The Orthodox Christian Church existed before St. Peter established his 2nd "See" in Rome.

[TomaszA]

StMarina,

You are welcome to continue believing that St Andrew is the founder of Constantinople, I however am unwilling to accept what has no basis in history and serves as a means of creating division in the Church of God throughout the world. The Greeks use this idea to foster their own claims for primacy, saying that St Andrew was the “First called.” Constantinople had no right to try to elevate itself, and we see what has happened to the once glorious city that based primacy on grandeur!

 

[StMarina303ad]

Grace and Peace,

As I understand it… it is not the fact that St. Peter ‘founded’ the Holy See of Rome that made Rome unique… it is the fact that both St. Peter and St. Paul are still present in Rome that makes the See of Rome unique. Within Rome remain many martyrs of the faith and both Great Saints still remain within her and their relics still have profound influence over those in the Rome whom listen.

To argue which was first founded misses the point of the Early Church’s recognition of Rome, Constantinople and Alexandria as superior in honor to that of Jerusalem. If their measure of such honor was based on which was established first it is a certainty that Constantinople would never have been recognized above Jerusalem nor any other.

That is true that Rome, Constantinople and Alexandria had higher honor than Antioch and Jeruselem. Remember that Rome had been the Capitol City of the Roman Empire for centuries at this point and that Constantinople had just become the Capitol City of the Roman Empire which made both of those the most important…Alexandria was also a more important city secularly than Antioch although both were important and least of all was Jeruselem which didn’t really have much, although some, secular significance…it had only the Pre-Christianity Jewish Religion significance.

St. Peter didn’t just found the Church in Rome, first he founded the Church in Antioch…so if it is the “person” of St. Peter that made the Church in Rome Great enough to be considered the Patriarchate as “First Among Equals”, then it would be Antioch, the first city St. Peter founded which would either be 1st after Rome (since St. Peter was martyred in and relics kept in Rome, not Antioch).

But that is not what we see. Instead, what we see is that 2 other Churches were of greater importance than Antioch, founded by St. Peter. So it is not the Apostle which made or broke a city from being elevated to a Patriarch, but it was the secular significance of the city.

We must recognize that there was another measure at use within the Early Church and it was heavy with the blood of the martyrs and that of the slumbering saints beneath the See of Rome and other Sees. It is true that martyrs and their relics are greatly honored, but not all of the Saints were martyred in those Patriarchs alone, but all over the Roman Empire and beyond.

 

[ralphinal]

You know, I can understand Jerusalem being important. I can understand Rome. But, why not Ethiopia? Why not the Church in India?

Really. If the importance is based on the IMportance of the Cities, New York and LA should take over for some of those, whith Sao Paulo, Mexico City, Bejing and Tokyo in the running for the rest.

 

[Stephen168]

COUNCIL OF NICEA(325):

LET the ancient customs in Egypt, Libya and Pentapolis prevail, that the Bishop of Alexandria have jurisdiction in all these, since the like is customary for the Bishop of Rome also. Likewise in Antioch and the other provinces, let the Churches retain their privileges. And this is to be universally understood, that if any one be made bishop without the consent of the Metropolitan, the great Synod has declared that such a man ought not to be a bishop. If, however, two or three bishops shall from natural love of contradiction, oppose the common suffrage of the rest, it being reasonable and in accordance with the ecclesiastical law, then let the choice of the majority prevail.

Nicea listed 3 Patriarchs by name Alexandria, Rome, Antioch. How did Constantinople advance to Patriarch?

 

[StMarina303ad]

StMarina,

You are welcome to continue believing that St Andrew is the founder of Constantinople, I however am unwilling to accept what has no basis in history and serves as a means of creating division in the Church of God throughout the world. The Greeks use this idea to foster their own claims for primacy, saying that St Andrew was the “First called.” Constantinople had no right to try to elevate itself, and we see what has happened to the once glorious city that based primacy on grandeur!

Constantinople did not elevate itself. The Holy Spirit through the Second Ecumenical Council elevated it. Rome, Alexandria, Antioch and Jeruselem did not elevate their selves either, the Holy Spirit through the First Ecumenical Council did.

St. Andrew, according to Sacred Scripture aka the Bible was the First Called Apostle, so using that term to describe him is in no way problematic.

You can certainly be unwilling to accept the truth because you are unwilling to look at history, but **do not confuse your refusal to look at the historical evidence with there not being any historical evidence. **That’s like me saying “I’ve never met you, so you don’t exist”…it’s just silly.

 

[StMarina303ad]

Nicea listed 3 Patriarchs by name Alexandria, Rome, Antioch. How did Constantinople advance to Patriarch?

The Holy Spirit through the 1st Ecumenical Council elevated Rome, Alexandria, Antioch and Jeruselem.

The Holy Spirit through the 2nd Ecumenical Council elevated Constantinople (Byzantium).

 

[StMarina303ad]

You know, I can understand Jerusalem being important. I can understand Rome. But, why not Ethiopia? Why not the Church in India?

This is only my guess: The Holy Spirit would have known that those two countries were to soon separate themselves from the Orthodox Church…however, as I type that: so did Rome…although it took Rome longer.

Meanwhile, there are now more Patriarchates (9 currently, if Rome hadn’t removed herself from the Church there’d be 10) and Autocephalous Churches through out the world…as our Church grows so does the number of Patriarches and Autocephalous Churches. There is talk of a Patriarchate of the Americas…who knows when that would become reality?

Really. If the importance is based on the IMportance of the Cities, New York and LA should take over for some of those, whith Sao Paulo, Mexico City, Bejing and Tokyo in the running for the rest.

In picking New York, L.A. and San Fransisco, I was simply picking a few major cities within the U.S., perhaps that is what the Holy Spirit did…only picked those major cities within the boundries of the Roman Empire at the time?

 

[StMarina303ad]

Just an addendum to my previous post…

If primacy is based on the grandeur of a city, does Constantinople still deserve to be second after Rome?

I understand you comment, I mean really, how important is Istanbul now in the scheme of things?

But now it’s due to the Historical Distinction of the Church in Constantinople as was the reason Rome remained “first among equals” when Constantinople was elevated to Patriarchate.

Constantinople is no longer 2nd after Rome, once Rome removed herself from the rest of the Church, by default, Constantinople is first.

The current order of importance of the Patriarchates are:
Constantinople
Alexandria
Antioch
Jerusalem
Moscow
Serbia
Romania
Bulgaria
Georgia

My understanding is that if Rome were to ever repent and reunite with the Church that she again would be given first place among the equals.

 

[Stephen168]

The Holy Spirit through the 1st Ecumenical Council elevated Rome, Alexandria, Antioch and Jeruselem.

It doesn’t seem to me by reading the Canon that these Patriarchs were elevated. “LET the ancient customs in Egypt, Libya and Pentapolis prevail,” seems to affirm what was already their status.

 

[StMarina303ad]

*This move offended the Church of God in Rome because their delegates were not present at the council,

The Bishop of Rome was invited. It is true he decided not to come himself and to instead send delegates who failed to show up on time for the Council.

It’s not the rest of the Church’s fault they chose not to participate so there is no need to play the blame game.

But there failure to participate in the Council just goes to show how the Church goes on with or without Rome as the Church is led by the Holy Spirit and Christ has promised that the gates of Hell would not be able to prevail against it. *

It also offended the Alexandrians whose See was long regarded as second after Rome.

And yet, they didn’t throw a fit, but accepted the Holy Spirit’s direction and even today remain a strong part of the Church…in fact, as God would have it, they are 2nd again…this time to Constantinople since Rome left communion with the Church.

Constantinople became a wedge that eventually split the Church. No, the wedge that eventually split the Church is a couple of power hungry popes: Pope Nicholas, was one of them, and Rome’s acceptance of false doctrine part of which Rome elevated to dogma after Rome left the Church.

 

[StMarina303ad]

It doesn’t seem to me by reading the Canon that these Patriarchs were elevated. “LET the ancient customs in Egypt, Libya and Pentapolis prevail,” seems to affirm what was already their status.

The Church didn’t make those cities significate, they already were. The Church through the councils simply elevated the Churches in those cities to a level of government we call Patriarch.

 

[Stephen168]

The Church didn’t make those cities significate, they already were. The Church through the councils simply elevated the Churches in those cities to a level of government we call Patriarch.

Again, I don’t see the Council elevating these Churches. These Churches had already been elevated by the time of the Council.

 

[adstrinity]

A Church council without Rome is not a Church council. The Orthodox should be the first to realise this.

 

[TomaszA]

Constantinople did not elevate itself. The Holy Spirit through the Second Ecumenical Council elevated it.

It did elevate itself, and it did so offending Rome and Alexandria.

Rome, Alexandria, Antioch and Jeruselem did not elevate their selves either, the Holy Spirit through the First Ecumenical Council did.

Rome held Primacy long before the First Ecumenical Council, just consider St Ignatius’ letter to the Romans, and St Ireneus’ comments on Apostolic Succession in Rome, and why he chose Rome as an example.

St. Andrew, according to Sacred Scripture aka the Bible was the First Called Apostle, so using that term to describe him is in no way problematic.

The problem is the Greeks use this title as a means of asserting primacy over the Holy See.

 

[StMarina303ad]

A Church council without Rome is not a Church council. The Orthodox should be the first to realise this.

Really, then why did Rome accept those Councils?

 

[StMarina303ad]

St Ireneus’ comments on Apostolic Succession in Rome

Great, but then there’s never been a debate about Rome having valid Apostolic Succession. Rome simply isn’t the only Church that has Apostolic Succession.

The problem is the Greeks use this title as a means of asserting primacy over the Holy See. Not to burst your bubble, but no Greek Orthodox Patriarch ever claimed that.

 

[Robert_in_SD]

**The fact is that the Church existed before the Bible - the Church didn’t need the Bible in order for the Church to exist (something Protestants fail to grasp)…and likewise, the Church also existed well before Peter ever created a “chair” in Rome - the Church didn’t need the Pope of Rome in order for the Church to exist.(something many modern Catholics seem to fail to grasp). **

I agree that it did not need the pope in Rome. But the Church did need Peter - the Rock - and his successors. That is what is missing from the 5 Orthodox church communities you reference (from the Catholic perspective at least).
StMarina:

The Church existed before Rome was established and the Church has continued without missing a beat since Rome excommunicated itself from the Church.

The Roman See did not excommunicate itself. The excommunications were mutual, from what I recall in my history studies… The issue was Petrine authority, which the Orthodox Churches refused to accept. So, while we all agree (Catholic and Orthodox) that the eastern churches are the oldest, and that there are ancient liturgies that inspire and console with great effect in the Orthodox churches, we part company on the issue of authority. Age alone does not establish Orthodox superiority over the Petrine See. Jesus Christ did not establish a democracy with voting blocks among the Apostles and their successors. He founded a Church on Peter as the Rock
St.Marina:

Each of the Original 5 Patriarchates all have an unbroken line of succession:

No argument here. All of the ordinations and sacraments of the Orthodox Churches are recognized as valid. But apostolic succession alone does not establish Orthodox (or even conciliar) authority over Petrine authority. And until there is some resolution concerning the nature of the Petrine office, both the Catholic and Orthodox Churches will remain less than complete. Don’t fool yourself into thinking the Orthodox churches are “just fine.” Both sides of this division are less than complete.

But they are closer to some kind of reunion now than they have been for many centuries. Some orthodox churches have already come home. Others are moving in that direction. Perhaps in another the greatest division in Christendom could be healed?

Benedict XVI has calledd the churches of the East and West two lungs with which the whole Church must again breathe. For the past 1000 years or so, Catholics and Orthodox have been breathing with only one lung. The split has certainly hindered the unity of our shared faith. Without assigning blame, each of us can concede this point.
St.Marina:

St. Peter the Apostle, together with St. Paul, founded the Church in Rome in about 53ad or soon after: I can’t provide you with a link of his successors in Rome simply because I can not find a link, but I don’t think that it’s doubted by anyone.

I’m glad to see that you acknowledge the apostolic tradition remains alive in the West, despite the separation.

Peace,
-Robert

 

[StMarina303ad]

The Roman See did not excommunicate itself. The excommunications were mutual, from what I recall in my history studies… The issue was Petrine authority, which the Orthodox Churches refused to accept. It was not accepted because it was not part of the original deposit of faith, there was no historical precedent for it. So, while we all agree (Catholic and Orthodox) that the eastern churches are the oldest, and that there are ancient liturgies that inspire and console with great effect in the Orthodox churches, we part company on the issue of authority. And on the issue of the Faith, the Nicean Constantinoplian Creed and the phrase being added by a Pope after several earlier Popes condemned it. Age alone does not establish Orthodox superiority over the Petrine See. Jesus Christ did not establish a democracy with voting blocks among the Apostles and their successors. Exactly all of the Apostles successors, not just the successors of one of the two Sees that Peter established.

No argument here. All of the ordinations and sacraments of the Orthodox Churches are recognized as valid. But apostolic succession alone does not establish Orthodox (or even conciliar) authority over Petrine authority. And until there is some resolution concerning the nature of the Petrine office, both the Catholic and Orthodox Churches will remain less than complete. The Orthodox Church is whole. If the Catholic Church feels it is less than complete, by all means have her reject the innovations which caused the split and reunite with Orthodoxy.

Benedict XVI has calledd the churches of the East and West two lungs with which the whole Church must again breathe. For the past 1000 years or so, Catholics and Orthodox have been breathing with only one lung. The Bride of Christ is not deformed - her body is in tact. The Orthodox Church is not missing a lung. The split has certainly hindered the unity of our shared faith. Without assigning blame, each of us can concede this point.

I’m glad to see that you acknowledge the apostolic tradition remains alive in the West, despite the separation. I acknowledge that Popes of Rome have a valid succession back to St. Peter (as do the Patriarches in the Church of Antioch, which St. Peter also founded). As far as Rome holding Apostolic Tradition, they have maintained some of what the Apostles taught, but they have also lost some of the traditions of the apostles (like Canon 69 of the Apostles - dropping the Wednesday Fasts & Canon 70 of the Apostles - we cannot celebrate festivals with the Jews, Orthodox Pascha (Easter) never falls on any Jewish feast day, but the Catholic Easter does) come up with tradition of their own which is completely different than what the Apostles taught (Papal Infallibility, Filioque, the current Roman Catholic understanding of Original Sin, etc.).

Peace,
-Robert

Peace be to you! Happy Nativity Season!

 

[VARC]

Just an addendum to my previous post…

If primacy is based on the grandeur of a city, does Constantinople still deserve to be second after Rome?

No and Moscow is quick to point that out.

 

[adstrinity]

Really, then why did Rome accept those Councils?

Which councils?