Constantinople

[orthodox_christian2000]

Christos Anesti! Christos Vaskrese! Hristos a inviat! Christ is Risen!
Hello to you all. This is my first time posting to the board, although I registered a while back. I was hoping that you the well versed in Church history on the forum could help me out. I was having a heated discussion with a friend who is Roman Catholic on why Orthodox see the primacy of Rome a primacy of honour as first among equals, because, as the canons of the Ecumenical Synods say, she was the imperial city, and this is the reason why Constantinople was elevated to be the New Rome, with the second honorary seat. He tells me that Constantinople, or Byzantio before it was renamed by Emperor St. Constantine, had no legitimate apostolic foundation. I always understood that the See was had roots to the Apostle Andrew? That St. Stachys the Apostle was the first bishop? He says that there is no proof that there is apostolic succession? I found Patriarchal lists that account from St. Andrew, until well into the times of Metrophanes...are these lists from sources like St. Irenaeus and Eusebius? Any help on the issue would be greatly appreciated. Thank-you everybody!
The least in Christ,
Theodore

[TomS]

Constantinople was elevated to the New Rome for political reasons; to allow Constantine (who was no saint!) to consolidate his power.

Instead of reading the Church's version of history - read the historians who do not have an agenda.

[OrthodoxyOrDeath]

orthodox_christian2000,

I don't think you will ever prove anything to your friend, but the evidence is pretty obvious.

Whereever the Apostles founded local churches, whether it be Corinth or Thessoloniki, there is another so-called "See" of that saint; and they founded churches everywhere. But just as it has been in modern times, there are certain cities that are considered important centers of Christianity. Athens is not important because of who founded that local Church, but because there are many people there, and maybe the Synod meets there, and it is therefore recognized as being more important than churches in Nafplio or Tripoli.

To prove this point, we can easily see that Rome was not the only city to become "important", and by important I mean recognized centers of Christianity. Antioch was also very important and so was Alexandria; today they are not important centers of christianity, but they had a lingering historical importance in that there was a Patriarch still residing there. And has anyone said Antioch or Alexandria was important because of who founded them? In fact, St. Peter founded Antioch and was bishop there for 15 years - there you can clearly say, St. Peter apostolic succession resides, while the same cannot be said of St. Peter in Rome; because if he was in Rome at all, it is generally accepted he was only there a few weeks. St. Paul layed the hands on the successor bishop in Rome before St. Peter arrived.

And if Rome was the preimenent "See" because St. Peter was martyred there (which teh latins claim but is by no means an accepted fact), then why is it that nobody cares where the other apostles were martyred? If this Roman Catholic theory is true, then the locations of where the other apostles where martyred would also become important, albeit "lesser" cities in the Latin "heirarchy of cities".

[orthodox_christian2000]

Tom,
While I agree that some of St. Constantine surely did not live an exemplary life, he did make Christianity a tolerable faith, he did have the beacon of sanctity, his mother, St. Helen as a positive influence, and we know that he did accept the Church in its fullness before he died. I surely won't take it upon myself to comment on anyone's sanctity, but I think if the Church gave him, along with his mother, the title of Equal to the Apostles, that it did this for a reason. I'm surely not denying that, as emperor, St. Constantine had his own agendas, but realistically, Constantine was rarely in Constantinople anyway. But I appreciate your reply, and much thanks for that. OrthodoxyorDeath, thank you for your reply also. It was very helpful.
Theodore

[Nikodemus]

If you read the First Ecumenical Synod in Nicea you will find in canon six that Rome was given a high rank because..."it is the capital of the Empire" and also BECAUSE the churches of Alexandria and Antioch had already this high positions. This is obvious proof of the following:

The Roman Catholic claim that the pope somehow has the right JURE DIVINO to primacy over all other churches was not recognized in the first council (an in the later seven counculs) but it was GIVEN a high rank BY THE SYNOD because it was an impoirtant city for christianity (and so was Antioch and Alexandria). With this logic it is not difficult to understand why the fourth and fith ecumenical Synods gave the patriarch of Constantinople a similar rank, becuase COnstantinopel had become the New Rome, the new important city of Chirstianity.

It was also for this reason that the Moscow partiarchate later received the fith place of honor among the orthodox churches becuase of the city of Moscows importance for christianity.

Now none of these cities are really important anymore and we live in a spiritual catacomb age where the orthodoxy of the bishop is the criteria of faith, as was the case in Rome (for example) before the First Ecumenical Synod, when the pope did not concider himself to be Vicarius Chirsti and Caput Ecclesia, but was a simple humble bishop of Christ Flock.

To your catholic friend, you can inform him how Pope gregory the Great viewed the title "Ecumenical" that the emperor had bestwedew on the patriarch of Contantinople. Pope Gregory hatet this wrd and said that any bishop who called himself universal was an antichrist, because no bishop has this authority. Read Abbe Guette s book "The Papacy". This is a warning not just to roman pontiffs who call themself caput ecclesia, infallible, vicarius christi etc, but also to the ecumenical ecumenist Ecumenical Patriarchate of today.

[joasia]

CHRIST IS RISEN!

orthodox_christian2000

What the Romans hold onto is the arguement that Christ specified St. Peter as the head of the Church of Christ because He said: And I also say to you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build My church and the gates of hades shall not prevail against it. (Matt 16;18)

But, this is not the meaning of His words. You see, the words used were in Greek. The context of the wording, in that language has to be taken into consideration. The word for rock, is petros, and the name Peter is also Petros. It was a play on words. Christ was not referring to the man, but to what St. Peter had stated: Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God. (Matt 16;16)

St. Peter was never the bishop of Rome. He came to Rome in his final years and went to meet with the Bishop, Linus, who was the bishop of Rome.

[orthodox_christian2000]

Nikodem and Joasia,
Thank-you both for your replies. Surely I have pointed at the First Ecumenical Synod, that named Rome as an important Christian centre, together with Alexandria and Antioch. I surely did point to St. Gregory the Great, Pope of Rome of blessed memory, who refused the conotation that the title the Ecumenical Council at Chalcedon conferred upon his Patriarchate. I pointed to Pope Leo III, who condemned filioque, as did Pope Hadrian I, and Pope John VIII of blessed memory, who condemned the claim of universal jurisdiction and condemned the filioque at the Council in Constantinople in 879.
As for "proving", (someone told me that they doubted I would prove anything to my friend) that isn't really my intention. I was given an argument that I didn't know how to answer, namely the apostolic foundation of Constantinople or Byzantio as it was called before being renamed? I figured that this would be a good place to enquire, seeing how much most on these forums know about Orthodoxy.
Thank-you all for your replies. I appreciate it.
The least in Christ,
Theodore