Constantinople

[orthodox_christian2000]

Nikodem and Joasia,
Thank-you both for your replies. Surely I have pointed at the First Ecumenical Synod, that named Rome as an important Christian centre, together with Alexandria and Antioch. I surely did point to St. Gregory the Great, Pope of Rome of blessed memory, who refused the conotation that the title the Ecumenical Council at Chalcedon conferred upon his Patriarchate. I pointed to Pope Leo III, who condemned filioque, as did Pope Hadrian I, and Pope John VIII of blessed memory, who condemned the claim of universal jurisdiction and condemned the filioque at the Council in Constantinople in 879.
As for "proving", (someone told me that they doubted I would prove anything to my friend) that isn't really my intention. I was given an argument that I didn't know how to answer, namely the apostolic foundation of Constantinople or Byzantio as it was called before being renamed? I figured that this would be a good place to enquire, seeing how much most on these forums know about Orthodoxy.
Thank-you all for your replies. I appreciate it.
The least in Christ,
Theodore

[Nikodemus]

Theodore

I dont want to repeat what others have said, but the Tradition says that it was St Andrew who was the apostle in this area, and later the apostle of Georgia. Constantinople was a strategic important city before the emperor moved there (and with him the capital of the empire). And it was St Paul who was first in Rome...he came before Peter.

The patriarch of Alexandria has the right to be called pope and is also called Universal Judge by the Church because many chritisans who lived in other cities applied to him to judge spiritual quarells. This later happened with the pope in Rome...and later by the patriarch of Constantinople.

In the middle ages there were up to three different individuals who claimed to be the pope of Rome. The Council of Constant decided that the pope in Avignon was the true pope. This shows that the council is ABOVE the pope.

[orthodox_christian2000]

Nikodem,
Again, thank-you for taking the time to post, and for your wise words. Surely, I don't disagree with anything that has been said, and that is surely what I've always believed. Infact, the point you made about the split papacy in Avignon, the three men contesting, all claiming to be the Pope, I clearly illustrated that this was not a theological argument, but it was a power struggle, because there was the false teaching that he ruled over the entire Church. As for the Latin Council of Constance, it was later overturned by subsequent later popes. So I argued, if the Pope leading this council argued that council is the way to go, and other popes overturned this, where is the supposed "papal infalliblity that is always in the Church? If it is a reasonable "doctrinal development" then infalliblity must always have been with the Popes...If that the case, why was Honorius condemned after his death as a Monothelite? Why was Vigilius excommunicated for not adhering the decision of the Fifth Ecumenical Synod. Surely if a pope erred in deciding the COLLEGIALITY was the way to go, then he was not infallible. If he was right, then the popes who overturned his decision had erred. Either way, the claim of papal infalliblity crumbles, and relies on the Roman Catholic notion of "doctrinal development" to survive.
Again, Nikodem. Thank you for your post.
The least in Christ,
Theodore

[romiosini]

It was also for this reason that the Moscow partiarchate later received the fith place of honor among the orthodox churches becuase of the city of Moscows importance for christianity.

By the Nicodemus, this is actually wrong. The Moscow Patriarchate was sixth in position, after the Autocephalous Church of Cyprus. Why? Well, in the Third Ecumenical Council, the Rudder clearly reveal on how the Patriarchate of Antioch wanted to take over the well-structered Archdiocese of Cyprus. As it is known, when the Third Ecumenical Council started, the Synod ordered a Status Quo to Antioch. But after the repose and the election of the Election of the New Patriarch of Antioch took place, the Antiochian First-Hierarch has uncanonicly taken Cyprus under his Synod. The well-known phenomenon (miracle) happened that Saint Apostle Barnabas, the first bishop of Cyprus, has ordered the Antiochian Patriarch to leave Cyprus to its independant state or else. Well, thanks to Saint Barnabas, the Holy Church of Cyprus was granted autocephaly by the Thrid Ecumenical Council, and orders the Autocephalous Church's First Hierarch (Archbishop) to be part of the next Ecumenical Decisions as part of the Ancient Churches. So technically according to the Rudder, Cyprus is considered to be the 5th Ancient Orthodox Church in all Church History. In the following Councils, the Cypriot Archbishop was considered equally as the Patriarch of Constantinople. What happens today, with the great ignorance of Cyprus, contradicts what the Ecumenical Councils directed. The situation is similar to Georgian Church with Antioch yet again. Moscow was considered the Third Rome. (Rome, Constantinople and Moscow respectively). Obviously, Saints Vladimir and Olga are the Russian Saints Constantine and Helen, and thanks to them, the Moscovite Church flourished gracefully the first centuries after the baptism of Russia.

Regarding Saint Constantine, the Saints of that time proove that he very much was. How? Well, one example was Saint Anthony the Great. The Father of Monasticism. Saint Constantine had written letters asking spiritual advice to Saint Anthony for him and his children. (Constantine II and Constantius) Many other Saintly Fathers where witnessed to Saints Helen especially, but also Constantine. There vivid writings which say that Saint Constantine present to the Miracle of the Holy Fire, but never dared to reach the Most Holy Tomb that close as his mother did. I don't remember which Father testifies that. I'd have to go through my gigantic stocks of books again! :mrgreen: :bump: (I enjoy getting lost in my books, forgive me...) If my memory is still good, it was a Saint that was Bishop of Jerusalem at the time of the First Ecumenical Council obviously. Anyways, it was a long time ago that I did my long research on Saint Constantine, I read both against and por Saint Constantine articles and books. The issue is a matter of understanding if anyone can really repent. Could have Saint Mary the Egyptian repent after living a life of a harlot, as spend 40 years in ascesis in the deserts of Egypt surviving on a couple of loaves of bread? Well, can Saint Vladimir totally change his pagan was and live the example of his grandmother Saint Olga? Very possible. Same thing we can say of Saint Barbarus who was known to be a autrocious murderer and thief. Then from day to another he abandoned the world and became a monk and was sanctified. Now what orthodox_christian2000 said is very and exactly true. Which Emperor wouldn't have an agenda? Every King, or Queen who has been glorified Saint couldn't abandoned politics and his country obviously. There are rare examples of Saintly Kings who was a bishop, that is Saint Peter of Centije (Serbia) who was bishop of Centia (Centije) and King too. But that is meant for another thread. Forgive my idle talk!
Christ is Risen!
"If Christ is with us, who is against us?"

[joasia]

CHRIST IS RISEN!

Romiosini,

Forgive my idle talk!

This is not idle talk. This is very informative.

orthodox_christian2000

Either way, the claim of papal infalliblity crumbles, and relies on the Roman Catholic notion of "doctrinal development" to survive.

The papists also seem to ignore the fact that St. Peter denied Christ three times...therefore, he had shown himself as being fallible.
Since St. Peter had fallen into fallibility, then where do they get their claim of infalibility?

Even St. Paul had repramanded St. Peter about his support of circumcision.

So St. Peter was never the head of the church. He was very significant, as was St. Paul, and that's why we have the feast day for the two of them, together.

But, the papists are way out of line about the Roman See being the authority over the church.

I'm sure I'm not telling you anything new. But, I felt like writing. Sorry for my ramblings.

[Nikodemus]

Romoisini

Thank you for your correction. I see that I was wrong about the place of the Moscow Patriach. He should have number six in place of honor.

Your post was not idle talk to me, it was a grea help and gave me many new insights.

Thank You

Orthodox Chrusutan2000

I see that my comments were perhaps abit superflous since you already seems to be well-informed about church history.

To everyone who read this:

Christos Anesti
Christos Voskresse
Christus Resurexit
םק תמאב ; םק ח׳שמה