1 members (Fr. Al),
336
guests, and
71
robots. |
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
Forums26
Topics35,493
Posts417,361
Members6,136
|
Most Online3,380 Dec 29th, 2019
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2007
Posts: 106
BANNED Member
|
BANNED Member
Joined: Nov 2007
Posts: 106 |
hi, I am sorry about my ignorance, but I do not know what 1st, or 3rd Rome means in describing locations? Dandelion
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 5,264
Member
|
Member
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 5,264 |
Dandelion, These are titles ascribed to Rome (Elder Rome, First Rome, Old Rome), Constantinople (New Rome or the 2nd Rome) and Moscow (3rd Rome). Moscow's title as 3rd Rome is generally contested. Constantinople's title was affirmed by the First Council of Constantinople in the contested third canon, since it was then the new seat of the Roman Empire. For an interesting summary of the controversy, read this link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Council_of_Constantinople The famous third canon[6] declares that because Constantinople is New Rome the bishop of that city should have a pre-eminence of honour after the Bishop of Old Rome. Baronius wrongly maintained the non-authenticity of this canon, while some medieval Greeks maintained (an equally erroneous thesis) that it declared the Bishop of Constantinople in all things the equal of the Bishop of Rome. The purely human reason of Rome's ancient authority, suggested by this canon, was never admitted by the Roman Catholic Church, which always based its claim to supremacy on the succession of St. Peter. Nor did Rome easily acknowledge this reordering of rank among the ancient patriarchates of the East. It was rejected by the Papal Legates at the Council of Chalcedon. Pope Leo the Great[7] declared that this canon had never been submitted to Rome and that it was a violation of the Nicene order. At the Fourth Council of Constantinople in 869 the Roman legates[8] acknowledged Constantinople as second in patriarchal rank. In 1215, at the Fourth Lateran Council[9], this was formally admitted for the new Latin patriarch, and in 1439, at the Council of Florence, for the Greek patriarch[10]. The Roman correctores of Gratian[11], insert the words: "canon hic ex iis est quos apostolica Romana sedes a principio et longo post tempore non recipit." To my mind, the notion of a second and third Rome smacks too much of the Imperial Ecclesiology (as opposed to an authentic Apostolic Ecclesiology) developed by Eusebius, which ascribes a greater role to the Emperor and the secular powers in the unity of the Church than is really good, theologically sound or useful - especially given the fact that today we have neither empire nor emperor. God bless, Gordo PS: Here is a link to a summary on "Third Rome". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_Rome
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2005
Posts: 3,411
Member
|
Member
Joined: Apr 2005
Posts: 3,411 |
All three "Rome" theories are misguided in their own ways.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 26,405 Likes: 37
Member
|
Member
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 26,405 Likes: 37 |
Certainly, the moving over of an ecclesial capital is not a new thing in Christian history.
The Metropolitans of Kyiv, for instance, moved northward because of enemy attacks and away from their primatial seat in Kyiv. Ultimately, they went to Moscow because it was militarily a much better protected site (in the midst of swamps that were harder to get through etc.).
But they kept their titles of "Metropolitan of Kyiv" until later.
This would all have to be studied and verified through study, but one might make these observations:
* The See of Peter was understood by some in the early Church to constitute those major Churches founded by Peter e.g. Rome, Antioch, Alexandria (by St Mark, Peter's assistant) and later Constantinople (said to have been founded by Peter's brother, St Andrew). So this was the Petrine apostolate extended over what became the pentarchy.
* That the leaership of one Church over the others depended on the level of apostolic activity and also civil significance which is why Constantinople, the New Rome where the Emperor there gained ascendancy over Old Rome and its Patriarch became important with the Patriarch assuming the title, contested by Old Rome, of "Ecumenical Patriarch."
* The theory of the Three Romes in Orthodoxy became solidified following the Schism of 1054 where "Rome" was defined in terms of Orthodoxy of faith and since Old Rome was heretical and New Rome was heretical by association (Council of Florence), then the Third Rome that alone maintained purity of Orthodox faith (and also due to its political ascendancy) must be Moscow.
Some thoughts.
Alex
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 218
Member
|
Member
Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 218 |
This theory presupposes, in every version I have heard or read, that "Old Rome" fell because of her heresy.
This, of course, is foolishness, even from the most extreme Orthodox position, as Rome wasn't heretical by any standard at the fall of Rome.
It is rather like the theory that the thing holding back the man of lawlessness in St. Paul's epistle is Christian monarchy, and with the fall of the Romanovs, the Antichrist had full sway.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 5,723 Likes: 2
Member
|
Member
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 5,723 Likes: 2 |
This theory presupposes, in every version I have heard or read, that "Old Rome" fell because of her heresy.
This, of course, is foolishness, even from the most extreme Orthodox position, as Rome wasn't heretical by any standard at the fall of Rome.
It is rather like the theory that the thing holding back the man of lawlessness in St. Paul's epistle is Christian monarchy, and with the fall of the Romanovs, the Antichrist had full sway. Actually, I have read that some of the Romanovs were referred to as antichrists in their own time.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 218
Member
|
Member
Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 218 |
I've not read that, but I don't doubt it.
Then again, some say that of the pope, too, so slinging around that moniker doesn't say much.
Last edited by Prester John; 01/22/08 01:01 PM. Reason: spelling
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 26,405 Likes: 37
Member
|
Member
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 26,405 Likes: 37 |
Dear Prester John,
(Didn't you write a book about your travels in Ethiopia?)
Orthodoxy and the Third Rome theory does indeed presuppose that Old Rome is heretical because of the Filioque.
Alex
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 218
Member
|
Member
Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 218 |
OC
Ethiopia...or was it India?
The letter from Prester John of legend tells of a wondrous Christian kingdom in the east. Trying to identify it is the trick!
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 26,405 Likes: 37
Member
|
Member
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 26,405 Likes: 37 |
Yes, tricky indeed!
At first, it was thought to be India and his comments were about the St Thomas Christians.
Portuguese explorers later said they found him in Ethiopia.
There is also "Prester John Schorne" of Buckinghamshire who is said to have discovered a cure for the gout.
Having died in the odour of sanctity, he was locally venerated and statues of him were set up in a number of churches holding a boot at which he pointed as a devil's head looked out of it (the demon of gout).
From this statue-type there evolved the toy known as "Jack in the Box."
Alex
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 4,518
Catholic Gyoza Member
|
Catholic Gyoza Member
Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 4,518 |
Isn't that why Marco Polo went to China? To find Prester John?
I've also read, co-incidentally, that there was a plan to ally with the Mongols to fight against the Turks in the Middle Ages and Early Renaissance periods.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2004
Posts: 478
Member
|
Member
Joined: Mar 2004
Posts: 478 |
Orthodoxy and the Third Rome theory does indeed presuppose that Old Rome is heretical because of the Filioque. But no one Orthodox would claim that Rome was heretical at the time in which Constantinople declared itself the "New Rome" (i.e. the 4th century). And does Moscow claim that Constantinople was heretical when it claimed the title of "Third Rome"? It seems to me that in both cases of a move, the reasons were political, not theological. A good book which reviews these issues is John Meyendorff's Rome, Constantinople, Moscow: Historical and Theological Studies [ amazon.com].
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 218
Member
|
Member
Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 218 |
Orthodoxy and the Third Rome theory does indeed presuppose that Old Rome is heretical because of the Filioque. But no one Orthodox would claim that Rome was heretical at the time in which Constantinople declared itself the "New Rome" (i.e. the 4th century). And does Moscow claim that Constantinople was heretical when it claimed the title of "Third Rome"? It seems to me that in both cases of a move, the reasons were political, not theological. Absolutely correct.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 1,441 Likes: 5
Cantor Member
|
Cantor Member
Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 1,441 Likes: 5 |
Constantinople declared itself the "New Rome" (i.e. the 4th century). Did Constantinople declare itself the "new Rome" or did emperor Constantine??? Job
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 26,405 Likes: 37
Member
|
Member
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 26,405 Likes: 37 |
Dear Friends,
In fact, the notion of the heresy of both Old and New Rome's presupposes the theory of the "Third Rome" later on (which is what we are talking about, no?).
"New Rome" as such is a harmless phrase and we do stand in the tradition of New Rome/Constantinople (BC's and EO's that is).
The title "Ecumenical Patriarch" was condemned by Old Rome when Patriarch John the Faster first used it.
Alex
|
|
|
|
|