Is that the one where Rome whines forever and ever about how they’re being denied their proper place because the New Romans refuse to allow the Old Romans to govern the entire world, and then the New Romans turn around and behave just like Old Rome with respect to ‘their’ own territories that they usurped with the help of a certain Tome that they themselves just happened to approve of, written by the first Roman Pope to develop the idea of Rome’s supremacy along the lines of something like what we see today?
The New Rome, that is Constantinople, has not usurped anything. The Ecumenical Patriarch makes no claims of infallibility or universal jurisdiction and never has. His primacy is only a primacy of honor as first among equals. The Ecumenical Patriarch does not rule the entire world and only has authority within his own patriarchate. Even there, the Patriarch is under the authority of the Holy Synod which makes all important decisions. Each autocephalous Church of Orthodoxy is entirely self-governing and not under the authority of Constantinople. Even the Church of Greece is autocephalous and not under the Patriarchate of Constantinople.
To be honest you seem to have your own commentary going in your head that no one else is actually a part of. I did ask for evidence that St. John Chrysostom appealed to the Pope. I didn’t say anything about his correspondence with anyone else, nor does it seem all that important - unless you have correspondence which includes such appeals.All you had to do is ask me for evidence for what I wrote. When I wrote previously “The first act of the new bishop was to bring about a reconciliation between Flavian and Rome”
Flavian being of Antioch, Chrysostoms previous home, but now Chrysostom is the new Bp of Constantinople, you know there has to be correspondence between Bp John and pope Innocent, …right?
Letters: in sequence
Bp Chrysostom to Pope Innocent…and Pope Innocent back to Bp Chrysostom etc etc. I draw your attention to the first letter 1st section. Chrysostom did inform Innocent and petitioned him. But don’t stop reading there
newadvent.org/fathers/1918.htm
I have no idea what you’re trying to get at here. If you’re implying that the East is rife with heresy, and therefore Orthodoxy must be a heresy then I urge you to look at the West.
No, I’m simply pointing out an error in your statement that Constantinople was added to a list which already included Rome, Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem.
As the senior Bishop of the Church, it was only natural that St. John Chrysostom should bring before him the uncanonical interference by Alexandria in the Patriarchate of Constantinople. That happens today, when there is a dispute between two autocephalous Churches of Eastern Orthodoxy, an appeal is often made to Constantinople to try mediate the dispute as a neutral party. This incident does not mean that either Constantinople or Alexandria recognized the right of the Pope to intervene uninvited in the internal affairs of either Patriarchate. Because the Pope held a primacy of honor there was a limited right to appeal to the Pope just as there is today a limited right to appeal to the Ecumenical Patriarch. The Pope could only act as a mediator, and had no real authority to impose a solution. The Catholics are making much more of this than was really there.All you had to do is ask me for evidence for what I wrote. When I wrote previously “The first act of the new bishop was to bring about a reconciliation between Flavian and Rome”
Flavian being of Antioch, Chrysostoms previous home, but now Chrysostom is the new Bp of Constantinople, you know there has to be correspondence between Bp John and pope Innocent, …right?
Letters: in sequence
Bp Chrysostom to Pope Innocent…and Pope Innocent back to Bp Chrysostom etc etc. I draw your attention to the first letter 1st section. Chrysostom did inform Innocent and petitioned him. But don’t stop reading there
newadvent.org/fathers/1918.htm
Given all the hereises in the East, the seeds of schism were there…that’s all I’m saying. And because we have the advantage of looking at this story in reverse, we know how this story played out.
Quite a joke, really. I should have known, when I saw the sections about Christology and Alexandria, that it the whole article was going to be pretty bad.
Article? It was just a timeline.
While I have a fairly good theological education, my knowledge of Church history is not good enough to evaluate this timeline point-by-point. I will say, however, that it lost credibility with me when it failed to make any distinction between the christology of the Oriental Orthodox and that of Eutyches. I cannot take seriously any source that fails to recognize this distinction. The miaphysitism of the Oriental Orthodox is essentially the christology of St. Cyril of Alexandria, while the monophysitism of Eutyches is clearly heretical.
Yes … and that’s exactly the point where I closed the browser page. What an utter waste of time. :banghead:
Yeah, I’m pretty sure it’s the same tired tale. :yawn: I tried changing the channel but it’s one of those things like Maxwell that just keeps popping up no matter where you look. :yup:
Sorry. I guess I was afraid of appearing to give it too little credit, and then overcompensated by calling it an “article”.
Actually you thought I was taking things too far and that there was NO evidence Chrysostom appealed to the pope. Note your post that I was responding to forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=11347569&postcount=819
You thought there WAS no correspondence between the pope and Chrysostom for help. So I provided evidence of it
And I presented the correspondence that showed the appeal.
I did my part. I showed you Chrysostom’s appeal to Innocent.
My point is, Chrysostom sought help from the pope because of the poisonous environment in Constantinople, Antioch and Alexandria.
I gave the early listing of sees (BC) before Constantinople
how is my presenting historic documents to support various points I’m making, turning everything into a battle?
So, there is an omission of something that you feel is important.
Because when injured by either the courts or government officials, Canadians and Australians always petition the Queen for relief.
I don’t think that’s what Ryan or malphono meant … and it’s definitely not what I said.
I can’t speak for Ryan, but you’ve got it right for me: not what I meant at all.
Hard to imagine that the thing could be less awful. The word “dreadful” comes to mind but even that doesn’t quite capture it.It seems to me that you keep reinterpreting things to make the “article” out to be much better (or less awful) than it is.
I’m not trying to do anything…it’s just a timeline. Sheesh.I don’t think that’s what Ryan or malphono meant … and it’s definitely not what I said.
It seems to me that you keep reinterpreting things to make the “article” out to be much better (or less awful) than it is.
Okay, what did you mean?I can’t speak for Ryan, but you’ve got it right for me: not what I meant at all.
Oh I see. You may be right, but I still think that he didn’t just mean an omission. (I think you’re being a little bit nitpicky regarding Ryan’s choice of words. :tsktsk:
)