My Big Discovery!

[mardukm]

Dear brother Isa,

And why doesn’t St. Peter at Antioch? Zakka Iwas Ignatius still claims the succession of St. Peter (as does the EO, Melkite, Maronite and Syrian under Rome). If the primacy is in Peter, why does his disciple St. Mark have it among the OO?

Because it was understood that St. Peter’s actual successor, not just the Petrine succession, was possessed uniquely by Rome and not in Antioch. As St. John Chrystostom wrote, “we had Peter, but we gave him up to glorious Rome.” Also, the belief that the blood of the martyrs is the seed of the Church had a special significance in the early Church. Sts. Peter and Paul died in Rome, and St, Mark died in Alexandria. Hence, their precedence in the minds of the early Church.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Isa,

So it just “happens” that their ranking in the Church followed their civil ranking?

No, you have it backwards again. The importance of these cities in the Christian world existed even before Constantine came into the picture, and the reason they were important to Christians is NOT because of their civil status.:banghead:

Bottom line: Rome was on the decline and had shrunk by the time we are talking of to a fourth of its size at her height, and would sink further still.

If that is the case, then it refutes your claim. If Rome’s civil status was on the wane, then her civil status could not possibly be the reason that she was counted first among the Sees.

Alexandria and Antioch were still vibrant cities.

Yes, vibrant in their faith, not in anything else. And THAT is why they were important to Christians.

Jerusalem was a town at most, and was under Caesarea’s shadow, until the pilgrim trade changed that, resulting in her elevation.

Where is your proof that Jerusalem was elevated because of an increase in “pilgrim trade”?

Yes, the Fathers speak of divine favor, how Romulus founded Rome, how Alexander founded Alexandria, how Ausgustus united the world so that the Church could spread in it. The divine favor was shown through, not despite, the secular order.

Uhhh…Rome, Alexandria and Antioch were not special to Christians because of their founding fathers.

Funny, my Bible ends with the vision of a New Jerusalem.

Yes, funny how you interpret the spiritual New Jerusalem as the current one. .

I’ve never heard such a justification of why Jerusalem did not have patriarchal status, and were that the reason, why did the Fathers elevate it? Did sacrifices resume?

Yes, Jerusalem did not have status in the Christian Church because of the predictions of Scripture. Just one of many such opinions was provided by Pope St. Athanasius:
“So the Jews are trifling, and the time in question which they refer to the future is actually come…For when did prophet and vision cease from Israel save when Christ came, the Holy of Holies?..which is just what we actually see - there is no longer king nor prophet nor Jerusalem nor sacrifice nor vision among them -but even the whole earth is filled with the knowledge of God…”

The bishops of Jerusalem were intent on gaining a higher status in the Church. They broke canonical law after canonical law to do that. The Fathers finally elevated it simply to preserve the peace of the Church, acknowledging the claims of the Church in Jerusalem.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Isa_Almisry]

Dear brother Isa,

Because it was understood that St. Peter’s actual successor, not just the Petrine succession, was possessed uniquely by Rome and not in Antioch. As St. John Chrystostom wrote, “we had Peter, but we gave him up to glorious Rome.” Also, the belief that the blood of the martyrs is the seed of the Church had a special significance in the early Church. Sts. Peter and Paul died in Rome, and St, Mark died in Alexandria. Hence, their precedence in the minds of the early Church.

Blessings,
Marduk

And Christ died in Jerusalem.

We’re talking about the Antiochean ideas of Peter, which were brought up. No, I haven’t seen the idea that Peter at Antioch was less than Peter at Rome, least of which Rome (there were two feasts for the Chair of St. Peter, the present feast was the one at Antioch).

I also haven’t seen anything that implies the Antiochean praise of Peter means Rome. It certainly didn’t during the Meletian schim.

Your quote of St. Chrysostom acknowledges that St. Peter left Antioch at one time, nothing more. Pope St. Gregory speaks of Rome, Alexandria and Antioch as “one Petrine See.”

 

[Isa_Almisry]

Dear brother Isa,

No, you have it backwards again. The importance of these cities in the Christian world existed even before Constantine came into the picture, and the reason they were important to Christians is NOT because of their civil status.:banghead:

Once again, c. 16 of Chalcedon (admittedly post Constantine):
17 Rural or country parishes belonging to a church are to stay firmly tied to the bishops who have possession of them, and especially if they have continually and peacefully administered them over a thirty-year period. If, however, within the thirty years any dispute about them has arisen, or should arise, those who are claiming to be wronged are permitted to bring the case before the provincial synod. If there are any who are wronged by their own metropolitan, let their case be judged either by the exarch of the diocese or by the see of Constantinople, as has already been said. If any city has been newly erected, or is erected hereafter, by imperial decree, let the arrangement of ecclesiastical parishes conform to the civil and public regulations.

If that is the case, then it refutes your claim. If Rome’s civil status was on the wane, then her civil status could not possibly be the reason that she was counted first among the Sees.

I think I already stated (if I didn’t I do so now) Rome had an honorary civil status as the capital of the empire (i.e. among pagans it was the same), although the emperor in the West was in Milan. Sort of like the EP today, with similar results.

Yes, vibrant in their faith, not in anything else. And THAT is why they were important to Christians.

Then many a city like Caesarea would have risen to the top, let alone the Thebaid, the Second Holy Land, in Egypt.

Where is your proof that Jerusalem was elevated because of an increase in “pilgrim trade”?

It’s not until Ss Constantine and Helen’s founding of the Churches in the Holy Land that Jerusalem ascended to patriarchal status and eclipsed Neo-Caesarea.

Uhhh…Rome, Alexandria and Antioch were not special to Christians because of their founding fathers.

And Jerusalem wasn’t. (that’s 5 for fifth place).

Yes, funny how you interpret the spiritual New Jerusalem as the current one.

Just combating a Rejectionist statement.

Yes, Jerusalem did not have status in the Christian Church because of the predictions of Scripture. Just one of many such opinions was provided by Pope St. Athanasius:
“So the Jews are trifling, and the time in question which they refer to the future is actually come…For when did prophet and vision cease from Israel save when Christ came, the Holy of Holies?..which is just what we actually see - there is no longer king nor prophet nor Jerusalem nor sacrifice nor vision among them -but even the whole earth is filled with the knowledge of God…”

And of all the Sees, Eusebius only refers to a throne in Jerusalem, and St. Epiphanius speaks of the Throne of St. James the Brother of God as fulfilling the prophecy of unbroken succession on David’s throne.
Again, Revelation is the final prediction of Scripture. And the Last Judgment will be where?
And as for St. Athanasius, why is the DL and the Holy Week services etc. patterned throughout the world on what happened in the Church of Jerusalem?

The bishops of Jerusalem were intent on gaining a higher status in the Church. They broke canonical law after canonical law to do that. The Fathers finally elevated it simply to preserve the peace of the Church, acknowledging the claims of the Church in Jerusalem.

Funny, the answer Rome always gives to questions like these (cf. Constantiople at Lateran IV) is “they gave in to pressure.” So much for confirming the brethren.

 

[mardukm]

Once again, c. 16 of Chalcedon (admittedly post Constantine):
17 Rural or country parishes belonging to a church are to stay firmly tied to the bishops who have possession of them, and especially if they have continually and peacefully administered them over a thirty-year period. If, however, within the thirty years any dispute about them has arisen, or should arise, those who are claiming to be wronged are permitted to bring the case before the provincial synod. If there are any who are wronged by their own metropolitan, let their case be judged either by the exarch of the diocese or by the see of Constantinople, as has already been said. If any city has been newly erected, or is erected hereafter, by imperial decree, let the arrangement of ecclesiastical parishes conform to the civil and public regulations.

Uhhh…once again, the portion you highlighted refers TO THE BOUNDARIES OF PARISHES, NOT THEIR ECCLESIASTICAL STATUS.

I think I already stated (if I didn’t I do so now) Rome had an honorary civil status as the capital of the empire (i.e. among pagans it was the same), although the emperor in the West was in Milan. Sort of like the EP today, with similar results.

Rome was regarded first among the Churches by Christians because she had honorary status in the secular world. I couldn’t possibly be because the two greatest Apostles watered that Church with their blood, could it? The more I think about it, the crazier your rationalizations sound.

Then many a city like Caesarea would have risen to the top, let alone the Thebaid, the Second Holy Land, in Egypt.

Were their Churches watered by the blood of those who knew Christ himself?

It’s not until Ss Constantine and Helen’s founding of the Churches in the Holy Land that Jerusalem ascended to patriarchal status and eclipsed Neo-Caesarea.

Yes. This fully supports my contention that a Church’s status within Christendom was by virtue of their value to Christians, NOT because of their value in the secular world.

And Jerusalem wasn’t. (that’s 5 for fifth place).

Please explain. I don’t understand the response.

Just combating a Rejectionist statement.

Please explain. Do you regard the New Jerusalem in a spiritual or earthly manner?

And of all the Sees, Eusebius only refers to a throne in Jerusalem, and St. Epiphanius speaks of the Throne of St. James the Brother of God as fulfilling the prophecy of unbroken succession on David’s throne.

Uhhh…how does this support your claim that the ecclesiastical status of a Church depended on its secular status?

Again, Revelation is the final prediction of Scripture. And the Last Judgment will be where?
And as for St. Athanasius, why is the DL and the Holy Week services etc. patterned throughout the world on what happened in the Church of Jerusalem?

Please explain your point here. I didn’t know the Church was established yet during the Last Supper. I guess your EOPU textbooks say otherwise?

Funny, the answer Rome always gives to questions like these (cf. Constantiople at Lateran IV) is “they gave in to pressure.” So much for confirming the brethren.

Please explain your response.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Isa,

And Christ died in Jerusalem.

NO HE DID NOT.

We’re talking about the Antiochean ideas of Peter, which were brought up. No, I haven’t seen the idea that Peter at Antioch was less than Peter at Rome, least of which Rome (there were two feasts for the Chair of St. Peter, the present feast was the one at Antioch).

Never seen that idea either. Why bring it up?

I also haven’t seen anything that implies the Antiochean praise of Peter means Rome. It certainly didn’t during the Meletian schim.

Has anyone ever claimed this? Stop knocking down straw men.

Your quote of St. Chrysostom acknowledges that St. Peter left Antioch at one time, nothing more. Pope St. Gregory speaks of Rome, Alexandria and Antioch as “one Petrine See.”

St. Chrysostom was referring to more than the fact that St. Peter left Antioch. He was referring to St. Peter’s martyrdom in Rome. That is why I gave the quote. As stated, the blood of the martyrs is the seed of the Church.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Isa_Almisry]

Uhhh…once again, the portion you highlighted refers TO THE BOUNDARIES OF PARISHES, NOT THEIR ECCLESIASTICAL STATUS.

Hair splitting. Constantinople first became independent, then second, then a patriarchate on this principle.

Rome was regarded first among the Churches by Christians because she had honorary status in the secular world. I couldn’t possibly be because the two greatest Apostles watered that Church with their blood, could it? The more I think about it, the crazier your rationalizations sound.

Oh? Who’s the pontifex maximus today, and where did he get the title?

Were their Churches watered by the blood of those who knew Christ himself?

Caesarea in Palestine? I think a number of martyrs in Palestine, starting with the first St. Stephan, knew Christ personally.

We had no shortage of martyrs and Apostles in the East, unlike the West, where they were concentrated in Rome.

Yes. This fully supports my contention that a Church’s status within Christendom was by virtue of their value to Christians, NOT because of their value in the secular world.

Symphonia. They were Emperor and Empress Mother. Until then, Jerusalem was just a suffragan of Caesarea.

The Apostles didn’t gravitate FROM Jerusalem to Rome, Alexandria and Antioch (actually, Antioch, Rome, Alexandria) in a vacuum.

Please explain. I don’t understand the response.

Jerusalem had no lack of founding Fathers, yet it wasn’t on the radar for the patriarchate.

Please explain. Do you regard the New Jerusalem in a spiritual or earthly manner?

Spritual doesn’t mean you throw out the earthly. If it did, there would be nothing to pilgrimages.

Uhhh…how does this support your claim that the ecclesiastical status of a Church depended on its secular status?

According to Christian standards, Jerusalem should have been a patriarchate, and a preeminent one at that. Yet it wasn’t.

Please explain your point here. I didn’t know the Church was established yet during the Last Supper. I guess your EOPU textbooks say otherwise?

No, we went on a field trip, called a pilgrimage to the Upper Room. And it was in Jerusalem, on Mt. Zion.

The Holy Week Services (holy fire, etc.) are patterned on their celebration in Jerusalem, and the original DL is that of Jerusalem, St. James’.

Please explain your response.

There Rome at last caught up with the rest of the Church (only took 8 centuries) and recognized Constantinople as second. Of course, they had usurped the See by then with a Latin. The excuse is often given that Rome was trying to keep peace, recognize the situation with the Muslims, blah, blah, blah.

 

[Isa_Almisry]

Dear brother Isa,

NO HE DID NOT.

Luke 13:33.

Never seen that idea either. Why bring it up?

Because I have seen it many a time, including here, where a text says “Peter,” and what is read is “Rome.”

Has anyone ever claimed this? Stop knocking down straw men.

I burn them.

Yes, several have claimed that, including here. In fact a revert stated that she went back to Rome on the basis of such a quote by St. Ephraim.

St. Chrysostom was referring to more than the fact that St. Peter left Antioch. He was referring to St. Peter’s martyrdom in Rome. That is why I gave the quote. As stated, the blood of the martyrs is the seed of the Church.

Blessings,
Marduk

Can we have a fuller quote to see what he was referring to?