical authority in that area, Bishop A could appeal to Patriarch Y or Patriarch Z to hear his plea. If either of these patriarchs finds Patriarch X (and thus, the synod) acted irrationally, or whatnot, they could theoretically reinstate Bishop A until the patriarchs could work it out amongst themselves. The patriarch most often appealed to was Rome because Rome was, again, first among equals, and exercised great influence on the other patriarchs. Whichever way Rome went, the others would usually, usually follow. This was not indicative of Roman supremacy, but of Rome's influence politically.

Hope this helps.

Dn Kevin

[Veritas_et_Puritas]

Thanks so much, Padraig! That is so helpful! You talked about bishops... but does it work for patriarchs, too? If Patriarch Nicephorus is deposed for false or incorrect reasons, can bishops appeal to one of the other patriarchs to have him re-instated?

I guess my question then becomes... is this an action that involves a consensus? Do the other patriarchs have to agree that Nicephorus was wrongly deposed?

[EmperorConstantine]

Thanks so much, Padraig! That is so helpful! You talked about bishops... but does it work for patriarchs, too?
It would make sense. After all, patriarchs are bishops with a lot of honor and respect shown towards them (not to mention a larger job description!)

[eoe]

a patriarch is simply a bishop of one of the major sees

[Padraig]

Thanks so much, Padraig! That is so helpful! You talked about bishops... but does it work for patriarchs, too? If Patriarch Nicephorus is deposed for false or incorrect reasons, can bishops appeal to one of the other patriarchs to have him re-instated?

I guess my question then becomes... is this an action that involves a consensus? Do the other patriarchs have to agree that Nicephorus was wrongly deposed?



As others have said, a patriarch is still "just" a bishop. A deposed patriarch would not necessarily be reinstated, but could appeal to his brother patriarchs, and if they all declared the deposition unjust could push the synod to reinstate the deposed. If the synod refused, it could theoretically go so far as a break in communion, or a refusal to recognize the newly elected patriarch in the dyptichs. This was a common enough occurrence in the early Church.

Dn Kevin

[zhilan]

Another thing, in addition to having primacy was that Rome was separated from the rest of the Christian world in the East. This made the Bishop of Rome a good mediator when problems arose in the East. Because of Rome's place of honor and also Rome being removed from the scuffles and politics going on in the East, appealing to Rome was a logical choice.

[Veritas_et_Puritas]

Thanks everyone. This is seriously really informative and interesting.

I apologise, but I am more accustomed to hearing Orthodox speak harshly of anything to do with the West, even when dealing with issues of the early Church. With all of the sentiments surrounding the Catholic understanding of the papacy, I mistook the frustration towards the papacy for frustration expessed towards Rome in general - even in the proper Orthodox understanding.

I should hang around here more often. :) You are all so helpful!

[Ioan cel Nou]

I'd also quickly like to point out that at the time you are talking of, Rome was one of the few places, and certainly the only major See, where iconoclasm wasn't a problem. Iconoclasm had many influential supporters in the Empire, even various members of the Imperial family, so it's obvious that you going to try to look elsewhere for support. In effect Rome was being appealed to because of its Orthodoxy, not authority (after all Constantinople had been given almost identical privileges to Rome at the Council of Chalcedon).

James

[buzuxi02]

Seeking the help of another patriarch was quite common especially since times came when patriarchates were split doctrinally and alliances needed to be made..

Rome and Constantinope both were iconodules while possibly Alexandria and Antioch were iconoclasts. Throw in the fact the Emperor was the man who enforced the canonical rules on whether a bishop will have to be physically removed, deposed or banished or beaten, and those same emperors also made alliances with one patriarch over another depending on circumstances. One patriarch may have had more pull with the civil authoritys than another. Emperor Justinian if i remember correctly kept switching alliances between patriarchs of rome and constantinople to get what he wanted. One day he would offer ecclesial favors to one and the next day turn his back on him. Without reading the history theres a myriad of explanations..