The "New Rome"?

[josephdaniel29]

whereas the bishop of Rome is given highest honour because of Petrine succession.

Can you cite the canon that states that?

If fact the 28th Canon says something very different.

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 (ἴσα πρεσβεῖα) 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

Nothing about “Petrine succession” here my friend.

Yours in Christ
Joe

 

[scameter18]

“and rank next after her”

Yet it does say that.

 

[awatkins69]

I do not understand why they would still place old Rome at the highest honor even way after the Western Empire fell?

 

[Hesychios]

“and rank next after her”

Yet it does say that.

That’s OK.

No mention whatsoever about the Petrine succession. That is something you have to ‘read into’ it.

 

[JVD]

I do not understand why they would still place old Rome at the highest honor even way after the Western Empire fell?

I think you are easily confused. What is the Western Empire and what date did it fall?

James

 

[Hesychios]

I do not understand why they would still place old Rome at the highest honor even way after the Western Empire fell?

There was really no reason to remove it, and the western empire didn’t just ‘fall’, it declined. The church of the city of Rome was highly regarded for many centuries. Rome, like the church of Constantinople today, had a lot of sentimental value and goodwill. It was a center of the Orthodox Faith.

Once the western line of emperors was overthrown the eastern line reclaimed suzerainty over the west, and theoretically all of the Patriarchal Sees were within the empire. This was asserted in a big way by Justinian, but it did not last.

It is a little realized fact that some Popes were even appointed by the emperors in Constantinople (although most Catholics are aware that this happened in the east). It is also little realized that Popes did not call the original set of seven Councils.

It just wasn’t an “us vs them” kind of thing. The Mediterranean peoples, speaking Latin or Greek (and often conversant in both) generally all considered themselves Roman, and Orthodox.

This is why so many Popes opposed the spread of the filioque to Rome, among other things. They just did not have the kind of authority (in those days) within the western church that would be needed to prevent that.

 

[Pons]

I do not understand why they would still place old Rome at the highest honor even way after the Western Empire fell?

Because of Peter’s chair ending up there until the end of the world and Peter and Paul’s martyrdoms.

 

[scameter18]

Here are a couple quotes from early Church Fathers, who are followed by Orthodox as well as Catholic Christians, regarding the primacy of Rome and the succession and primacy of St. Peter:

“If the very order of episcopal succession is to be considered, how much more surely, truly, and safely do we number them from Peter himself, to whom, as to one representing the whole Church, the Lord said, ‘Upon this rock I will build my Church’…[Matthew 16:18] Peter was succeeded by Linus, Linus by Clement, Clement by Anacletus, Anacletus by Evaristus…” (St. Augustine; Letters 53:1:2 [A.D. 412]).

“The Lord says to Peter: ‘I say to you,’ he says, ‘that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell will not overcome it …’[Mt. 16:18] On him [Peter] he builds the Church, and to him he gives the command to feed the sheep,[Jn 21:17] and although he assigns a like power to all the apostles, yet he founded a single chair [cathedra], and he established by his own authority a source and an intrinsic reason for that unity… If someone [today] does not hold fast to this unity of Peter, can he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he [should] desert the chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, can he still be confident that he is in the Church?” (Cyprian of Carthage; The Unity of the Catholic Church 4; first edition [A.D. 251]).

“Since, however, it would be tedious, in such a volume as this, to reckon up the successions of all the Churches, we do put to confusion all those who, in whatever manner, whether by an evil self-pleasing, by vainglory, or by blindness and perverse opinion, assemble in unauthorized meetings; [we do this, I say,] by indicating that tradition derived from the apostles, of the very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul; as also [by pointing out] the faith preached to men, which comes down to our time by means of the successions of the bishops. For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church, on account of its preeminent authority, that is, the faithful everywhere, inasmuch as the apostolical tradition has been preserved continuously by those [faithful men] who exist everywhere.” -Irenaeus, d. 202

 

[josephdaniel29]

“and rank next after her”

The Patriarch of Antioch ranks after the Ecumenical Patriarch in ecclesiastical matters. That doesn’t mean the EP is “superior” and it has absolutely nothing to do with doctrine or theology. It’s not really much different than the relationship between an archbishopric and a bishopric.

You guys really are obsessed with this superiority thing aren’t you? And you wonder why you seem condescending and patronizing when you talk about our so called “valid” Apostolic Succession while at the same time insisting we have to submit to your Patriarch in order to be truly Catholic.

Yours in Christ
Joe

 

[Hesychios]

"Since, however, it would be tedious, in such a volume as this, to reckon up the successions of all the Churches,

This is typical of how Roman Catholics ‘quote mine’ and don’t actually read the texts.

He says "Since, however, it would be tedious … ", then describes two churches for example, not one. The church and Rome and the church in Asia!

He explains that it would be ‘tedious’ to go any further, he had already mentioned there were churches like this throughout the world. But we almost never see that in these cut and paste jobs.

Interestingly enough, in the quartodeciman controversy Irenaeus agreed with the church of Asia, not the church of Rome.

 

[JVD]

No it didn’t.

http://02varvara.files.wordpress.com/2008/10/orthodox-patriarchs-in-the-phanar.jpg

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

http://papalvisit.patriarchate.org/images/img_home_together.jpg

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.

That room in the photo looks about as large as the upper room in the last supper accounts or like a small business conference room that one might rent from a 3 star hotel for a weekend conference. It sure doesn’t look exactly like the seat of “universal Christian” teaching that has significance for 1.2 billion Catholics. Maybe a semi-austere religious order monastery’s gathering room?

You Orthodox are highly revered for your deep spirituality and many of us follow some of your traditions. But I really think its time to give up the pretence that the world is going to be evangelized from the remnants of the church that came out of the decimated Byzantine empire and has been living under Muslim dominance for many centuries. I want to weep when I think of the glory and splendor of old Byzantium and the profoundly beautiful Hagia Sophia defiled and occupied by the Muslims. I can imagine the atrocities committed to the holy nuns and religious by those foes. What a loss! What a shame for Christendom to have lost Constantinople to such unholy ********!

We are the same faith and share the same apostolic succession - when are you all going to stop acting like a bunch of independents and come back into the Latin Church and establish your own “Orthodox” rite and start pulling together with Rome? It’s really embarrassing as a Catholic apologist to have to constantly make exceptions for Orthodox when pointing to the legion of Protestant divisions as an example of what happens when wild heretics break away and become irrelevant. I really personally think that the original schism was more about politics and egos than anything substantially different in theology. So what that Rome likes to define things in more concrete terms. It’s time for Orthodox to come into the modern world and realize that those concrete teachings are exactly what aid the Church is dealing with all the complex moral dilemmas as science keeps pushing us into strange domains that need moral guidance (e.g. artificial insemination, cloning, bio-engineering etc.).

James

 

[josephdaniel29]

That room in the photo looks about as large as the upper room in the last supper accounts or like a small business conference room that one might rent from a 3 star hotel for a weekend conference. It sure doesn’t look exactly like the seat of “universal Christian” teaching that has significance for 1.2 billion Catholics. Maybe a semi-austere religious order monastery’s gathering room?

Would you prefer this.

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

http://www.russiablog.org/cath_christ-the-saviour-moscow.jpg

Do you even realize how ridiculous you sound?

Yours in Christ
Joe

 

[scameter18]

This discussion has become nothing more than insult and emotional response. I don’t think I can close it, but I will no longer respond, as responses to my points became emotional and insulting, rather than intellectual. I am not submitting; I’m aknowledging the discussion is over. Obviously, this is why Catholics and Orthodox have yet to re-combine.

 

[JVD]

Would you prefer this.

http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/45434000/jpg/_45434264_ceremony_afp466.jpg

http://www.russiablog.org/cath_christ-the-saviour-moscow.jpg

Do you even realize how ridiculous you sound?

Yours in Christ
Joe

Very pretty photos - thanks for sharing those. Those are Russian Orthodox photos am I right? I don’t admittedly have much insight about Russia Orthodoxy and how authentic they remained to the faith after being dominated by atheist Russia for so long. How active have they been inside Russia and how successful in keeping the state out of the Church and keeping it “Orthodox” over the last 50 or so years? The Greek Orthodox I have reverence for but the Russian Orthodox - I just don’t know much about them from any personal experience? They seem to keep a low profile on the world stage.

My overall personal impression is that the Orthodox are a moderately large independent group of mavericks who can’t seem to ever agree among each other long enough to keep the rogue bishops on the reservation and come together to call a council meeting. Is there even a common bible cannon among Orthodox?

I am curious - if you all can’t even organize a council meeting for 1100 or so years how can you teach a common doctrine or have any insight at all on what’s going on with the rest of your brothers and keep it all “Orthodox”? How do you know what’s going on? Or is is the confessional where it all "comes back together week to week in a sort of trial by conscience heuristic “orthodoxy”?

From your photos I am guessing that the Russian Cathedral is on a scale about as similar in size and capacity as some of our larger 193 USA Cathedrals (List of USA Cathedrals).

I also guesstimate from your photo that you all have about as many bishops in the assembly as we might have in 1/2-2/3rds of what might show up at a USA Catholic Bishop’s Conference Meeting. I don’t want to get into a “my church is bigger than your church” sort of contest. I like you guys. But I get a little defensive when you call me silly and seem to be trying to present yourselves as being more relevant to the total universal presence of the Christian Church in the world than you really are. Don’t get me wrong there though - I’d love for Orthodox to start converting a few hundred million of the Muslims that have dominated the old Christian empire for over a thousand years - that would be a huge win for all of Christendom. Of course at the rate the secular world is conflicting itself we may find that “smaller is better” in terms of being a smaller target for God’s enemies to take notice of.

Do you really have any idea at all on the size of the Roman Catholic Church? I mean I love you guys and I have nothing but absolute admiration for your history and spirituality but you need to get on-board and start working with us rather than being so independent and so elitist and so parochial in your world view. If we all pulled together we could completely re-take the entire planet and save it from the rampant secularism, materialism and hedonism and just maybe save a billions more souls and maybe even get everyone pulling all together for the advancement of the human race.

Here is a fun photo of what just a single outdoor papal mass looks like when the pope decides to come into town in the USA and check in on his bishops and flock. To get an idea of size visually multiply this by all the Latin Churches in: Canada, South and Central America, Africa, Europe etc. etc. and you might start to appreciate the true meaning of the word “Catholic” – as in “universal” when you say your Creed (with or without the filoque clause).

notfound

Pax,
James

 

[Hesychios]

That room in the photo looks about as large as the upper room in the last supper accounts

If you are comparing a room at the Phanar with the cenacle, I think that rather nice and appropriate.

That happens to be a picture of a meeting of the local synod where the Patriarch is located. It would be the equivalent of a meeting of the bishops of the Metropolitan of any large city, like London or New York.

A meeting of all the Patriarchs would be similar in size.

Does the Vatican have no conference rooms? How about the Lateran?

Nothing smaller than a football field?

or like a small business conference room that one might rent from a 3 star hotel for a weekend conference. It sure doesn’t look exactly like the seat of “universal Christian” teaching that has significance for 1.2 billion Catholics. Maybe a semi-austere religious order monastery’s gathering room?

So then, this is a “mine is bigger than yours” kind of thing?

… stop acting like a bunch of independents and come back into the Latin Church …

Triumphalism will get you nowhere.

We are the True church, organized the way the church was organized from the beginning, teaching the timeless Truth, and have suffered for our faith.

We are not about to give up on Christ now.

 

[JVD]

We are the True church, organized the way the church was organized from the beginning, teaching the timeless Truth, and have suffered for our faith.

We are not about to give up on Christ now.

Uhh huh…

Well, perhaps you are organized in the way the first century church was organized at the moment that The Lord gathered the small number of disciples together before the ascension and told them **“go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, 20 teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you.” ** So yes, with respect to smallness and being out of much regular communication with each other I’d say you are similar to what the early church was in the first 50 or so years. But don’t you think that the “true church” would have born much more fruit to show for itself after 2,000 years of spreading the “universal” Catholic Good News to ALL the world and have a much more prominent “light” and world presence? Do you really think that Orthodoxy’s minimalist organizational principal is scalable and organized enough to be able to manage and settle ecclesial matters on a large global scale if you had a sudden quadrupling in success in actually meeting Christ’s Commission to baptize and teach all He commanded to all nations? Or is that not a matter that concerns a patriarch and God will get around to assigning to new patriarchs as he sees fit? Does Orthodoxy even have a means to expand itself and add new Patriarchs? Who decides?

I am still very interested in learning if Orthodox after 2,000 years have a settled “Orthodox” bible cannon among yourselves and are preaching the same "universal’ Christian message from place to place? Do you and how do you know if you have no patriarchal level “Orthodox” faith meetings? Who speaks for “Orthodoxy”? When somone in your flock comes forward and asks his priest the question “I am visiting Belgium next year for an extended stay of 6 months. Is it OK to attend mass and accept the liberal teachings of the Orthodox archbishop of Brussels, Godfried Danneels?” Who decides?

James

 

[Aramis]

The Patriarch of Antioch ranks after the Ecumenical Patriarch in ecclesiastical matters. That doesn’t mean the EP is “superior” and it has absolutely nothing to do with doctrine or theology. It’s not really much different than the relationship between an archbishopric and a bishopric.

You guys really are obsessed with this superiority thing aren’t you? And you wonder why you seem condescending and patronizing when you talk about our so called “valid” Apostolic Succession while at the same time insisting we have to submit to your Patriarch in order to be truly Catholic.

Yours in Christ
Joe

Another case where orthodox ecclesiology is vastly different from Roman…

A Roman Archbishop does have authority to censure and/or act in lieu of his suffragans; limited, but real. He can’t remove them, but has jurisdiction within their dioceses.

And the same is true of the Syriac churches, and of the Alexandrian Churches; a Metropolitan-Archbishop is more than just an honorific, but a role with additional duties beyond calling a synod, and has supervisory roles with his suffragans.

Likewise, both Syriac and Alexandrian churches place the patriarch as a supervisory Metropolitan-Archbishop over the other Metropolitan-Archbishops, and he does have power to censure, transfer, even suspend, bishops.

The Syrian Rite Assyrian Church of the East also has fathers who note the relationship of the pope to the patriarchs as the same as that of a Metropolitan to his suffragans. That their Metropolitans have always been more than merely chairman of the synod is vital to not misinterpreting it.

The conundrum is that a bishop is not vicari archiepiscoplis; his liturgical role stands alone. A valid church could be comprised of two equal bishops, with each one to ordain the successor of the other.

Also, one can clearly see that the Byzantine Patriarchs of Constantinople also engaged in non-primus-inter-pares interactions with other Byzantine bishops… censuring, even removing, other bishops from office… and the other bishops didn’t argue, save for Rome. And Rome unilaterally restored at least 2 of these.

Pope of Rome is thus functionally akin to Archpatriarch.

And a note on Moscow: Moscovite Patriarchs HAVE claimed to have inherited Constantinople’s status as New Rome. Not all, but some. It is, in fact, the basis for their patriarchal claim in the first place, since Constantinople had fallen to the Muslims and had later then lost contact with Moscow.

 

[Harpazo]

Uhh huh…

Well, perhaps you are organized in the way the first century church was organized at the moment that The Lord gathered the small number of disciples together before the ascension and told them "go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, 20 teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you." So yes, with respect to smallness and being out of much regular communication with each other I’d say you are similar to what the early church was in the first 50 or so years. But don’t you think that the “true church” would have born much more fruit to show for itself after 2,000 years of spreading the “universal” Catholic Good News to ALL the world and have a much more prominent “light” and world presence? Do you really think that Orthodoxy’s minimalist organizational principal is scalable and organized enough to be able to manage and settle ecclesial matters on a large global scale if you had a sudden quadrupling in success in actually meeting Christ’s Commission to baptize and teach all He commanded to all nations? Or is that not a matter that concerns a patriarch and God will get around to assigning to new patriarchs as he sees fit? Does Orthodoxy even have a means to expand itself and add new Patriarchs? Who decides?

I am still very interested in learning if Orthodox after 2,000 years have a settled “Orthodox” bible cannon among yourselves and are preaching the same "universal’ Christian message from place to place? Do you and how do you know if you have no patriarchal level “Orthodox” faith meetings? Who speaks for “Orthodoxy”? When somone in your flock comes forward and asks his priest the question “I am visiting Belgium next year for an extended stay of 6 months. Is it OK to attend mass and accept the liberal teachings of the Orthodox archbishop of Brussels, Godfried Danneels?” Who decides?

James

:banghead:

What really got me thinking about Orthodoxy was the fact that it could remain one faith without a pope, whereas in the West with a papal structure Christianity fractured into dozens upon dozens of sects. Then there is also the fact that Pope Leo III had the Creed inscribed into silver shields without the filioque clause saying above it, “LEO POSVI AMORE ET CAVTELA ORTODOXAE FIDEI” But I’m sure you have some way of “explaining away” that one.

Orthodoxy sees Protestantism and Roman Catholicism as two sides of the same coin. I can’t say I disagree with that. When Rome wishes to return to Orthodoxy and abandon her innovations to the Christian faith we will gladly welcome her.

In Christ,
Andrew

 

[josephdaniel29]

I am curious - if you all can’t even organize a council meeting for 1100 or so years how can you teach a common doctrine or have any insight at all on what’s going on with the rest of your brothers and keep it all “Orthodox”?

First of all where in the world did you get the idea that there have been no councils in 1100 years? You really should study a little before you make a statement like that on a public forum. You’ve already expressed your ignorance of the largest Orthodox Church on the planet. Why compound it by making more statements about things you don’t understand?

Second, where did you get the idea that a council is necessary to teach “common doctrine”? That common doctrine you speak of is nothing other than Apostolic Tradition. That Tradition is held by the Church, guarded by the Church, and passed on by the Church as it has been from the very beginning. It never changes and needs no conciliar decrees to make it manifest to the faithful. All the Great Councils were called to exclude error and confirm what the Church already believed. If there was never another council called Apostolic Tradition would persevere. Our Lord promised as much (the gates of hell shall not prevail against it).

Yours in Christ
Joe

 

[JVD]

:banghead:

What really got me thinking about Orthodoxy was the fact that it could remain one faith without a pope, whereas in the West with a papal structure Christianity fractured into dozens upon dozens of sects. Then there is also the fact that Pope Leo III had the Creed inscribed into silver shields without the filioque clause saying above it, “LEO POSVI AMORE ET CAVTELA ORTODOXAE FIDEI” But I’m sure you have some way of “explaining away” that one.

Orthodoxy sees Protestantism and Roman Catholicism as two sides of the same coin. I can’t say I disagree with that. When Rome wishes to return to Orthodoxy and abandon her innovations to the Christian faith we will gladly welcome her.

In Christ,
Andrew

I’d really appreciate it if this dialog was not so one way and you would be less pontificating about what you want to say and more teaching by answering actual questions.

As for the question about the shield? I need clarification. Do you want an explanation about why Pope Leo chose to scribe his universal message to the Orthodox in Latin instead of the Greek? Or are you asking why Leo wanted to invite the Orthodox into the love and protection of Rome after he elected to depose Constantinople as the traditional protector of of Rome and use inviting language that they could accept as conciliatory if they could actually learn to read with comprehension and accept the Latin message?

I supposed Constantinople was insulted that Rome was offering them THEIR protection and the history shows they rejected it then called too late for help when the Muslims came over the walls. I honestly never understood the self defeating politics of the Byzantines.
AMORE ET CAVTELA ORTODOXAE FIDEI"
I, Leo, put here for love and protection of orthodox faith*

Why do I feel like I wandered into a snipe-fest here?

On another sub-topic – since you are so endeared to the organizational structure of the Orthodox as more representative of what the “true church” should be like, could you clarify a thing here about the “ranking system”? I understand that Orthodox Metropolitan Greek bishops are ranked below archbishops in precedence, and primates of local churches below patriarchal rank are generally designated as archbishops. But how is it that the reverse is true for the Slavic Churches (Russian Orthodox, Bulgarian Orthodox, Serbian Orthodox, etc.) and for the Romanian Orthodox Church, where metropolitans rank above archbishops and the title can be used for primatial sees as well as important cities.

How do you all know who has authority over who? In The Latin Rite Church its pretty flat - Pope on top and bishops under him - all peers and equals with the exception that bishops sometimes have assistants and senior bishops may be appointed by the pope to Cardinals (advisors to the pope and typically arch bishop status) who also elect new popes after death. Most other titles such as monsignor and vicar are just honorary titles.

James