"New Rome" proves the claims of the bishop of Rome

[anthony022071]

What does that mean anyway?

The way the Orthodox understand it,it’s like when the decrepit great-grandfather is put at the head of the table at family gatherings,out of respect for his age – but the rest of the family doesn’t take seriously anything he has to say.

 

[Isa_Almisry]

The way the Orthodox understand it,it’s like when the decrepit great-grandfather is put at the head of the table at family gatherings,out of respect for his age – but the rest of the family doesn’t take seriously anything he has to say.

It means when the head of the family keeps his family’s respect by doing what is proper and the proof of his wisdom, and not demanding their obedience by shouting “because I say so.” Sic semper tyranni.

 

[anthony022071]

< Of course no one else was at the ECUMENICAL council. >

The bishops of the council made sure that the papal legates weren’t around when thy concocted canon 28.

< READ the canon. It says nothing about jurisdiction over the Eastern churches outside of Thrace (which Constantinople was by then the metropolis), Asia (a embroyonic patriarchate that was never to be, wedged between Antioch and Rome, and then New Rome), and the Pontic/Barbarian areas (another embryonic patriarchate of Caesarea, absorbed into Constantinople rather than Antioch or her daughter Armenia). >

That’s the whole of the Eastern Mediterranean and Black Sea lands,and the barbarian tribes to the north of Geece. Asia was the Middle East and Arabia,and could even refer to Egypt and Libya. By claiming for themselves the “privileges” of Rome,they were claiming jurisdiction over all of the Eastern churches,because that is what the popes had always claimed. How else would you define “privileges of honor”?
Chalcedon and Trullo defined it in terms of ecclesiastical jurisdiction: Constantinople was to have the same privileges in ecclesiastical matters in the Eastern churches as Rome did.
In practice,the privileges in question amount to jurisdiction over other dioceses. Constantinople,“New Rome”,was trying to emulate the authority over the East that they acknowledged in Rome. There’s no other way to explain it.

 

[Alexius]

With all due respect, perhaps you are reading too much into these “privileges.” I think you assume they refer to authority, but that is not clear. To me, if they refer to authority, then Constantinople has been given the same authority. What remains is Rome’s honorary past…Again, I do not mean to offend you in anyway.

Prayers and petitions,
Alexius

 

[anthony022071]

With all due respect, perhaps you are reading too much into these “privileges.” I think you assume they refer to authority, but that is not clear. To me, if they refer to authority, then Constantinople has been given the same authority. What remains is Rome’s honorary past…Again, I do not mean to offend you in anyway.

Prayers and petitions,
Alexius

Well,then what do you suppose they meant by “privileges of honor”?
Canon 28 states that Constantinople “should in ecclesiastical matters also be magnified as she [Rome] is,and rank next after her”. It then goes on to say that bishops in the Pontic,Asian and Thracian dioceses should be ordained by the archbishop of Constantinople. That amounts to claiming authority and jurisdiction over those regions – authority and jurisdiction which Rome evidently had but which Constantinople did not have. That is the meaning which underlies the title of “New Rome”.
The Church of Constantinople was trying to prop itself up on imperial authority,giving itself ecclesiastical authority over the East. The Roman Church had its authority on account of Peter and Paul,who were martyred there. The popes of Rome had their authority specifically on account of Peter,who was given the care of the whole Church by Christ. In the first 3 centuries,the Roman Church did not need to have its authority over the whole Church spelled out by the canons of councils,because it was a matter of tradition.