If Constantine made the capital Constantinople shouldn’t the pope reside there?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Jragzz123
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
J

Jragzz123

Guest
I’ve been reading a lot about Orthodoxy and I feel very drawn to their spirituality. I’ve also been doing a lot of research and to me it seems the split is more RC fault that the Orthodox. One of the things that’s stood out to me is that Constantine moved the capital of the Roman Empire to Constantinople. Shouldn’t that mean the Pope should’ve moved there as well or that the Patriarch of Constantinople should have become the new Pope? Thanks in advance!
 
The Patriarch did try, with some success, to leverage the position.

But the Bishop of Rome is the Pope as the successor to Peter’s final see (the Catholic view), or as the site of the martyrdoms of SS Peter & Paul (the orthodox view)–and not because it was the capital of the empire.
 
Interesting thought, this. But, given the fact that Turkey is a majority Islamic country, as well as the head of state isn’t well disposed to Christianity, having the Pope there wouldn’t sit well with the government.
 
Don’t forget that this Islamic country already “has” the Primus inter pares of Orthodox patriarchs.
 
When Constantine picked Byzantium as the site of his new capital, the papacy had already been established in Rome for nearly 300 years.
 
The Pope is by definition the Bishop of Rome, so it is fitting that he stays there.
 
Nope.

Scroll down to Constantinople here: Does the Orthodox Church predate the Catholic Church?

I also recommend the following links:
  1. “Reply to a Lapsed Catholic, now Eastern Orthodox by” James Likoudis
    Reply to an Eastern Orthodox Critic
  2. “Orthodox & Catholic Ecclesiology: Possible Synthesis?” by Dave Armstrong
    Orthodox & Catholic Ecclesiology: Possible Synthesis? | Dave Armstrong
  3. “Eastern Orthodoxy & Catholicism” by Dave Armstrong
    Eastern Orthodoxy & Catholicism (Index Page) | Dave Armstrong
 
Last edited:
The Church is not bound by an emperor’s decision on the placement of his capital. The move did make Constantinople a more important city for the Church, but it did not alter the succession of the Petrine Office.
 
I do not understand the argument. If the Church was tied to which city was most important, then the pope would be in Washington DC, as the capital of the strongest nation militarily and economically. If it was tied to the capital of the Roman Empire, we would have no papacy. Constantine has no ecclesial authority himself.
 
Last edited:
I think the fundamental problem that leads to questions like this is the term ‘pope’. Most see it as the title of the head on earth of the Church. That is not the case. It is simply an anglicised version of the Latin and Greek words for ‘father’ and applied to the pope but not as a formal title. The pope is the head on earth of the Church but ‘pope’ is not one of his official titles. Fundamentally, the pope is the Bishop of Rome. That is why his see is in Rome and not in Byzantium/Constantinople/Istanbul or any other city.
 
stuartbrianhenlis said:
having the Pope there wouldn’t sit well with the government.
Click to expand...
They don’t due that well with eh EP . . . . locked out of his church for centuries, his seminaries shut down and guarded, a requirement that a turk be chosen, . . .
TomH1 said:
Fundamentally, the pope is the Bishop of Rome
Click to expand...
“Strike that. Reverse it.”

but otherwise, that’s e4xactul the issue.
 
The “housekeeper” (keeper of the Keys) of Christ in earth is in Rome because his first occupant, Saint Peter, was sent by God Himself to evangelize there (and eventually become bishop, as the rest of the Apostles), because that was the centre of the roman world at that time. And, as history demonstrates, from there missionaries could evangelize to the Americas, Asia and Oceania.

Today the Catholic Church is the most united and cohesive global Church among christianity, even when our housekeeper is in some old city that has passed its glory. It’s all God’ Grace.
 
Last edited:
AlbMagno said:
The “housekeeper” (keeper of the Keys) of Christ in earth is in Rome because his first occupant, Saint Peter, was sent by God Himself to evangelize there
Click to expand...
Peter and Paul, the first and last of the great Apostles, both gave their lives in Rome because it was the capital of the Roman Empire, that Rome become Christian… Then Rome moved to New Rome in Constantinople, which thereby became the New Capital of the Roman Empire, and in that process, the Roman Empire ceased persecutions of Christians and became a Christian Roman Empire… So the Christian Roman Empire began in New Rome in Constantinople under the Roman Emperor Constantine… Roma, Italia, was never the capital of the Christian Roman Empire in the history of the world…

Do I have this right?

geo
 
I guess my point is that Peter and Paul went to Rome because it was the heart of the Roman Empire not because it was a cool city. So shouldn’t the successor of Peter go to Constantinople because it’s the new heart of the Roman Empire? Also how might history have played out differently if he had? Would we have lost the East to the Muslims?
 
Jragzz123 said:
I’ve been reading a lot about Orthodoxy and I feel very drawn to their spirituality. I’ve also been doing a lot of research and to me it seems the split is more RC fault that the Orthodox. One of the things that’s stood out to me is that Constantine moved the capital of the Roman Empire to Constantinople. Shouldn’t that mean the Pope should’ve moved there as well or that the Patriarch of Constantinople should have become the new Pope? Thanks in advance!
Click to expand...
Why? Why do you think the early Church should have been subject to the Emperor of Rome? Or any secular rulers for that matter?

That been a major difference between the Eastern Orthodox and the Catholics. The Eastern Orthodox have always been a little too close & subject to their local political leaders.

The was a fear that the Church of the East had, and was the major political reason why the Christians who lived east of the Roman Empire eventually when into schism. They felt their western counterparts (in this case, mainly the Greek Christians) were too close to the Roman Emperor.
 
Last edited:
Jragzz123 said:
I guess my point is that Peter and Paul went to Rome because it was the heart of the Roman Empire not because it was a cool city. So shouldn’t the successor of Peter go to Constantinople because it’s the new heart of the Roman Empire? Also how might history have played out differently if he had? Would we have lost the East to the Muslims?
Click to expand...
  1. The reason for Peter and Paul’s mission to Rome was a success. They converted enough people which lead to Constantine becoming the first Christian Emperor of Rome and lead to the creation of a new Christian nation.
  2. There would have been no purpose for the Holy See to move to Constantinople because the Roman Empire was already becoming Christian at the founding of Constantinople.
  3. If the Pope would have moved to Constantinople, it’s quite possible things could have wound up being worse for Christianity.
  • If the Pope would have moved East, no one would have been left to fill the vacuum of leadership when the western part of the Roman Empire fell apart. It’s quite probable that the west would have fell to paganism instead of Christianity without the Pope to fill in with temporal leadership in the Latin lands.
  • There is no reason to believe that if the Pope was in Constantinople, the Crusades would have turned out any differently. The truth is, the army of Ottoman Turks & other Islamic kingdoms were far superior to Europe.
  • It’s very possible that if the Pope was in Constantinople, he would be living in Islamic controlled territory today or even possible that the Turks would have eliminated him instead of allowing him to continue to exist like they have the with the Patriarch of Constantinople.
  • Without the Pope in Italy, it’s possible that the Renaissance may not have happened & without a Catholic Spain and Portugal, it’s likely that the number of Catholics in South America, Central America, Asia & Africa would be a tiny fraction of what they are today.
Whether we want to admit it or not, until the invention of airplanes, Rome really was a pretty good geographic location for the centralized Church.
 
Last edited:
The Pope was, has, and is subject to many secular leaders already though.
 
That’s a really good point! I agree that if the pope had moved Europe would probably have fallen to paganism!
 
Jragzz123 said:
The Pope was, has, and is subject to many secular leaders already though.
Click to expand...
Well, not really. The Popes may have been influenced by some secular leaders, but they really haven’t been subjected to them for most of history.

The first several Popes were all martyrs. Then, the Popes under the Roman Empire were more of a pain the butt to the Roman Empire vs being subject to them.

Then, when the Western part of the Roman Empire fell, the Papal States (officially called “The State of the Church”) arose out of the ashes, the Pope was subject to no one during the entire time of the Papal States. The Papal States existed from 754 AD until 1870 AD.

Finally, the “Roman Question” existed from 1870 to 1929, when Vatican City was established as the successor to the Papal States.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top