What does this mean? Please would somebody explain this term as it applies to the Oecumenical Patriarch's Archbishopric? Does it have something to do with a concept of a vacancy in the See of Rome or am I barking up the wrong tree?
I'd be very grateful. Many thanks.
As of December, 2009, this blog is inactive at this location. All posts have been transferred to the new location here. You are very welcome to read and comment.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
6 comments:
IIRC, it predates the tiff between Rome and Constantinople by many centuries. The idea comes from the fact that Constantine established Constantinople as the new capital of the empire. The Orthodox Church, as far as I know, has never declared the See of Old Rome to be "vacant" – just occupied by a bishop no longer in communion.
Yes, it's simply owing to the fact that the Emperor established Constantinople as the new capital of the Empire, moving it from Rome. There were then debates as to whether this meant that the primary see was Rome or Constantinople.
Richard
The Eastern Church never, and still does not, dispute the fact that the Bishop of old Rome has privileges as a "primus inter pares" – with Constantinople coming in second, then Alexandria, Antioch and Jerusalem. Since, however, communion was broken between old Rome and the East, the Patriarch of Constantinople has been (at least in theory) the "primus inter pares."
Yes, the term "New Rome" was actually promulgated by one of the Ecumenical Councils.
To further muddy the waters, with the rise of the Muslims and the Ottoman Empire, Russia believed it had become the guardian of the Faith and dubbed itself "The Third Rome." The title has never been acknowledged in Ecumenical Council, obviously...and it rather annoys the Patriarch of Constantinople!
Hehe. I should imagine so.
I mean, you'd be a little p'd off, wouldn't you?
"I mean, you'd be a little p'd off, wouldn't you?"
I'm not sure; talk them into electing me Patriarch of Constantinople, and I'll tell you. :)
Post a Comment