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

[anthony022071]

Canon 3 of the Council of Constantinople 1:

Because it is new Rome, the bishop of Constantinople is to enjoy the privileges of honour after the bishop of Rome.

Canon 28 of the Council of Chalcedon:

Following in all things the decisions of the holy Fathers, and acknowledging the canon, which has been just read, of the One Hundred and Fifty Bishops beloved-of-God (who assembled in the imperial city of Constantinople, which is New Rome, in the time of the Emperor Theodosius of happy memory), we also do enact and decree the same things concerning the privileges of the most holy Church of Constantinople, which is New Rome. For the Fathers rightly granted privileges to the throne of old Rome, because it was the royal city. And the One Hundred and Fifty most religious Bishops, actuated by the same consideration, gave equal privileges to the most holy throne of New Rome, justly judging that the city which is honoured with the Sovereignty and the Senate, and enjoys equal privileges with the old imperial Rome, should in ecclesiastical matters also be magnified as she is, and rank next after her; so that, in the Pontic, the Asian, and the Thracian dioceses, the metropolitans only and such bishops also of the Dioceses aforesaid as are among the barbarians, should be ordained by the aforesaid most holy throne of the most holy Church of Constantinople; every metropolitan of the aforesaid dioceses, together with the bishops of his province, ordaining his own provincial bishops, as has been declared by the divine canons; but that, as has been above said, the metropolitans of the aforesaid Dioceses should be ordained by the archbishop of Constantinople, after the proper elections have been held according to custom and have been reported to him.

Council in Trullo (Quinisext) (692), c. 36.

Renewing the enactments by the 150 Fathers assembled at the God-protected and imperial city, and those of the 630 who met at Chalcedon; we decree that the see of Constantinople shall have equal privileges with the see of Old Rome, and shall be highly regarded in ecclesiastical matters as that is, and shall be second after it. After Constantinople shall be ranked the See of Alexandria, then that of Antioch, and afterwards the See of Jerusalem.

When the clergy of Constantinople called Constantinople “New Rome”,they were admitting that Rome had ecclesiastical jurisdiction over the churches of the East. What were these “priviliges of honor” that they speak of? The very same privileges that the popes of Rome claimed for themselves and that the Orthodox deny ever existed!
Canon 28 of Chalcedon mentions the privilege to ordain bishops in other dioceses. Now if the patriarch of Constantinople has the authority to ordain the bishops of other dioceses,then by that same authority he can also depose the bishops in other dioceses,just as the Roman pope does. If he has “privileges” of rank over other churches,he can intervene in the ecclesiastical matters of other churches,just as the Roman pope does.
The primacy of the bishop of Rome was never merely about “primacy of honor”,as the Orthodox would have it;with primacy of honor went “privileges of honor”,which means jurisdiction over other local churches,over Alexandria,Antioch and Jerusalem. That is what the clergy of Constantinople were emulating when they called Constantinople “New Rome”. So the Orthodox have no excuse to say that the bishop of Rome only enjoyed a primacy of honor and that he was not superior to the bishops,because that is not even what the bishops of Constantinople believed.

 

[Alexius]

“Primacy of Honor” proves the Orthodox claim. The Pope held the “primacy of honor” as the chair of Peter. “Primacy of Honor” means first among honor, not universal bishop. That is the Orthodox claim…

Prayers and petitions,
Alexius

 

[Claire_from_DE]

“Primacy of Honor” proves the Orthodox claim. The Pope held the “primacy of honor” as the chair of Peter. “Primacy of Honor” means first among honor, not universal bishop. That is the Orthodox claim…

Prayers and petitions,
Alexius

Do the Orthodox bishops (patriarchs?) consider the bishop of Rome to have a primacy of honor today?

 

[anthony022071]

“Primacy of Honor” proves the Orthodox claim. The Pope held the “primacy of honor” as the chair of Peter. “Primacy of Honor” means first among honor, not universal bishop. That is the Orthodox claim…

Prayers and petitions,
Alexius

That may be the current Orthodox claim,but that is not what the bishops of Constantinople claimed for Rome,or for Constantinople,in those canons.
They spoke of privileges of honor,and authority in ecclesiastical matters over the other Eastern churches. New Rome was attempting to emulate Old Rome in its ecclesiastical jurisdiction over the East. They did not say that Rome’s primacy was based on the Chair of Peter – that was what the Roman popes maintained.

 

[Alexius]

That may be the current Orthodox claim,but that is not what the bishops of Constantinople claimed for Rome,or for Constantinople,in those canons.
They spoke of privileges of honor,and authority in ecclesiastical matters over the other Eastern churches. New Rome was attempting to emulate Old Rome in its ecclesiastical jurisdiction over the East. They did not say that Rome’s primacy was based on the Chair of Peter – that was what the Roman popes maintained.

Actually, it is maintained that Rome has “primacy” based on Peter. Peter, however, was also bishop at Antioch for a time. I do not see anything in the above canons that make the Orthodox argument invalid. I see mention of honor as greater than the other patriarchates, but I also see equal rights to Rome.

Prayers and petitions,
Alexius

 

[anthony022071]

Actually, it is maintained that Rome has “primacy” based on Peter. Peter, however, was also bishop at Antioch for a time. I do not see anything in the above canons that make the Orthodox argument invalid. I see mention of honor as greater than the other patriarchates, but I also see equal rights to Rome.

Prayers and petitions,
Alexius

The Orthodox argue that the bishops,and the sees,were equal,and that the bishops of Rome never had jurisdiction over the East. Those arguments are contradicted by the canons. They say that the “privileges” of Rome will be taken up by Constantinople. So what exactly were those privileges of Rome that the bishops of Constantinople acknowledged? What are those “equal rights to Rome”? They are the same privileges that the popes of Rome claimed for themselves – authority in ecclesiastical matters over the Eastern churches,including the authority to appoint and depose bishops.

 

[MelanieAnne]

With all due respect, I always wonder, when these arguments crop up, how our Saviour, Jesus Christ, would view these squabbles.

Does anyone ever think about HIM or is everyone consumed with their own concerns?

Maybe it’s just me, but I strongly suspect that our Lord would not take kindly to having His body split into pieces. As such, I presume our Lord would chose to have ONE body. We need to ADAPT to HIM.

Jesus, this is our prayer. We LOVE you. Please answer our prayer to bring all souls to heaven, especially those most in need of thy mercy. We ask this not on our own merit but because of your mrecy,

 

[prodromos]

How on earth do Catholics equate “privileges of honor” with “privileges of power and jurisdiction”?

 

[anthony022071]

How on earth do Catholics equate “privileges of honor” with “privileges of power and jurisdiction”?

The clergy of Constantinople made that equation in canon 28.
What else would they have meant by “privileges”?
The clergy of Constantinople wasn’t vying with Rome for an undefined,merely figure-head primacy in the East. With primacy went the “privileges” that Chalcedon and Trullo speak of – ecclesiastical jurisdiction over the Eastern churches.

 

[marlo]

so you mean that new rome will also have the equal privilege as the bishop of rome for the churches of the east Only and cannot have the same privileges on the churches on the west even the emperor would wanted him to because the bishop of rome is primate of all of them. what ever the full authority the pope of rome has in the church the same with the bishop of new rome for the east only unless nullified by the Pope. Very interesting observation indeed.

The clergy of Constantinople made that equation in canon 28.
What else would they have meant by “privileges”?
The clergy of Constantinople wasn’t vying with Rome for an undefined,merely figure-head primacy in the East. With primacy went the “privileges” that Chalcedon and Trullo speak of – ecclesiastical jurisdiction over the Eastern churches.

 

[Catholic_Dude]

“Primacy of Honor” proves the Orthodox claim. The Pope held the “primacy of honor” as the chair of Peter. “Primacy of Honor” means first among honor, not universal bishop. That is the Orthodox claim…

Prayers and petitions,
Alexius

The problem with “primacy of honor” definition is when the world sees the one holding this primacy to be outvoted by the other patriarchs. In otherwords Jesus left the door open for the leader of His Church to be humiliated in front of the world. Primacy of honor amounts to nothing at the end of the day. It is clear that Constantinople held great influence over the other Eastern Bishops for centuries, far surpassing a simple “primacy of honor”. Today with the Russian Orthodox Church being the largest and most powerful we see them taking the place of Constantinople. Two examples that come to mind are the refusal of Moscow to recognize some ex-soviet states to be their own Orthodox communities while Constantinople recognizes them as their own communities and also the way the Russian Orthodox prelates walked out in protest of the recent Catholic-Orthodox meeting where Constantinople at least recognized Rome’s primacy of honor.

The fact is though that Constantinople (and Moscow) has no apostolic roots and rose to power (even above Rome) through politics. True orthodoxy if anything requires that the original Sees of Rome, Alexandria and Antioch be the top three on the list for all time (and in that order).

 

[bengal_fan]

if you read a little deeper into those statements, you’ll see that the “privileges” were granted for political reasons:

“where the senate…”

by this logic, should the bishop of washington d.c. (since the u.s.a. is arguably the most powerful nation in the world) have these “privileges” as well? maybe it should be the vatican’s ambassador to the u.n.?

 

[prodromos]

The clergy of Constantinople wasn’t vying with Rome for an undefined,merely figure-head primacy in the East. With primacy went the “privileges” that Chalcedon and Trullo speak of – ecclesiastical jurisdiction over the Eastern churches.

Which meant they ordained the bishops in their region and Rome clearly did not. There is nothing in the Canon about declaring doctrines and dogma.
IOW it quite categorically does not prove the claims of the bishop of Rome

John

 

[Isa_Almisry]

The Orthodox argue that the bishops,and the sees,were equal,and that the bishops of Rome never had jurisdiction over the East. Those arguments are contradicted by the canons. They say that the “privileges” of Rome will be taken up by Constantinople. So what exactly were those privileges of Rome that the bishops of Constantinople acknowledged? What are those “equal rights to Rome”? They are the same privileges that the popes of Rome claimed for themselves – authority in ecclesiastical matters over the Eastern churches,including the authority to appoint and depose bishops.

Nicea I c.6.
The ancient customs of Egypt, Libya and Pentapolis shall be maintained, according to which the bishop of Alexandria has authority over all these places since a similar custom exists with reference to the bishop of Rome. Similarly in Antioch and the other provinces the prerogatives of the churches are to be preserved. In general the following principle is evident: if anyone is made bishop without the consent of the metropolitan, this great synod determines that such a one shall not be a bishop. If however two or three by reason of personal rivalry dissent from the common vote of all, provided it is reasonable and in accordance with the church’s canon, the vote of the majority shall prevail.
legionofmarytidewater.com/faith/Ecum01.htm#3

Constantinople had no such ancient custom. She was apostolic, but a suffragan to Herakleia. Constantine wanted to have the bishop of Byzantium, now the bishop of New Rome, elevated to an Archbishop and primate of the diocese of Thrace, but the metropolitan of Heracleia kept to his rights over appointing the bishop in the new capital (bad caesaropapist, bad ).
(myriobiblos.gr/texts/english/milton1_6.html summarizes this question with Heracleia).

Constantinople I first made her independent and a metropolis and catapolted her to second place because “For the Fathers rightly granted privileges to the throne of old Rome, because it was the royal city. And the One Hundred and Fifty most religious Bishops, actuated by the same consideration, gave equal privileges to the most holy throne of New Rome, justly judging that the city which is honoured with the Sovereignty and the Senate, and enjoys equal privileges [NOTE: secular privileges] with the old imperial Rome, should in ecclesiastical matters also be magnified as she is” i.e. independent/autocephalos.

The Fathers (and that means the ones from Antioch and Alexandria too, their patriarchs were there. In fact the latter managed to get the Archbishop of Constantinople deposed, while still giving the office second place in rank. This attempt to belittle the canons to just a local opinion of “the clergy of Constantinople” won’t withstand the scrutiny of history) didn’t name Constaniople New Rome. The city was founded as such, Constantine founding it on seven hills, founding a senate and importing senatorial families to settle there, etc. “Constantinople” was a popular name that rapidly stuck. Btw, it stuck so much that it was still the official name until 1930 (i.e. it did not change in 1453. A look at the Ankara’s Antaolia museum’s collection of Ottoman coins clearly show Constantiople as the capital’s name. Istanbul was the Turkish, via Arabic, popular corruption of the Greek “eis ten polin” “to the city,” “the City” being the popular designation to this day in Greek of Constantinople. Istanbul had been a popular designation itself for some centuries, hence why Ataturk changed in in his nationalist “reforms,” though how an Arabic mispronunciation of a Greek phrase, loaned into Turkish, qualifies as a “Turkish nationalist” term he didn’t explain).

cont…

 

[Isa_Almisry]

Chalcedon made Constaninople a patriarchate like Rome, “and rank next after her; so that, in the Pontic, the Asian, and the Thracian dioceses, the metropolitans only and such bishops also of the Dioceses aforesaid as are among the barbarians, should be ordained by the aforesaid most holy throne of the most holy Church of Constantinople; every metropolitan of the aforesaid dioceses *, together with the bishops of his province, ordaining his own provincial bishops, as has been declared by the divine canons; but that, as has been above said, the metropolitans **of the aforesaid Dioceses **should be ordained by the archbishop of Constantinople, after the proper elections have been held according to custom and have been reported to him.”

The area Roman control in the West, and North Africa were well defined. The authority of Alexandria was established in Egypt and West and South of her. Antioch’s borders were murkier: in the South Caesarea’s suffragan of Jerusalem would become a patriarchate in her own right. In the North there was Asia with her primate in Ephesus, and the Pontic and “Barbarian lands” with a major metropolis in Caesarea in Cappadocia (this confusion played out, for instance, in the Christianiztion of Armenia and the constitution of her hierarchy). So these “aforesaid dioceses” were formally put under the new patriarch of Constantinople, which clarified canon 2 of Constantinople I:

Diocesan bishops are not to intrude in churches beyond their own boundaries nor are they to confuse the churches: but in accordance with the canons, the bishop of Alexandria is to administer affairs in Egypt only; the bishops of the East are to manage the East alone (whilst safeguarding the privileges granted to the church of the Antiochenes in the Nicene canons); and the bishops of the Asian diocese are to manage only Asian affairs; and those in Pontus only the affairs of Pontus; and those in Thrace only Thracian affairs. Unless invited bishops are not to go outside their diocese to perform an ordination or any other ecclesiastical business. If the letter of the canon about dioceses is kept, it is clear that the provincial synod will manage affairs in each province, as was decreed at Nicaea. But the churches of God among barbarian peoples must be administered in accordance with the custom in force at the time of the fathers.
legionofmarytidewater.com/faith/ECUM02.HTM#3

Hardly a statement of universal jurisdiction, and not supportive of the ultramontanist spin being placed on canon 3 of Constantinople I.*

 

[Isa_Almisry]

The clergy of Constantinople made that equation in canon 28.
What else would they have meant by “privileges”?
The clergy of Constantinople wasn’t vying with Rome for an undefined,merely figure-head primacy in the East. With primacy went the “privileges” that Chalcedon and Trullo speak of – ecclesiastical jurisdiction over the Eastern churches.

Ah yes, those nasty clergy of Constantinople. (btw those virtuous clergy of Rome eventually became the college of cardinals, no?).

Of course no one else was at the ECUMENICAL council.

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).

 

[Isa_Almisry]

so you mean that new rome will also have the equal privilege as the bishop of rome for the churches of the east Only and cannot have the same privileges on the churches on the west even the emperor would wanted him to because the bishop of rome is primate of all of them. what ever the full authority the pope of rome has in the church the same with the bishop of new rome for the east only unless nullified by the Pope. Very interesting observation indeed.

Yes, given your sig, you would think so.

Of course, the historical reality is otherwise. For one thing, Patriarch Eutychius proceeded with the Fifth Ecumenical Council over Pope Vigillius’ objections, which Council’s Seventh session struck Vigillius’ name from the diptychs.
ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf214.xii.v.html

 

[Isa_Almisry]

The problem with “primacy of honor” definition is when the world sees the one holding this primacy to be outvoted by the other patriarchs. In otherwords Jesus left the door open for the leader of His Church to be humiliated in front of the world.

That’s if you claim Christ set up the primacy. We don’t. It was created by the Church.

Primacy of honor amounts to nothing at the end of the day. It is clear that Constantinople held great influence over the other Eastern Bishops for centuries, far surpassing a simple “primacy of honor”.

Sort of reminds me of how our priest says that the Fourth Commandment is directed to adults, not children, as parents are able to extract honor from their children (at least until the parenting books came out ). Remember, it is not like the gentiles, who have rulers over them.

Today with the Russian Orthodox Church being the largest and most powerful we see them taking the place of Constantinople. Two examples that come to mind are the refusal of Moscow to recognize some ex-soviet states to be their own Orthodox communities while Constantinople recognizes them as their own communities and also the way the Russian Orthodox prelates walked out in protest of the recent Catholic-Orthodox meeting where Constantinople at least recognized Rome’s primacy of honor.

Consult the canons cited above about bishops interferring with in the dioceses of other bishops, for why Moscow does not welcome Constantinople’s meddling in order to attempt to prove her relevence. Moscow walked out over the presence of one of these, nothing about "Rome’s primacy of honor,"which Moscow accepts (btw Constantinople does NOT recognzie them as “their own communities” but parts of her patriarchate).

The fact is though that Constantinople (and Moscow) has no apostolic roots and rose to power (even above Rome) through politics. True orthodoxy if anything requires that the original Sees of Rome, Alexandria and Antioch be the top three on the list for all time (and in that order).

Are you questioning the “true orthodoxy” of the Ecumenical Councils? Interesting.

If we are based on religious considerations, there is no reason why Jerusalem shouldn’t be first.

The pentarchy, however, followed the order of the empire, the last Caesar however falling from power on the ides of March 1917. It is the fact that Jerusalem has no prestige in the eyes of the imperial order is why she wasn’t a patriarchate, and when she became one, was in Fifth (i.e. last) place.

And Constantinople is the stem of the stump of Byzantium, founded by St. Andrew, as Moscow is the shoot of Kiev, founded by the same Apostle.

 

[Isa_Almisry]

if you read a little deeper into those statements, you’ll see that the “privileges” were granted for political reasons:

“where the senate…”

by this logic, should the bishop of washington d.c. (since the u.s.a. is arguably the most powerful nation in the world) have these “privileges” as well? maybe it should be the vatican’s ambassador to the u.n.?

Rome had been the most powerful nation in the world for over four centuries at least by the time of the canons in question, and would be for three centuries after. The US hasn’t seen its first century as top dog. Think long term. And her obsessive separation of Church and State disqualifies her.

 

[mark_a]

“Primacy of Honor”

What does that mean anyway?