DISCLAIMER: Neither in this post, nor in any post which might follow, is any personal slight intended against any particular person or congregation within the umbrella of Eastern Orthodox Christianity. Nor is it an attempt to call into question issues regarding validity of Sacraments, etc. The Catechism of the Catholic Church states:
The Church knows that she is joined in many ways to the baptized who are honored by the name of Christian, but do not profess the Catholic faith in its entirety or have not preserved unity or communion under the successor of Peter. Those “who believe in Christ and are properly baptized are put in a certain, although imperfect communion with the Catholic Church.” With the Orthodox Churches, this communion is so profound “that it lacks little to attain the fullness that would permit a common celebration of the Lord’s Eucharist. (Paragraph #838 — emphasis in the original text).
I fully embrace this statement. What I am attempting to do, is to address and discuss some of the issues, myths, and polemic which seem to be common among certain circles of Orthodox apologetics. Reasonable and rational dialogue — and disagreement — is gladly welcomed.
The Myth of the Five Patriarchs
In much of modern Orthodox apologetic, there is a great deal of emphasis on the idea that in the Early Church, the Five Patriarchal Sees of Christianity (Alexandria, Antioch, Constantinople, Jerusalem, and Rome) existed in a certain organic unity, with the Bishop of Rome being recognized as first among equals, but bearing no jurisdictional authority over the other four sees. Then, in AD 1054, Rome veered off on her own — and the four other sees remained (and remain) in unity — all the while waiting for Rome to recognize the error of her ways and return to the fold. A picture very similar to this was described in detail in Peter Gilquist’s book Becoming Orthodox. While there are a number of things about this theory which give pause (and which I may address in future posts) the notion of five unified patriarchates, marching through the centuries together, just doesn’t pass historical muster. Let’s look at the facts:
Jerusalem: Obviously, Jerusalem was the home of the Early Church. When the other Apostles began traveling the world (known and unknown) the church in this city was led by St. James, who was martyred a few years before the beginning of the 1st Jewish/Roman War — a war which led to the capture of the city and the destruction of the Temple in AD 70. From AD 70 until the time of the 2nd Jewish/Roman War in the AD 130’s, a succession of Jewish Christians served as bishops of Jerusalem. At the end of the 2nd Jewish/Roman War, Jerusalem was completely laid waste and rebuilt as a Roman city named AElia. For the next 200 years, a succession of Gentile Christians served as bishops of AElia — which was no longer considered an important church — and became, in fact, a suffragan see of Caesarea. It was not until the time of Constantine that the church in Jerusalem regained its previous importance. The First Council of Nicaea (AD 325) recognized Patriarchal honors for Jerusalem — but Caesarea was still the Metropolitan see! Jerusalem did not gain full Patriarchal status until the Council of Chalcedon (AD 451). From AD 451 until AD 636, a succession of Patriarchs led the church in Jerusalem; one was a Monophysite and many struggled with both Monophysitism and Monothelitism. The city (and Patriarchate) was overrun by Muslims in AD 636. From AD 636 until AD 705, the see was vacant — and administered by a Papal legate! From AD 705 until AD 1099, the Patriarchs were imfluenced primarily by the Eastern Church and participated in the Schism in AD 1054. When the armies of the 1st Crusade delivered Jerusalem from the Muslims in AD 1099, a Latin Patriarchate was set up, influenced by Rome, which lasted until AD 1291. Over the last 700+ years, both the size (never large to begin with) and the importance (never great) of the Orthodox Jerusalem Patriarchate has gradually diminished. In the 13th century, the Latin Patriarch effectively ended and was not restored until the 19th century.
Antioch: According to the Acts of the Apostles, it was in Antioch where the followers of Jesus were first called Christians. One of the first seven deacons hailed from Antioch; St. Paul and St. Barnabas ministered there as did St. Peter prior to his arrival in Rome. After the fall of Jerusalem in AD 70, Antioch was functionally the center of Christianity in the East. St. Ignatius of Antioch, third bishop of the city, died a martyr in AD 117; his writings are of utmost importance in understanding the polity and worship of the very Early Church. The first two Ecumenical Councils of the Church (the 1st Council of Nicaea in AD 325 and the 1st Council of Constantinople in AD 381) pointed to the great importance and influence of the Patriarchate of Antioch. However, the Council of Ephesus in AD 431 and the Council of Chalcedon in AD 451 stripped territory from Antioch and the Patriarchate in Constantinople assumed (and in some cases usurped) a much more significant role in Eastern Christianity. In the middle of the 5th century, Antioch suffered great losses to the Nestorians; by the end of the 5th century, the Monophysites attempted to seize the Patriarchate; and by the 6th century were electing their own Patriarch. In the 7th century, Antioch was overrun by the Muslims, and while the line of Monophysite Patriarchs remained intact, the line of Orthodox Patriarchs was irregular at best. What was left of the Orthodox Patriarch of Antioch followed Constantinople into schism in AD 1054, but by that time, the church was but a shadow of its former self. During the Crusades, from AD 1098 to AD 1268, there was a brief — and unsuccessful — restoration of a Latin Patriarchate. At the present time, three Eastern Rite Catholic Churches currently have Patriarchs of Antioch, the Orthodox Patriarch still exists, much diminished, in spite of its expansion into North America, and the Monophysite (now called “Oriental” or “Non-Chalcedonian”) Patriarch still exists.
Alexandria: According to tradition in both the Eastern and Western Churches, the Church in Alexandria was founded by St. Mark (John Mark) the cousin of St. Barnabas and sometime companion of St. Barnabas, St. Paul, and St. Peter. The most noteworthy bishop of that city in antiquity was St. Athanasius, the great defender of Trinitarian orthodoxy in the face of Arianism in the 4th century. Until the time of the 1st Council of Constantinople in AD 381, the Patriarch of Alexandria ranked next to the Bishop of Rome. The 28th Canon of Constantinople I, which elevated the Patriarch of Constantinople above Alexandria was not recognized by either Rome or Alexandria for many years. St. Cyril, Patriarch of Alexandria from AD 412 to AD 444 fiercely opposed the heresy of Nestorianism, culminating the the condemnation of that heresy at the 3rd Ecumenical Council — the Council of Ephesus in AD 431. However, in the struggle against Nestorianism, Alexandrian Christianity went to the other extreme, and by the middle of the 5th century was deeply embroiled in Monophysitism. By the end of the 5th century, schism in Alexandria was complete — and permenant. When Alexandria was overrun by the Muslims in the 7th century, the invasion was supported by the Monophysites at the expense of the orthodox, Catholic hierarchy which was greatly diminished. By the 9th century, the Patriarchate was merely a shadow of its former self. A temporary reunion between the Monophysite Copts and Rome was effected in AD 1442 by the Council of Florence, etc., but lasted only a short time. Today, the ancient see of Alexandria is almost entirely desended from the Monophysite (now “Oriental”) Coptic church. While both East and West still maintain their respective Patriarchs, their numbers are extremely small.
Constantinople: The first historically known bishop of the city which became Constantinople was St. Metrophanes (AD 306 to AD 314). The see was at first not an important one and was subject to the authority of the metropolitan of Heraclea. In AD 381 at the 1st Council of Constantinople, the see was raised to the dignity of the Patriarchate — not for any religious or historic reason, but only because Constantinople had become the Imperial city. This decision was bitterly resented and opposed by both Rome and Alexandria. Between AD 381 and the Council of Chalcedon in AD 451, the Patriarchate of Constantinople grew enormously in both size and importance primarily by usurping dioceses from other provinces and metropolitan sees. Over a period of several hundred years, Constantinople was in and out of communion with the West for a variety of reasons. Some were political in nature and some were issues of heresy. During the time between the death of the Emperor Constantine in AD 337 and the final breach with Rome in AD 1054, 19 Patriarchs of Constantinople were open heretics and the see was in formal schism for at least 248 years. Constantinople was at times Arian (55 years), Monothelite (41 years), and Iconclastic (90 years). After the sack of Constantinope by the armies of the 4th Crusade, a Latin Patriarchate was set up which was never large — and never successful. Attempts at reunion between Rome and Constantinope were made at the Council of Lyon in AD 1274 and at the Council of Florence, etc., in the 15th century. Both attempts were repudiated by the East within a few years. Constantinople fell to the Turks in AD 1453 and the great church of Hagia Sophia became a mosque. Constantinople, now called Istanbul, remains in Turkish hands and the Patriarch of Constantinople is required by Turkish law to be a Turkish citizen. Relations between the Turkish state and the Church are, at best, strained and tense. Titles and ancient history notwithstanding, in the world of 21st century Eastern Orthodoxy, the number of Orthodox faithful under the spiritual care of Constantinople is a very small minority.
What does this brief history of the churches in Jerusalem, Antioch, Alexandria, and Constantinople show us? It demonstrates that there never — never — was a time in which the scenario described by many modern Orthodox apologists (including converts) as the authentic Early Church actually existed! Constantinople was not granted full Patriarchal status until AD 381; Jerusalem was not granted full Patriarchal status until AD 451, and by the end of the 5th century, both Antioch and Alexandria had become hopelessly divided into rival parties — each with its own Patriarch — and these divisions exist to the present day.
In short, from an honest reading of history, an Orthodox apologetic requiring five unified Patriarchs, cannot stand.
Papa Z
Posted by David Bennett 
Posted by Jorge Flores 
Posted by David Bennett 
