Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew: Eastern Orthodox Church began during reign of Constantine

[BoomerangToo]

If you take this statement to it’s logical conclusion, this is an admission that the Eastern Orthodox Church is not an apostolic church, and is not the ‘one true church’ that the Catholic Church broke away from.

Bob Simon of 60 Minutes interviewed His All Holiness, Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew in 2010.

Simon: Why [does] the leader of so many millions of Orthodox Christians in the world, live in a country that is 99% Muslim?

Bartholomew: Because we are here before this country becomes a Muslim country. Eh, much earlier, since ever, since the very beginning.

Simon: Since the very beginning of what?
Bartholomew: Of the foundation of our church, of the Church of Constantinople.

Simon: Today in all of Turkey, there are only 4000 Orthodox Christians left.
Bartholomew: We are treated as citizens of second class.

Simon: You are treated as second class citizens?
Bartholomew: We don’t feel that we enjoy our full rights as Turkish citizens.

Simon: You are treated as second class citizens here, and you are Greek. Why don’t you go to Greece?
Bartholomew: Because we love our country, we are born here, we want to die here. We feel that our mission is here, as it has been for seventeen entire centuries.

Simon: Seventeen centuries?
Bartholomew: Seventeen centuries. And I wonder why the authorities of our country do not respect this history.

“Seventeen centuries” That puts the origin of the church in Constantinople, the Eastern Orthodox Church, during the reign of Constantine. How could Andrew have founded this church?

 

[po18guy]

All Orthodox are most assuredly Apostolic! No one has credibly accused them of being non-Apostolic! Their line of succession is unbroken! As to the rest, well… we pray for unity.

 

[PaulfromIowa]

The Church of Constantinople, and Constantinople itself, dates to Constantine. However, the apostolic Church in Asia Minor dates to apostolic times. The EP certainly knows this.

Christians in Turkey have been subject to the severest persecution and genocides in the last century. It is correct that there are only about four thousand Greek Orthodox left in Turkey. Turkish law requires the Patriarch of Constantinople to be a Turkish citizen, so, it is unclear how much longer the Patriarchate will be able to survive in Turkey.

 

[BoomerangToo]

However, the apostolic Church in Asia Minor dates to apostolic times

The churches of Asia Minor were probably founded by John and Paul as far as anyone knows. How could Andrew have founded the Church in Constantinople if that church is only 1700 years old? That’s what I’m getting at.

 

[ziapueblo]

Of course the Eastern Orthodox Churches are apostolic. The see of Constantinople was elevated to the dignity of Patriarch at the Second Ecumenical Council. I’m sure that is what His all Holiness Bartholomew I is referring too.

 

[jas84173]

I don’t think he meant it in the sense you are taking it. The Church in Constantinople came to be the heart of Orthodoxy however it of course existed before that in other Churches such as Antioch. Not to mention at this point there was no schism. There was no Catholic and Orthodox. Just Christian’s.

 

[porthos11]

PaulfromIowa:

However, the apostolic Church in Asia Minor dates to apostolic times

The churches of Asia Minor were probably founded by John and Paul as far as anyone knows. How could Andrew have founded the Church in Constantinople if that church is only 1700 years old? That’s what I’m getting at.

Tradition has it is that St. Andrew evangelized Byzantium, which has existed in Asia Minor long before Constatntine made it capital. The Patriarchate came later, but the local church of Byzantium dates back to apostolic times.

 

[runningdude]

A church is a formal body. The Church of Constantinople was elevated to a patriarchy during the time of Constantine. Prior to that, it was either a mission territory or a local diocese of another patriarchy.

 

[jas84173]

It’s not like Christianity began in Rome in 60 A.D. just because that’s when Peter and Paul arrived there. That’s when the church in Rome was established. The Church was probably already in Byzantine before it was Constantinople also. It just wasn’t the formal heart of Orthodoxy until following the schism.

 

[twf]

As other posters have pointed out, His All-Holiness is not at all implying that Orthodoxy only dates back to the time of Constantine. The Catholic Church fully acknowledges that the Eastern Orthodox Churches have true apostolic succession. He is simply saying that the diocese, to use a Latin term, of Constantinople was organized around that time…
The particular Church to which I belong, the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Vancouver, was organized in the 19th century. That doesn’t mean that Catholicism is less than two centuries old.

 

[steve-b]

If you take this statement to it’s logical conclusion, this is an admission that the Eastern Orthodox Church is not an apostolic church, and is not the ‘one true church’ that the Catholic Church broke away from.

Bob Simon of 60 Minutes interviewed His All Holiness, Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew in 2010.

Simon: Why [does] the leader of so many millions of Orthodox Christians in the world, live in a country that is 99% Muslim?

Bartholomew: Because we are here before this country becomes a Muslim country. Eh, much earlier, since ever, since the very beginning.

Simon: Since the very beginning of what?
Bartholomew: Of the foundation of our church, of the Church of Constantinople.

Simon: Today in all of Turkey, there are only 4000 Orthodox Christians left.
Bartholomew: We are treated as citizens of second class.

Simon: You are treated as second class citizens?
Bartholomew: We don’t feel that we enjoy our full rights as Turkish citizens.

Simon: You are treated as second class citizens here, and you are Greek. Why don’t you go to Greece?
Bartholomew: Because we love our country, we are born here, we want to die here. We feel that our mission is here, as it has been for seventeen entire centuries.

Simon: Seventeen centuries?
Bartholomew: Seventeen centuries. And I wonder why the authorities of our country do not respect this history.

When one breaks with Peter, they are no longer obeying Our Lord.

I’ve asked this question for 14 years on CA, and 6 years before that, on another Catholic forum which no longer exists. The question is

Name the first time, in history, in writing, properly referenced, where the name “Orthodox Church” first appears.

I’ve put that out to Orthodox who were posters, as well as ANYONE knowledgeable of history who could answer… To this date I haven’t gotten a satisfactory answer. But I’m still waiting.

BTW, as we all know of the name changes from Byzantium ,to Constantinople, to Istanbul

I don’t know why people still insist on calling Istanbul, Constantinople.

 

[ltwin]

I don’t know why people still insist on calling Istanbul, Constantinople.

Because “Istanbul” is simply a corruption of the Greek shorthand for “Constantinople”, so they essentially mean the same thing–“the city [of Constantine]”. Plus, if you are Greek or an Orthodox Christian, the name “Constantinople” has a lot of historical and cultural meaning.

 

[BoomerangToo]

OK, that makes sense. Thanks.

 

[steve-b]

steve-b:

I don’t know why people still insist on calling Istanbul, Constantinople.

Because “Istanbul” is simply a corruption of the Greek shorthand for “Constantinople”, so they essentially mean the same thing–“the city [of Constantine]”. Plus, if you are Greek or an Orthodox Christian, the name “Constantinople” has a lot of historical and cultural meaning.

I’ve also heard that answer before. Bottom line, Constantinople doesn’t exist anymore AND here’s the rub, If a letter is addressed to Constantinople, it won’t be delivered. Not my words it’s from National Geographic. https://www.nationalgeographic.org/thisday/mar28/istanbul-not-constantinople/

 

[porthos11]

ltwin:

steve-b:

I don’t know why people still insist on calling Istanbul, Constantinople.

Because “Istanbul” is simply a corruption of the Greek shorthand for “Constantinople”, so they essentially mean the same thing–“the city [of Constantine]”. Plus, if you are Greek or an Orthodox Christian, the name “Constantinople” has a lot of historical and cultural meaning.

I’ve also heard that answer before. Bottom line, Constantinople doesn’t exist anymore AND here’s the rub, If a letter is addressed to Constantinople, it won’t be delivered. Not my words it’s from National Geographic. https://www.nationalgeographic.org/thisday/mar28/istanbul-not-constantinople/

Civil changes do not necessarily have to affect ecclesiastical practice. Istanbul is not called Byzantium either, but nothing will also change the fact that the liturgical rite of the Eastern Orthodox and many Catholics is the Byzantine Rite. Likewise, the Patriarchate will always be called the Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople. When you write to his All-Holiness, you will address him as the Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople, Istanbul, Turkey.

Even in the Western Church, there’s such a thing called a titular see. The see still “exists” in title, even through the city is no more. The the Patriarchate is way more than a titular see. It’s a real, breathing church. There is no reason for it to change its name just because the civil municipality has.

 

[steve-b]

steve-b:

ltwin:

steve-b:

I don’t know why people still insist on calling Istanbul, Constantinople.

Because “Istanbul” is simply a corruption of the Greek shorthand for “Constantinople”, so they essentially mean the same thing–“the city [of Constantine]”. Plus, if you are Greek or an Orthodox Christian, the name “Constantinople” has a lot of historical and cultural meaning.

I’ve also heard that answer before. Bottom line, Constantinople doesn’t exist anymore AND here’s the rub, If a letter is addressed to Constantinople, it won’t be delivered. Not my words it’s from National Geographic. https://www.nationalgeographic.org/thisday/mar28/istanbul-not-constantinople/

Civil changes do not necessarily have to affect ecclesiastical practice. Istanbul is not called Byzantium either, but nothing will also change the fact that the liturgical rite of the Eastern Orthodox and many Catholics is the Byzantine Rite. Likewise, the Patriarchate will always be called the Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople. When you write to his All-Holiness, you will address him as the Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople, Istanbul, Turkey.

Even in the Western Church, there’s such a thing called a titular see. The see still “exists” in title, even through the city is no more. The the Patriarchate is way more than a titular see. It’s a real, breathing church. There is no reason for it to change its name just because the civil municipality has.

Here is the address of the E Orthodox patriarch

Yavuz Sultan Selim Mahallesi, Dr. Sadık Ahmet Cd. No:44, 34083 Fatih/İstanbul, Turkey
the Ecumenical Patriarchate’s, Address

All I’m saying,
If Constantinople is used instead of Istanbul as the address, the Patriarch won’t be receiving his mail.

 

[spina1953]

Actually Istanbul means Emerald not a corruption of Canstanople .

 

[ltwin]

I’ve also heard that answer before. Bottom line, Constantinople doesn’t exist anymore AND here’s the rub, If a letter is addressed to Constantinople, it won’t be delivered. Not my words it’s from National Geographic. https://www.nationalgeographic.org/thisday/mar28/istanbul-not-constantinople/

Kostantiniyye was an official name of the city at times, and Greek Christians continue to use the Greek name that they’ve used for centuries. Just because a city has an official name doesn’t mean a patriarchate has to change its name. I find it hard to believe “Constantinople” ceased to exist simply because it was renamed “Istanbul.” They are the same city.

 

[runningdude]

Even old New York was once New Amsterdam…

Actually, it operated under the Dutch charter for a decade under English rule. Same city, different name.

Los Angeles was founded as the City of Our Lady, Queen of the Angels. The city never stopped existing when modern charters omit Our Lady from the civil corporate name.

Instanbul was known by both names throughout Ottoman rule. It was only in the 1910’s or 20’s that the Turkish post office standardized the name internationally. Constantinople never stopped existing - at most, the civil legal name changed.

Further, the See of Constantinople never changed it’s legal name. There is still a canonical structure by the name of Constantinople that encompasses the city.

It is thus inaccurate to say that “Constantinople” no longer exists, even if you cannot send mail to it!

 

[steve-b]

steve-b:

I’ve also heard that answer before. Bottom line, Constantinople doesn’t exist anymore AND here’s the rub, If a letter is addressed to Constantinople, it won’t be delivered. Not my words it’s from National Geographic. https://www.nationalgeographic.org/thisday/mar28/istanbul-not-constantinople/

Kostantiniyye was an official name of the city at times, and Greek Christians continue to use the Greek name that they’ve used for centuries. Just because a city has an official name doesn’t mean a patriarchate has to change its name. I find it hard to believe “Constantinople” ceased to exist simply because it was renamed “Istanbul.” They are the same city.

As I’ll say again,

Good luck for one getting their mail if one doesn’t use the correct name of the city… ESPECIALLY in a Moslem country who has no interest in keeping names they deliberately changed.