Thanks to the miracle of Google Books, I found the following fascinating volume:
The Traditions of the Syriac Church of Antioch Concerning the Primacy and Prerogatives of Saint Peter and of His Successors the Roman Pontiff, by the Most Reverend Cyril Behnam Benni (London: Burns, Oates & Co, 1871).
Thanks for link. I’m looking forward to reading it.
This is indeed interesting, though not sure yet what to make of each excerpt individually without consulting the primary sources myself.
In my experience, we Byzantines are often obsessive compulsive about keeping our tradition hermetically sealed from any perceived Latin elements or influences, while the Non-chalcedonians (and even more strikingly to me, the Assyrians), seem not to share our sensitivities in many ways. You can see the Sacred Heart in Syrian naves, hear the “Ave” on Syrian lips, and once I even saw Our Lady of the Immaculate Conception on the altar curtain of an Oriental parish! And this, despite the occasional anti-Roman sentiments from non-chalcedonians at pitches almost as feverish as on Mt. Athos.
It shows that our borders are not as clear cut as we commonly define them.
CU, can we e-mail? You can e-mail me if you would rather not broadcast.
Thanks for the link! I didn’t even know this site or practice existed: scanning books in the public domain. My only regret is that I can’t get this book in my hands but only on my hard drive.
Orthodox Catholic,
I just e-mailed you.
I too would like to see a lengthier scholarly treatment of the texts quoted in this volume.
You are quite right that the divisions are not always as clear cut as they would seem to be for the apologists and polemicts of both sides. Things have not always been so “hermetically sealed” as you put it.
Bishop Kallistos Ware wrote a fascinating article years back on startling instances of communio in sacris between Catholics and Orthodox over the centuries – even to the point of Greek prelates happily marching in Corpus Christi processions, and inviting Jesuit missionaries to catechise and hear confessions of Orthodox faithful (!!!).
I’ve known some very pious Coptic and Malankara folks who are very open to both Rome and the Chalcedonian Orthodox. Sure, they have hard feelings about Chalcedon, and some strong words for Pope Leo, but they certainly don’t feel as if Rome and the Byzantines are “graceless heretics”!
Excuse me, but what are the non-Chalcedonians? (Ignorant US Catholic speaking now) I am guessing that they denied the Council of Chalcedon. I didn’t think those people existed anymore.
Rob –
The Non-Chalcedonians today are commonly called “Oriental Orthodox.” The Coptic, Syriac, Armenian, Ethiopian and Indian Churches are all Non-Chalcedonian, and are in communion with one another.
Here’s a handy Wikipedia article:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oriental_Orthodoxy
There are also some Indian Malankara Catholics who reunited with Rome–I forget when. Their hierarch recently died; there was an article about it in our diocesan newspaper.
I remember hearing an Assyrian bishop speak on the papacy a few years ago (the “Assyrians” — or, to speak properly, “The Holy Apostolic Catholic Orthodox Church of the East, and of the Assyrians” — are the remnant of those East Syrian Christians who were commonly called “Nestorians” and who accept only the first two ecumenical councils); he said that the early Syriac texts are much clearer and unequivocal than the coeval Greek texts that it is Peter himself who is “the Rock” of Matthew 16 (his person, not his faith) and that he was constituted “the chief” of the apostles, as well as that the Church of Rome was Peter’s church — so much so, that as a reaction to the strong attempts to catholicize the “Nestorians” from the 16th century onwards (and 80% of historic East Syriac Christianity is to be found in the “Chaldean Catholic Church” and only 20% as “Assyrians”) their Catholicos-Patriarch began to claim that as Peter has ended his life in “Babylon” (cf. 2 Peter) — the Mesopotamian Babylon — not Rome, he was himself the true successor of Peter. (One might add that the authority of the Assyrian Patriarch in his own church has always been far greater than the limited “synodical” authority of Orthodox patriarchs.)
Dr. tighe, you are a fount of fascinating information. Thank you! 🙂
BTW…another online public-domain work well worth a look is Father Luke Rivington’s The Primitive Church and the See of Peter, which can be found here:
http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/a122.htm
Father Rivington was one of the foremost patristics scholars of his day. He writes as a polemicist, answering Anglican polemicists (whose arguments are remarkably similar to those of contemporary Orthodox polemicists). But, unlike so many of today’s polemicists, Father Rivington possessed a depth and breadth of learning warranting our respect, IMHO. (I guess they don’t make polemicists like they used to. :))