The Byzantine Forum
Newest Members
Alexander T., Raphael1999, Adrián Badida, fr nick, Andres Belizario
5640 Registered Users
Who's Online Now
0 registered members (), 170 guests, and 152 spiders.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Latest Photos
Byzantine Nebraska
Church of the Holy Trinity (UGCC) - Brazil
Papal Audience 10 November 2017
Upgraded Russian icon corner
Russian Greek Catholic Global Congress
Forum Statistics
Forums26
Topics34,827
Posts412,417
Members5,640
Most Online3,380
Dec 29th, 2019
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Page 1 of 3 1 2 3
what does 1st, 3rd Rome mean? #274518 01/22/08 01:29 PM
Joined: Nov 2007
Posts: 106
D
Dandelion Offline OP
BANNED
Member
OP Offline
BANNED
Member
D
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?
blush

Dandelion

Re: what does 1st, 3rd Rome mean? [Re: Dandelion] #274519 01/22/08 01:46 PM
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 5,264
ebed melech Offline
Member
Offline
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

Quote
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

Re: what does 1st, 3rd Rome mean? [Re: ebed melech] #274544 01/22/08 03:35 PM
Joined: Apr 2005
Posts: 3,410
A
AMM Offline
Member
Offline
Member
A
Joined: Apr 2005
Posts: 3,410
All three "Rome" theories are misguided in their own ways.

Re: what does 1st, 3rd Rome mean? [Re: ebed melech] #274547 01/22/08 03:42 PM
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 26,173
Orthodox Catholic Offline
Member
Offline
Member
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 26,173
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

Re: what does 1st, 3rd Rome mean? [Re: Orthodox Catholic] #274564 01/22/08 04:37 PM
Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 218
P
Prester John Offline
Member
Offline
Member
P
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.

Re: what does 1st, 3rd Rome mean? [Re: Prester John] #274584 01/22/08 05:44 PM
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 5,692
B
byzanTN Offline
Member
Offline
Member
B
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 5,692
Originally Posted by Prester John
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.

Re: what does 1st, 3rd Rome mean? [Re: byzanTN] #274590 01/22/08 06:00 PM
Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 218
P
Prester John Offline
Member
Offline
Member
P
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 06:01 PM. Reason: spelling
Re: what does 1st, 3rd Rome mean? [Re: Prester John] #274591 01/22/08 06:00 PM
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 26,173
Orthodox Catholic Offline
Member
Offline
Member
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 26,173
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

Re: what does 1st, 3rd Rome mean? [Re: Orthodox Catholic] #274592 01/22/08 06:02 PM
Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 218
P
Prester John Offline
Member
Offline
Member
P
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!

Re: what does 1st, 3rd Rome mean? [Re: Prester John] #274593 01/22/08 06:14 PM
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 26,173
Orthodox Catholic Offline
Member
Offline
Member
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 26,173
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

Re: what does 1st, 3rd Rome mean? [Re: Prester John] #274595 01/22/08 06:15 PM
Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 4,518
Dr. Eric Offline
Catholic Gyoza
Member
Offline
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.

Re: what does 1st, 3rd Rome mean? [Re: Prester John] #274599 01/22/08 06:18 PM
Joined: Mar 2004
Posts: 478
francis Offline
Member
Offline
Member
Joined: Mar 2004
Posts: 478
Quote

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.


Re: what does 1st, 3rd Rome mean? [Re: francis] #274601 01/22/08 06:26 PM
Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 218
P
Prester John Offline
Member
Offline
Member
P
Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 218
Originally Posted by francis
Quote

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.

Re: what does 1st, 3rd Rome mean? [Re: francis] #274602 01/22/08 06:26 PM
Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 1,440
Job Offline
Cantor
Member
Offline
Cantor
Member
Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 1,440
Quote
Constantinople declared itself the "New Rome" (i.e. the 4th century).


Did Constantinople declare itself the "new Rome" or did emperor Constantine???

Job

Re: what does 1st, 3rd Rome mean? [Re: Job] #274605 01/22/08 06:29 PM
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 26,173
Orthodox Catholic Offline
Member
Offline
Member
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 26,173
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

Page 1 of 3 1 2 3

The Byzantine Forum provides message boards for discussions focusing on Eastern Christianity (though discussions of other topics are welcome). The views expressed herein are those of the participants and may or may not reflect the teachings of the Byzantine Catholic or any other Church. The Byzantine Forum and the www.byzcath.org site exist to help build up the Church but are unofficial, have no connection with any Church entity, and should not be looked to as a source for official information for any Church. All posts become property of byzcath.org. Contents copyright - 1996-2020 (Forum 1998-2020). All rights reserved.
Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.3