Posted on 01/18/2013 2:40:02 PM PST by NYer
Vatican City, Jan 18, 2013 / 03:00 pm (CNA/EWTN News).- Pope Benedict XVI approved Bishop Ibrahim Isaac Sidrak as the new Patriarch of Alexandria of the Copts in Egypt, granting him "ecclesiastical communion.''
The former Bishop of Minya was elected during a Synod of Bishops of the Coptic Catholic Church in Cairo, which lasted from Jan. 12 to16. As part of the election, his rank was raised to archbishop.
The 57-year-old will replace Cardinal Antonio Naguib, aged 77, who resigned on Jan. 18 after suffering from partial paralysis and undergoing brain surgery.
The Vatican hopes his appointment will see more collaboration with Coptic Orthodox Pope Tawadros II, who began his patriarchal ministry in Egypt just two months ago.
And the Catholic Ordinaries of the Holy Land, including the heads of the Roman, Melkite, Maronite, Syrian, Armenian and Chaldean Rites, all offered a formal welcome to the new leader.
"The international press has called you a 'young patriarch,'" they said in a letter dated Jan. 18.
"We are sure that with this 'youth' you will be a point of reference within the Council of Oriental Catholic Patriarchs and the Ecumenical Council of the Churches and for the Church of Egypt," they added.
Archbishop Sidrak was born in Assiut, Egypt, and studied philosophy and theology at a Coptic seminary in Cairo.
He was ordained a priest on Feb. 7, 1980 and incarnated in the Eparchy of Assiut.
He served two years in the Church Michael the Archangel in Cairo before moving to Rome where he received a doctorate in theology from the Pontifical Gregorian University.
Archbishop Sidrak returned to Egypt where he taught theology at his seminary, the Patriarchal Seminary of Maadi.
He was elected Bishop of Minya in 2002 after working as rector of the seminary and as secretary general for the Coptic Catholic Church's office for catechetical teaching.
The Egyptian is the second bishop of Minya – an area south of Cairo holding one-fifth of the country's estimated 200,000 Copts – to be elected patriarch.
His ministry as bishop was marked by his efforts to help farmers and people in need, regardless of their faith, through increased social and charitable activities in the villages of the diocese.
The Coptic Catholic Church was established in 1824 and there are five parishes in the United States and in Canada.
Egypt now has two heads of Churches – Archbishop Sidra and the Coptic Orthodox leader Pope Tawadros II.
Over 10 percent of Egyptians are Copts, which makes them the largest Christian minority in the Middle East.
The Orthodox and Coptic leaders will surely be discussing the saftey of Egyptian Christians, which became a topic of concern after President Mohammed Morsi's Muslim Brotherhood Party and radical Salafis took up power in the country.
Christians also fear that the recently approved constitution will fail to protect them.
The Alexandrian church from which the Copts evolved was one of the earliest founded, not long after Christ’s ascension. Your ‘history’ is laughable as the ‘heretical’ split you talked about happened in 451, so how could they have started in the 5th and 6th centuries when they were already attending the councils centuries before that.
And the Latins have no authority to judge anyone as heretical either. This has been the problem in Christianity for centuries once the Muslims finished conquering the Christian lands of Africa and the Middle East, is that the Roman church has always claimed supremacy simply because they were now the largest church.
Nobody bought it, and nobody ever will. All it serves is to stir up dissension among the Body, but the Latins won’t leave it alone.
You wrote:
“The Alexandrian church from which the Copts evolved was one of the earliest founded, not long after Christ’s ascension.”
Evolved?
“Your ‘history’ is laughable as the ‘heretical’ split you talked about happened in 451, so how could they have started in the 5th and 6th centuries when they were already attending the councils centuries before that.”
The Coptic Church has been a distinct body - having chosen heresy and schism - since 451 when it refused to recognize Chalcedon. Before that time Coptic Chirstians were merely part of the Catholic Church. After that time, they were their own Church and in heresy and schism. Now, they have essentially abandoned the heresy, and they make no claim to the schism. Thus, the way to reunion is open as was admitted by Coptic leaders in the 1950s already.
“And the Latins have no authority to judge anyone as heretical either.”
The Catholic Church does. And it has.
“This has been the problem in Christianity for centuries once the Muslims finished conquering the Christian lands of Africa and the Middle East, is that the Roman church has always claimed supremacy simply because they were now the largest church.”
False. The Roman Church has led the Church since long before Islam arose.
“Nobody bought it, and nobody ever will.”
Actually everyone who was anyone of consequence acknowledged the primacy of the Roman Church for quite some time. This still happens sometimes today even among those who were taught not to believe in it. There’s even the noted episode where an Assyrian bishop researched the need for papal primacy in 2005 and later brought 3,000 of his parishioners into the Catholic Church with him in 2008: http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/california_chaldeans_receive_3000_assyrian_christians_into_catholic_communion/
“All it serves is to stir up dissension among the Body, but the Latins won’t leave it alone.”
The TRUTH always divides those who seek it from those who don’t know it and don’t care for it. Study and pray more and you might learn the truth on this matter.
If I may comment on something here, 451 is actually in the 5th Century, and therefore cannot also be “centuries before that” as you have stated.
BWAHAHAHAHA! Have you ever heard of Byzantium? They were the world power long after Rome fell and was a Byzantine vassal until the Holy Roman Empire came to be. The Orthodox church was the head church during that time.
Evolved yes. The Copts were formerly the Alexandrian church, along with Byzantium, Antioch, Jerusalem, and Rome. They weren’t called Roman Catholics or Latins either, but obviously the different churches ‘evolved’ into those distinct sects once Rome fell.
You also seem to forget the Orthodox-Latin split in the early part of last millenium. Are the Orthodox heretics too? There have been many church splits over the millenium, it’s not like the Protestants are the first. Your delusion that ‘the Catholic church has judged’ is more Latin delusion.
The Copts nor the Orthodox nor the Syriacs hold Rome as the head of the church. In fact in the original councils, if anything Byzantium was considered the head, but emphasis was always placed on the equality of each of the head churches.
Your ‘TRUTH’ is nothing but usual Latin headstrong arrogance wrapped in delusion. You are completely ignorant of church history.
Discuss the issues all you want, but do not make it personal.
sigh...true but, he asked for it.
Promise to play nice from here.
Thanks!
You wrote:
“BWAHAHAHAHA! Have you ever heard of Byzantium? They were the world power long after Rome fell and was a Byzantine vassal until the Holy Roman Empire came to be. The Orthodox church was the head church during that time.”
False. The Eastern Orthodox churches themselves teach that the Copts formed a separate, distinct and clearly heretical and schismatic Coptic Church. In other words, your own point works against you.
“Evolved yes. The Copts were formerly the Alexandrian church, along with Byzantium, Antioch, Jerusalem, and Rome. They weren’t called Roman Catholics or Latins either, but obviously the different churches ‘evolved’ into those distinct sects once Rome fell.”
“formerly”? That shows they changed. What they did was adopt heresy and schism. Again, you’re proving my point for me. I don’t mind that you keep undermining your own claims.
“You also seem to forget the Orthodox-Latin split in the early part of last millenium. Are the Orthodox heretics too?”
Nope. It is just irrelevant since even the Byzantines regarded the Copts as heretical and schismatic.
“There have been many church splits over the millenium, it’s not like the Protestants are the first.”
Which I never claimed. Are you going to insinuate other things I’ve never claimed or believed?
“Your delusion that ‘the Catholic church has judged’ is more Latin delusion.”
No, it’s just a fact. And, as I demonstrated, there are Eastern Orthodox prelates who come to realize that even today.
“The Copts nor the Orthodox nor the Syriacs hold Rome as the head of the church.”
False. The Orthodox recognize the historical primacy of the Roman Church. The argument is over exactly what that means and the Orthodox, of course, can’t get their own act together to agree on what that means. Hence, the actual need for exactly some sort of Roman primacy. If you read Maged Attia’s The Coptic Orthodox Church and the Ecumenical Movement you’ll see that the Copts struggle with these issues because they must keep up the idea of a local, regional (or ethnic!) primacy or else their raison d’etre disappears.
“In fact in the original councils, if anything Byzantium was considered the head, but emphasis was always placed on the equality of each of the head churches.”
False. Read Margherita Guarducci’s The Primacy of the Church of Rome: Documents, Reflections, Proofs and you’ll think differently.
“Your ‘TRUTH’ is nothing but usual Latin headstrong arrogance wrapped in delusion. You are completely ignorant of church history.”
Actually I have a PhD in History and Church History was my focus. I see nothing in your posts that lead me to conclude you’re anything but a sciolist on the subject.
You consistently provide no evidence for your claims. Why is that?
After the Coptic Church and orthodoxy (Catholic+Eastern Orthodox) had a schism, then they went their own way, but in 1442, a delegation of the Coptic Orthodox Church signed the Cantate Domino to join the Catholic Church.
The person referred to in this post is a head of a Catholic patriarchate. This Coptic Catholic Church is part of the Catholic Church
Sorry, historically you are incorrect.
What we call the Byzantine Empire was called by the people who lived through it and by the Greeks today as "The Roman Empire" -- they were a continuation of the Roman Empire and the citizens called themselves Romaoi -- Romans
Their language may have become Greek and their dress too, but they considered themselves right until the fall of Constantinople as Romans -- hence the Turks called their 12th century kingdom in the south of Anatolia as the Sultanate of the Rum -- "Rum" being the Turkic pronunciation of Rome
"Rome was a Byzantine vassal" -- that's illogical -- as I said, Byzantine is what we Westerners call it, to the Byzantinians they were the Romans just taking back the eternal city from the barbarian Germanics
What did happen was that the Roman Empire was divided into West and East and even after the West lost its Roman Imperators, it was considered part of the overall Roman Empire -- barbarian kings acknowledged the nominal overlordship of the Imperator/Caesar Augustus
Justinian nearly succeeded in getting this back together but in the 8th century there was just the exarchate of Ravenna and the area around Venice left
The Orthodox church was the head church during that time. -- again an oversimplification. The 'Orthodox Church' and the 'Catholic Church' officially before 1054 were the same.
The Copts were formerly the Alexandrian church, along with Byzantium, Antioch, Jerusalem, and Rome. They weren’t called Roman Catholics or Latins either, but obviously the different churches ‘evolved’ into those distinct sects once Rome fell. -- sorry, wrong again
The first break-away was political -- the Assyrian Church moved away thanks to the Persian king using the Nestorian split as a pretext to separate HIS Christians from the Christian Roman Empire (Theodosius II in 395 declared Christianity as state religion). The Coptic split was the precursor of the next and I suspect, language had a large role -- the ones who formed the Oriental Orthodox were Coptic or Aramaic or Syriac or Armenian speakers
The Orthodox-Latin split was also in no small part due to politics and language -- by the 10th century and especially in the 11th, the East and West just didn't understand each other -- few Westerners spoke Greek and next to no Easterners spoke Latin, leave alone the barbaric Vulgate latin or Germanic languages
The reformatting in the 16th century was different from these earlier splits -- at least those which came after Lutheranism and Anglicanism, both of which had a political element and both of which retained key elements of orthodoxy like the sacraments
No, the problem with the 16th century movement was it opening the door to old things like Arianism (Jehovah's Witnesses) or Gnosticism (Unitarianism), Montanism etc.
Sorry, historically you are incorrect.
What we call the Byzantine Empire was called by the people who lived through it and by the Greeks today as "The Roman Empire" -- they were a continuation of the Roman Empire and the citizens called themselves Romaoi -- Romans
Their language may have become Greek and their dress too, but they considered themselves right until the fall of Constantinople as Romans -- hence the Turks called their 12th century kingdom in the south of Anatolia as the Sultanate of the Rum -- "Rum" being the Turkic pronunciation of Rome
"Rome was a Byzantine vassal" -- that's illogical -- as I said, Byzantine is what we Westerners call it, to the Byzantinians they were the Romans just taking back the eternal city from the barbarian Germanics
What did happen was that the Roman Empire was divided into West and East and even after the West lost its Roman Imperators, it was considered part of the overall Roman Empire -- barbarian kings acknowledged the nominal overlordship of the Imperator/Caesar Augustus
Justinian nearly succeeded in getting this back together but in the 8th century there was just the exarchate of Ravenna and the area around Venice left
The Orthodox church was the head church during that time. -- again an oversimplification. The 'Orthodox Church' and the 'Catholic Church' officially before 1054 were the same.
The first break-away was political -- the Assyrian Church moved away thanks to the Persian king using the Nestorian split as a pretext to separate HIS Christians from the Christian Roman Empire (Theodosius II in 395 declared Christianity as state religion). The Coptic split was the precursor of the next and I suspect, language had a large role -- the ones who formed the Oriental Orthodox were Coptic or Aramaic or Syriac or Armenian speakers
The Orthodox-Latin split was also in no small part due to politics and language -- by the 10th century and especially in the 11th, the East and West just didn't understand each other -- few Westerners spoke Greek and next to no Easterners spoke Latin, leave alone the barbaric Vulgate latin or Germanic languages
The reformatting in the 16th century was different from these earlier splits -- at least those which came after Lutheranism and Anglicanism, both of which had a political element and both of which retained key elements of orthodoxy like the sacraments
No, the problem with the 16th century movement was it opening the door to old things like Arianism (Jehovah's Witnesses) or Gnosticism (Unitarianism), Montanism etc.
The Copts nor the Orthodox nor the Syriacs hold Rome as the head of the church -- again an oversimplification -- especially the last
The Syriacs are divided into a number of Churches -- the Syrian Catholic Church, the Syrian Melkite, the Syrian Orthodox etc. -- there are 2 that are Catholic, one that is Eastern Orthodox, one that is Oriental
Also, the Orientals and the Orthodox all acknowledge the (clearly defined) primacy of the Bishop of Rome -- what they acknowledge is the role as primus inter pares -- first among equals
They understand this as a group of equals (the Patriarchs) with one being the first in "respect". What that actually means is left ambiguous.
The Orthodox accuse Latins (to some extent correctly) of being too literal -- oh and they accuse the various Western denominations outside the Catholic Church of the same
With regard to the Church's sacraments, the various ecumenical dialogues with one or other of the Ancient Churches of the East have already obtained significant results. While a certain number of doctrinal questions still remain to be clarified, the Catholic Church and the Ancient Churches of the East desire full recognition of the sacraments celebrated in their respective traditions.There will be unity -- and seemingly very soon between the various Churches in orthodoxy (Catholic, Orthodox, Oriental, Assyrian, possibly even Lutheran and traditional Anglican)As a matter of fact, the division between the Catholic Church and the Ancient Eastern Churches in the beginning had nothing to do with the dispute at the level of sacramental life. With certain Ancient Eastern Churches as, for example, the Syrian Orthodox Church, ecumenical dialogue has already permitted the Authorities to sign agreements according to which the faithful who find themselves in a situation that prevents them from going to a minister of their own Church can receive the sacraments of the Eucharist, Reconciliation and Anointing of the Sick from a minister of the other Church.
The ecclesiology of communion emphasized by the Second Vatican Council has established the doctrinal framework that has allowed the following themes to be studied from a new perspective: the relationship between the Catholic Church and the Eastern Churches, their identity as sister Churches, the actual communion (even if it is imperfect) which unites them, their progress towards full and visible communion and towards Eucharistic communion.
The meeting was organized very generously by the Authorities of the Coptic Orthodox Church at the Saint Marc Centre in Nasr City.
During the meeting, the participants on two occasions had the honour of meeting Pope Shenouda III, first on the evening of 28 January when they attended his weekly discourse in the Coptic-Orthodox Cathedral of Cairo, and then on Thursday, 29 January, when Pope Shenouda took part in a session of the Commission's work at Saint Marc Centre.
In his cathedral, the head of the Coptic-Orthodox Church invited Cardinal Walter Kasper to give a speech to the assembly. The Cardinal affirmed, among other things, that the Catholic Church and the Ancient Churches of the East are united by the same faith in the One God who is in Three Persons and in Jesus Christ, Our Saviour, the Incarnate Word of God, and moreover, that they acknowledge St Athanasius and St Cyril of Alexandria as Fathers and Doctors of the Church.
Thanks. This is more what I am looking for. I am not looking for arguments, but over the years I have kind of picked up a hobby of trying to figure what all these first millenial sects believed, and what separated them from other Christians at that time.
Do you know of any good books or web pages on these sects?
This is the situation here in Albany NY. Both the Syriac Orthodox and Maronite Catholic Churches have members whose relatives were baptized into the other's church. It is common practice in the Middle East for a married couple to practice the faith of the husband. We have several Maronite Catholic families from Lebanon where brothers and sisters inter married Syriac Orthodox christians. Hence, the Orthodox wives of the Maronites attend services in the Maronite Church and the sisters, who married Syriac Orthodox christians, attend services at that church. Because of the differences in the liturgical calendars, It is not uncommon to see the orthodox families at our services on Hosanna (Palm) Sunday and vice versa. When the 2 year old child of a blended family died recently, services were held at both churches. Ironically, the Syriac Orthodox priest does not speak Arabic, even though he has a large Arabic speaking congregation. For the baby's funeral, our Maronite Catholic pastor did the Arabic readings at the Syriac Orthodox church. This same priest has also been granted Latin Rite faculties by the RC bishop so he can say mass during the week at priestless parishes and consecrate enough hosts for their weekend services.
Fr. Georges, at times, is like a whirling dervish, helping and assisting where needed. During the week, after praying the Maronite Diivine Liturgy at our church, he also says the NO mass at a local catholic hospital, where he chants the words of consecration in Aramaic, as he does in the Maronite Church. The hospital nuns love it! Surrounded by aging, white haired RC priests, Fr. Georges stands out with his youthful face (only 34) and dark hair. Perhaps this is how Christ envisioned His church :-)
Yes, I am aware that Byzantium is the Roman Empire, even if I didn’t hint at that. However that is my point. It’s hard to say that the Latins were the dominant Catholic church since before Constantine when you have the Orthodox church sitting within the preeminent Eastern Roman Empire while Rome was both a piece of the Empire for part of, and more or less on it’s back for a good deal of the other part of the last half of the first millennium.
And in theory yes, Rome was simply part of the old Empire the Byzantines wanted back, but that was their perspective. In practice Rome was never fond of Byzantine rule and strove against it even when it could barely take care of itself. Besides, Byzantium hardly held Italy long enough to be of consequence before the Germanics took a good chunk of it right back. The reality is the whole time Rome was scheming with the Franks and other Germanics to sweep aside the Arians, take Italy, and form something out of the old Western Empire clear up to the point where Pope Leo found his man in Charlemagne.
That’s why I termed it a vassal state, as it constantly chafed against Eastern Roman rule, as did the Germanics and Slavs as a whole. This is evident by the fact that at the first opportunity, the Latin church jumped right in with the Frankish Holy Roman Empire, a New Rome essentially where it would be the head church inside a real empire that would both crush it’s rivals the Arians and rival Constantinople. They even tried to expand that concept to the Slavs with the newly Christianized Bulgarian Empire to put the Byzantines against a two-front threat.
In light of that, I guess at the end of the day I look at it this way - the Latins can assert and pound the table about their supremacy all day, but no one is listening. History just doesn’t jibe with their story. The only way I see that changing is by attrition as the Muslims seek to exterminate the Christian church in North Africa and the Middle East, but that is a marriage of necessity and convenience, not acquiescence in my book.
well, there is a very good book in German called "the Ancient Churches of the East" -- i've read the translation in French and know there is one translation into Polish, but I don't believe there is any translation into English
I presume you mean first millenium Christian groups, right?
I would prefer to use the term groups to remove any connotation with sect
But, from Apostolic times we see a distinct group of, let's call it "orthodoxy" ( the bulk who hold to the gospels and some letters of Paul (not all were initially acknowledged by all -- Hebrews being a case in point) and the first 2 letters of Peter and of James (the book of revelation was rejected by most for a long time until canon was closed)) and those who "orthodoxy" identify as outside based on dogmatic beliefs -- Mandaeans (who hold even today that Jesus was a false messiah and john the Baptist was the real one), Gnostics, etc
But, they retained the same belief -- not quite hard to believe when you think of the quality of Roman roads and communication -- the emperor could get a message from Arabia-Petra to Scotland in a few days and the common man a little longer. Travel by Roman road was sure and quite fast (in fact not achieved again in Europe until the late 1800s)
Anyway -- the first big split we can read of is the Assyrian Church -- based in the Persian Empire
I'll stick to that one in this post -- you of course know that there was a rivalry between Rome and Iran right from the time of Crassus in 50 AD?
After Alexander the Great died, his empire was split between his generals -- the Diodache. One got the Greek/Macedonian heartland, another strong one, Ptolemy got Egypt and the strongest, Seleucus got what is now Syria, Turkey, Armenia, Iran, Iraq, Turkmenistan, Afghanistan and Baluchistan
But the Seleucid empire shriveled from the time Seleucus died -- but not before Antiochus IV Epiphanius despoiled the Jewish Temple (a good read is the book of Maccabees -- book 1 for the historical basis), shrivelling down by 100 AD to just about a small portion of what is now north-eastern Syria
At the same time a loose confederation of Iranic peoples, the Parthi rose in what is now Uzbekistan and took over much of Greater Iran. For a long time, there was no issue with Rome as Rome was (from 300 BC to 50BC) involved in the Western Mediterranen. But, by 100 BC, it had taken Epirus (albania) and nudged into Greece. Then Pompey the Great in 60 BC took over Jerusalem and much of the eastern Mediterranean bar Egypt. The 3rd member of the Pompey-Caesar-Crassus triumvirate, Crassus, looked for glory against the Parthians but ended up with a massive defeat (one of the most massive for Rome ever) at Carrhae -- present day Harran in Turkey on the borders with Syria where 35,000 legionaries were lost. That started the Roman-Parthian wars. These continued on and off until Trajan -- now remember that the Parthians were a confederation, so Rome had an easy time. Trajan destroyed them and pushed the Roman empire to the Persian gulf, to what is now Kuwait
But, in doing so, they destroyed the Parthians and set the stage for a far more centralized and stronger power -- the Sassanids to arise
The House of Sasan was Persian, of the lineage of Khorush the Great (Cyrus the Great) and looked on their mission as a divine mission granted by Ahura Mazda to reconquer the Persian lands (note: Darius the Mede, the successor to Cyrus, literally ruled over 40% of the world's population) and to fight on the side of the god of light (Ahura Mazda) against the darkness (Aingra Mainyu)
Rome versus Persia was a centuries long war - from 250 AD, through to the defeats of Valerian (when, for the first time, in 256 AD, an Emperor was captured in battle) right to the final treaty, signed just before Islam came charging out of the desert in 600 AD
Rome and Persia hated each other -- the Romans believed they had a manifest destiny to spread their dignitas, their humanitas, their civilisation. And the Persians believed that they had a divine mission to spread their own empire
Christians in Persia and Iraq were on the fault line
initially, under the persecutions of Dacian, Valerian, the Macriani, when Christianity was outlawed, the Shahenshah of Persian welcomed the Christians (the enemy of my enemy) and there are rumors that Shapur II even converted to Christianity (rumors only, 0 proof)
BUT, the Christians overplayed their hand and burnt down zoroastrian fire-temples, prompting a push back against them
This was momentary, but what really turned the tide against Christians was a century later in 395 AD when Theodosius II made it a state religion -- now, if your mortal enemy makes a religion state religion, you immediately view the adherents of that religion in your country as your enemy (which is the reason for much of the medieval Catholic-Protestant-Orthodox bloodshed)
The only way for the Christians in Persia to survive was to say "hey -- those are not our type of Christians, we split"
then, you should ideally visit Kerala or read about the Syro-Malabar, Syro-Malankara, Syrian Orthodox and Jacobite Churchs there -- it will give you an insight
And in Syria itself you have the Syrian Melkite Church which is intriguing
Wow
The thing is that you are taking a split of 1054 and projecting it backwards
in 315 AD when Christianity was no longer outlawed (but not the state religion), there was no large Church at Constantinople -- the 4 Churches were Rome, Antioch, Alexandria and Jerusalem. Jerusalem was nowhere near the force it was due to the destruction in 69 AD -- it sunk into nominal significance. Ditto for Antioch -- difficult to defend and threatened with sacking by the Persians -- it was sacked twice by the Persians in 250-256 AD
There was basically Alexandria and Rome. The Alexandrians did produce the larger chunk of Church Fathers, it was a center of Christianity and if you look at real numbers you would think that they would get primacy. Yet, the bishop of Rome was given primacy -- in the sense of first among equals and in many councils as the deciding vote
And this way it remained during the first decades of a non-persecuted Christianity in the Roman Empire
now, by the time Christianity was made state religion -- in 395 AD, yes, Byzantine had waxed in importance and so too had the Patriarch of Byzantine
Yet, there is still no separation of orthodoxy -- Alexandria, Antioch, Jerusalem, Rome and Byzantine are united
Theodosius II elevates Byzantine to the pentarchy, purely as the Emperor was sitting there -- and yes, that made sense
From that point on there is a tussle between Rome and Byzantine -- but not a tussle between Latins and Orthodox as you are projecting backwards
The Byzantine Church has some problems like Patriarch Nestorius etc.
And, in all of these cases, the role of the Patriarch of the West remains as the primus inter pares -- there is no doubt of that
To a specific sense that you make of "a dominant Church within the Catholic Church" -- if you mean one ruling over the others like the medieval papacy, then yes, you are correct. If you mean one given spiritual 'first among equals' place, then no, you are wrong
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.