www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West Patriarch Bartholomew and "3rd Rome"

Came across this this AM...

grecoreport [grecoreport.com]

Eis polla eti despota!

In fact, early in his Pontificate, Pope John Paul II referred to Moscow as "a Third Rome."

I remember the articles and commentary on it at the time and also the commentary on Ukrainian and Russian language TV shows that my family and I viewed and (hotly) debated!

It is not the the EP denies the whole "Rome" thing as His All-Holiness does see himself as the "Patriarch of the Romans" (which is how the Turks always called the Ecumenical Patriarch, by the way), but this is the age-old struggle over Orthodox Primacy between New Rome and Moscow.

Moscow maintains that it should be the Orthodox leader owing to far greater numbers of its Orthodox members, a larger Church in many ways.

It is interesting how the EP characterizes Moscow for using the "Rome" idea even though, in the same breath, he affirms his Church as "New Rome."

Alex

Then you agree with Bishop Hilarion that the Church is a representative democracy?

If there is no real power in the Pentarchy the perhaps the MP is overreaching himself...with the help of Bishop Hilarion, of course.

M.

Let's not forget that "Old Rome" still exists and is as vibrant as ever (except for the whole Avignon thing )

Go Roma!

(A certain Catholic wag surmised that Rome will last forever because it is the cradle of the god (God?) of love: AMOR!)

Dear Mary,

I do not believe the Church is a representative democracy. I'm a monarchist, as you know . . .

I believe that when it comes to the Eastern Particular Churches, they have their own Patriarchs and hierarchies from time immemorial that look after all of the jurisdictional business of their own.

When an Eastern Patriarch consecrates bishops - that is NO concern of Rome's. When an Eastern Patriarch canonizes saints for his own Church, he need only let Rome know of the event and "you are invited to attend, if you can."

Rome is in charge of Western jurisdictional affairs and what Rome does should also be of no concern to the East.

Roman jurisdiction in the East is that of a "court of final appeal" or when a theologian or bishop or Church appeals to Rome to deal with a matter that has risen to crisis proportions. Rome may also censure any Church for having broken church canons of the Ecumenical Councils (as the EP does when this happens in the East).

And the rule of the Patriarch over his church is solid. It is just that Rome has no part in that jurisdictional solidity unless asked.

Alex

It's a pointless dispute over nothing.

So if Constantinople's fall ended its status as Ecumenical as ROC implies, than the fall of Moscow to Godless Communists is the end of the 3d Rome notion right?

What is the fourth Rome? New York City!?




And when Rome breaks a canon of the Councils?

Andrew,

I must say that I agree. As far as who should be considered the real ecumenical patriarch and 3rd Rome, etc. I am reminded of this passage of Scripture,

Mark 10:35-45 (Authorized Version):

And James and John, the sons of Zebedee, come unto him, saying, Master, we would that thou shouldest do for us whatsoever we shall desire. And he said unto them, What would ye that I should do for you? They said unto him, Grant unto us that we may sit, one on thy right hand, and the other on thy left hand, in thy glory. But Jesus said unto them, Ye know not what ye ask: can ye drink of the cup that I drink of? and be baptized with the baptism that I am baptized with? And they said unto him, We can. And Jesus said unto them, Ye shall indeed drink of the cup that I drink of; and with the baptism that I am baptized withal shall ye be baptized: But to sit on my right hand and on my left hand is not mine to give; but it shall be given to them for whom it is prepared. And when the ten heard it, they began to be much displeased with James and John. But Jesus called them to him, and saith unto them, Ye know that they which are accounted to rule over the Gentiles exercise lordship over them; and their great ones exercise authority upon them. But so shall it not be among you: but whosoever will be great among you, shall be your minister: And whosoever of you will be the chiefest, shall be servant of all. For even the Son of man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give his life a ransom for many.

They will be rebuked by their brother bisops and patriarchs as they have always been.

Mary

The 4th Rome is Washington D.C. and that makes Cardinal McCarrick the new Ecumenical Patriarch!

As soon as everyone elects me as Emperor, I will make St. Louis my Capital City, and her bishop will be the new Ecumenical Patriarch.

Dear Borislave,

Are you anti-Russian too? You and Kobzar can shake hands together!

In fact, the whole theory of the Third Rome was based not on the military fall of the previous Romes, but on their perceived "theological falls."

Old Rome (the Administrator here likes "Elder Rome") fell into heresy due to the Filioque, azymes and refusing to fast on Wednesdays. New Rome fell because it signed a union with Elder Rome at Florence. So it just stands to reason that Moscow is the Third Rome as it alone has remained faithful to the Orthodox Byzantine tradition without ever sullying it with unias (those Ukrainians!) et al.

What part of that don't you understand?

Alex

Dear Mary,

You make an important point - Rome itself was censured for moving the Wednesday fast to Saturday at one point during an ecumenical council. Pope Honorius was censured at the Sixth Council (that otherwise praised the Papacy to high heaven, truth be told) and there was the case of Pope Vigilius being excommunicated by a local council in Africa for his waffling on Arianism.

Alex

Dear Dr Eric,

You will have to first confer with His Holiness Patriarch Mor Ephrem of New Orleans, Louisiana and the Southeast on that!

If he approves, you have a good shot at the AP (American Primacy)!

Alex