The "New Rome"?

[scameter18]

I was reading a bit about the Orthodox Church, and I read this from wikipedia:

"One of the decisions made by the First Council of Constantinople (the second ecumenical council, meeting in 381) and supported by later such councils was that the Patriarch of Constantinople should be given equal honor with the Pope of Rome since Constantinople was considered to be the “New Rome.”

Wouldn’t this mean that the Patriarch of Constantinople would have equal authority to the Pope? As a Catholic, it could mean that the Patriarch has the same papal authority as the Bishop of Rome; and from an Orthodox point of view, it would mean that the Bishop of Rome, though even in the beginning of the church seen as a leader, was simply a functional leader like the Patriarch, and not with any specific spiritual significance over another bishop. Any enlightenment about this would be helpful, particularly the Catholic response.

 

[StillWondering]

If you keep reading, I think you’ll find a wiki page about how Constantinople is considered greatest after Rome.

 

[Harpazo]

I was reading a bit about the Orthodox Church, and I read this from wikipedia:

"One of the decisions made by the First Council of Constantinople (the second ecumenical council, meeting in 381) and supported by later such councils was that the Patriarch of Constantinople should be given equal honor with the Pope of Rome since Constantinople was considered to be the “New Rome.”

Wouldn’t this mean that the Patriarch of Constantinople would have equal authority to the Pope? As a Catholic, it could mean that the Patriarch has the same papal authority as the Bishop of Rome; and from an Orthodox point of view, it would mean that the Bishop of Rome, though even in the beginning of the church seen as a leader, was simply a functional leader like the Patriarch, and not with any specific spiritual significance over another bishop. Any enlightenment about this would be helpful, particularly the Catholic response.

The Orthodox Church has always believed that all bishops are equal and this is how the early Church operated. We believe that Rome had a special place of primacy, as the Patriarch of Constantinople holds today, but it is a far-cry from how the Pope of Rome operates in the modern RCC. Even most Roman Catholic scholars will admit that the modern papacy is a post-schism development (of course it is often justified with Card. Newman’s “Development of Doctrine” theory).

From what I have come to understand, if Rome acted the way it does now when she was in communion with the Orthodox, then Constantinople --being New Rome-- would have taken those same prerogatives and claims for itself after the split. It has not. I hope that helps.

In Christ,
Andrew

 

[MarcoPolo]

It would be best to see for yourself how the Roman bishop acted in the early Church. It also helps to study the nature of Peter’s role among the apostles. Successors filling his uniquely Petrine chair preside from Rome.

I did a debate on this in 2008. Here is a link if it helps. There are other good books on the subject. I think this subject does require a good deal of research because it involves both a Scriptural study of Peter’s leadership role as well as how it flourished in the first centuries.

You can check out some of these online books for free.

Rivington on The Primitive Church

Thomas Allies on St. Peter

Catholic Controversy, reply to Littledale

 

[scameter18]

The Orthodox Church has always believed that all bishops are equal and this is how the early Church operated. We believe that Rome had a special place of primacy, as the Patriarch of Constantinople holds today, but it is a far-cry from how the Pope of Rome operates in the modern RCC. Even most Roman Catholic scholars will admit that the modern papacy is a post-schism development (of course it is often justified with Card. Newman’s “Development of Doctrine” theory).

From what I have come to understand, if Rome acted the way it does now when she was in communion with the Orthodox, then Constantinople --being New Rome-- would have taken those same prerogatives and claims for itself after the split. It has not. I hope that helps.

In Christ,
Andrew

Thank you for your response. I appreciate the information of an Orthodox Christian on this issue.

Since I posted this topic, I have been looking into it and contemplating it, and it seems to me that based on my quotation - with the second ecumenical council saying that Constantinople has equal honor to Rome because it is the “New Rome” - has a specific meaning. For one, “honor” is different than supremacy. Honor simply means reverence or respect; authority is a separate issue. For two, the only reason Constantinople would have had equal authority to Rome is not because of itself, but because it was the New Rome - Rome is still the significant factor there. For three, other evidence, mostly from the Church Fathers, suggests that before the Schism, on major doctrinal decisions, everyone still deferred to the original Rome and her Pope, even over Constantinople.

Furthermore, your extra point - that if before the Schism, Rome and Constantinople were equal, and if at that time people considered the Bishop of Rome a Pope in the modern Catholic sense, that the Orthodox would have treated their Patriarch as such after the Schism - I feel is also flawed. The Constantinople Patriarch never had the same office as the Pope to the universal Church, even before the Schism. The Pope of Rome was deferred to by all, including the Patriarch. So, after the Schism, the Patriarch remained this way: a leader of the eastern church, but not treated as a Pope, because he never was.

I do not mean any of this as an attack on you. Again I deeply appreciate your willingness to answer my questions about the Orthodox faith, which I am mostly unfamiliar with.

 

[JVD]

Thank you for your response. I appreciate the information of an Orthodox Christian on this issue.

Since I posted this topic, I have been looking into it and contemplating it, and it seems to me that based on my quotation - with the second ecumenical council saying that Constantinople has equal honor to Rome because it is the “New Rome” - has a specific meaning. For one, “honor” is different than supremacy. Honor simply means reverence or respect; authority is a separate issue. For two, the only reason Constantinople would have had equal authority to Rome is not because of itself, but because it was the New Rome - Rome is still the significant factor there. For three, other evidence, mostly from the Church Fathers, suggests that before the Schism, on major doctrinal decisions, everyone still deferred to the original Rome and her Pope, even over Constantinople.

Furthermore, your extra point - that if before the Schism, Rome and Constantinople were equal, and if at that time people considered the Bishop of Rome a Pope in the modern Catholic sense, that the Orthodox would have treated their Patriarch as such after the Schism - I feel is also flawed. The Constantinople Patriarch never had the same office as the Pope to the universal Church, even before the Schism. The Pope of Rome was deferred to by all, including the Patriarch. So, after the Schism, the Patriarch remained this way: a leader of the eastern church, but not treated as a Pope, because he never was.

I do not mean any of this as an attack on you. Again I deeply appreciate your willingness to answer my questions about the Orthodox faith, which I am mostly unfamiliar with.

I might add here too that the NT scriptures make a definate distinction with respect to a hiearchy of honors. There is always only one highest chair or position of honor and lessor honors beneath that.

To wit:
*
Heb 3:3 For He has been counted worthy of more glory than Moses, by just so much as the builder of the house has more honor than the house.

Heb 5:4 And no one takes the honor to himself, but receives it when he is called by God, even as Aaron was.

[note Heb 5:4 : Peter was certainly called directly and uniquely by God over all other apostles and given a new title “Peter/Rock” - Matt 16:18 And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it.]

1 Tim 5:17 The elders who rule well are to be considered worthy of double honor, especially those who work hard at preaching and teaching

Romans 12:9-10 Be devoted to one another in brotherly love; give preference to one another in honor;

Romans 13:7 Render to all what is due them: tax to whom tax is due; custom to whom custom; fear to whom fear; honor to whom honor.Whereas our more presentable members have no need of it. But God has so composed the body, giving more abundant honor to that member which lacked,

1 Cor 12:23 and those members of the body which we deem less honorable, on these we bestow more abundant honor, and our less presentable members become much more presentable,

Luke 14:8 When you are invited by someone to a wedding feast, do not take the place of honor, for someone more distinguished than you may have been invited by him,

Luke 14:10 But when you are invited, go and recline at the last place, so that when the one who has invited you comes, he may say to you, ‘Friend, move up higher’; then you will have honor in the sight of all who are at the table with you.

Luke 20:46 Beware of the scribes, who like to walk around in long robes, and love respectful greetings in the market places, and chief seats in the synagogues and places of honor at banquets,

Matt 23:6-7 5"But they do all their deeds to be noticed by men; for they broaden their phylacteries and lengthen the tassels of their garments. 6"They love the place of honor at banquets and the chief seats in the synagogues,

Acts 28:10 They also honored us with many marks of respect; and when we were setting sail, they supplied us with all we needed.
*

James

 

[SF3CHURCH]

The orthodox argument seems to be based on political power, being that old Rome was no longer the center of politics, but rather Constantinople, the new Rome. By that argument, the Pope should be either the Archbishop of Baltimore or the Patriarch of Moscow, the modern centers of political power today. It just doesn’t make any theological sense.

 

[Pakesh]

Even most Roman Catholic scholars will admit that the modern papacy is a post-schism development (of course it is often justified with Card. Newman’s “Development of Doctrine” theory).

In Christ,
Andrew

I see this claim often, even in the political realm. Can you please give specific incidences? And because a scholar says it, it must be true?

 

[mark_a]

I was reading a bit about the Orthodox Church, and I read this from wikipedia:

"One of the decisions made by the First Council of Constantinople (the second ecumenical council, meeting in 381) and supported by later such councils was that the Patriarch of Constantinople should be given equal honor with the Pope of Rome since Constantinople was considered to be the “New Rome.”

Wouldn’t this mean that the Patriarch of Constantinople would have equal authority to the Pope? As a Catholic, it could mean that the Patriarch has the same papal authority as the Bishop of Rome; and from an Orthodox point of view, it would mean that the Bishop of Rome, though even in the beginning of the church seen as a leader, was simply a functional leader like the Patriarch, and not with any specific spiritual significance over another bishop. Any enlightenment about this would be helpful, particularly the Catholic response.

I’ve read more Orthodox opinions on this forum that would make the case for Antioch over Rome.

 

[Hesychios]

I’ve read more Orthodox opinions on this forum that would make the case for Antioch over Rome.

That is not actually true.

Antioch would make more sense if the Fathers of the church were using the ‘Petrine’ argument in deciding precedence. But in fact they did not do so, ever.

Antioch was never even considered second in precedence by the Fathers. The ‘Petrine’ connection was just not considered the prime reason for the ordering of precedence, but if Orthodox (or Eastern Catholics, at the time) did have a ‘Petrine’ understanding then of course, following that argument, the Patriarch of Antioch would have become the ‘Pope’ when Rome fell away. (This is the context in which one has to read Orthodox comments " You have a Petrine See? So do we!")

The fathers at the time of the Council of Constantinople (4th century) actually saw it as a matter of political/economic importance, which is why Alexandria (the “Big Apple” of the east) preceded Antioch from the beginning.

As it is, the Patriarch of Constantinople became the ‘Pope’ when Rome fell away, according to Eastern Catholic ecclesiology.

 

[Hesychios]

The orthodox argument seems to be based on political power, being that old Rome was no longer the center of politics, but rather Constantinople, the new Rome. By that argument, the Pope should be either the Archbishop of Baltimore or the Patriarch of Moscow, the modern centers of political power today. It just doesn’t make any theological sense.

After the establishment of ‘Nova Roma’ (that was what Constantine wanted to call the city) and the transfer of the Roman Senate and most senatorial families to the new city, Rome began to decline. In fact it was to eventually become a malarial backwater with a lot of collapsing old unoccupied buildings. But that was no reason move the Pope to Avignon, or Baltimore.

It would still be no reason today, if the city should decline again.

The Fathers at the Council of Constantinople were not moving to remove Rome from pride of place, they were just recognizing the new realities. That is how they saw it.

 

[awatkins69]

legionofmarytidewater.com/faith/ECUM02.HTM

There is the Council. I can’t find the part you guys are talking about.

Canon 3: “Because it is new Rome, the bishop of Constantinople is to enjoy the privileges of honour after the bishop of Rome.”

This only seems to put it at second highest rank. Also, the bishop of Constantinople was given the privileges of honour because Constantinople is the New Rome, whereas the bishop of Rome is given highest honour because of Petrine succession. One has a practical reason and the other has a theological reason.

 

[JVD]

As it is, the Patriarch of Constantinople became the ‘Pope’ when Rome fell away, according to Eastern Catholic ecclesiology.

And what does Eastern Catholic ecclesiology say after Byzantine fell? Has there been any advancements in Eastern ecclesiology at all in this area since there have been no Orthodox councils in about 1100 years?

James

 

[scameter18]

legionofmarytidewater.com/faith/ECUM02.HTM

There is the Council. I can’t find the part you guys are talking about.

Canon 3: “Because it is new Rome, the bishop of Constantinople is to enjoy the privileges of honour after the bishop of Rome.”

This only seems to put it at second highest rank. Also, the bishop of Constantinople was given the privileges of honour because Constantinople is the New Rome, whereas the bishop of Rome is given highest honour because of Petrine succession. One has a practical reason and the other has a theological reason.

That certainly clarifies it then, and essentially validates the conclusions I made, that in fact Rome itself is prime even over the “New Rome” - and the council itself said it. Thank you very much for this quotation.

I also edited the wikipedia page to incorporate this. Hopefully they will keep my alterations.

 

[Hesychios]

And what does Eastern Catholic ecclesiology say after Byzantine fell?

I don’t understand what you mean.

Has there been any advancements in Eastern ecclesiology at all in this area since there have been no Orthodox councils in about 1100 years?

James

If it’s not broken, don’t fix it.

 

[JVD]

I don’t understand what you mean.
If it’s not broken, don’t fix it.

After the Muslims took over Constantinople and the Byzantine empire what happened to the “honor” of “new Rome’s” seat relative to Rome? The new Rome vanished. That sounds providential to me and it seems that old Rome absorbs all the assumed honors vacated by the conquered new Rome.

James

 

[Hesychios]

After the Muslims took over Constantinople and the Byzantine empire what happened to the “honor” of “new Rome’s” seat relative to Rome? The new Rome vanished.

No it didn’t.



It’s still there. If you dont think so, write a letter and ask, or go visit like some other Catholics have done.

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

Personally I would like to see it relocate to Athos, or some other safe location. You are making a good argument here for recognizing the Patriarch of Moscow as Primus Inter Pares instead, but that would not detract from the longstanding traditional honor we all hold to the Patriarchs of Old Rome and New Rome.

 

[scameter18]

Of course, as the second ecumenical council said, old Rome - the true Rome - is superior, over the new Rome.

 

[josephdaniel29]

Of course, as the second ecumenical council said, old Rome - the true Rome - is superior, over the new Rome.

And where exactly does it say that?

 

[scameter18]

legionofmarytidewater.com/faith/ECUM02.HTM

There is the Council. I can’t find the part you guys are talking about.

Canon 3: “Because it is new Rome, the bishop of Constantinople is to enjoy the privileges of honour after the bishop of Rome.”

This only seems to put it at second highest rank. Also, the bishop of Constantinople was given the privileges of honour because Constantinople is the New Rome, whereas the bishop of Rome is given highest honour because of Petrine succession. One has a practical reason and the other has a theological reason.

There.