OrthodoxChristianity.net
October 01, 2014, 02:47:26 PM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Reminder: No political discussions in the public fora.  If you do not have access to the private Politics Forum, please send a PM to Fr. George.
 
   Home   Help Calendar Contact Treasury Tags Login Register  
Pages: 1 2 3 4 »  All   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: How many of the original holy sees remain  (Read 22944 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
romanbyzantium
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 479


OC.net


« on: May 05, 2004, 06:55:10 PM »

How many of the original holy sees remain?
Logged
ExOrienteLux
Waning: Spoilers
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 183



« Reply #1 on: May 05, 2004, 07:34:26 PM »

By 'original holy sees' you mean what exactly?  That's an honest question, by the way.  If I know what you mean, I can give you a (slightly) better answer.
Logged

Arise, O God! Judge the earth, for to Thee belong all the nations!
romanbyzantium
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 479


OC.net


« Reply #2 on: May 05, 2004, 07:42:29 PM »

By 'original holy sees' you mean what exactly?  That's an honest question, by the way.  If I know what you mean, I can give you a (slightly) better answer.

Like rome, constantinople, etc.. the original ones. which still exist to this day.
Logged
Mor Ephrem
"Mor is right, you are wrong."
Section Moderator
Hoplitarches
*****
Online Online

Posts: 17,410


The Pope Emeritus reading OCNet


WWW
« Reply #3 on: May 05, 2004, 07:42:55 PM »

They all exist today.
Logged

Apolytikion, Tone 1, by Antonis

An eloquent crafter of divine posts
And an inheritor of the line of the Baptist
A righteous son of India
And a new apostle to the internet
O Holy Mor Ephrem,
Intercede for us, that our forum may be saved.


"Mor is a jerk." - kelly
ExOrienteLux
Waning: Spoilers
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 183



« Reply #4 on: May 05, 2004, 07:52:35 PM »

Well, all five of the Patriachates (Rome, Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem) still exist today, and like Mor said, all of the sees that were founded by Apostles still exist (so far as I know - I'm not sure how many sees the Apostles founded when all was said and done).
Logged

Arise, O God! Judge the earth, for to Thee belong all the nations!
prodromos
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 1,463

Sydney, Australia


« Reply #5 on: May 06, 2004, 03:07:28 AM »

Christos Anesti!  Christ is Risen!

Of course Antioch has moved to Damascus and there are plenty of times I wonder if Constantinople shouldn't follow suit :-

John.
Logged
romanbyzantium
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 479


OC.net


« Reply #6 on: May 06, 2004, 06:35:26 AM »

Christos Anesti!  Christ is Risen!

Of course Antioch has moved to Damascus and there are plenty of times I wonder if Constantinople shouldn't follow suit :-

John.

then shouldn't it be called the holy see of damascus? if it know longer exist within the city/place where it was founded by the apstles,  then was is the point.

are there any christians left in antioch?

and should not the patriarch of costantnople be called the patriarch of "istanbul". Constantinople doesn't longer exist.
« Last Edit: May 06, 2004, 06:38:39 AM by romanbyzantium » Logged
Oblio
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 454

The Pointless One !


WWW
« Reply #7 on: May 06, 2004, 08:26:51 AM »

Quote
and should not the patriarch of costantnople be called the patriarch of "istanbul".

Istanbul is Constantinople transmorgified by the Muslims.
Logged
Fr. David
The Poster Formerly Known as "Pedro"
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA, Diocese of the South
Posts: 2,828



WWW
« Reply #8 on: May 06, 2004, 08:27:26 AM »

Probably should be, if we're going for literalness (is that a word?).  The names are kept, though, as a link to the apostolic past.
Logged

Priest in the Orthodox Church in America - ordained on March 18, 2012

Oh Taste and See (my defunct blog)

From Protestant to Orthodox (my conversion story)
theodore
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 194


« Reply #9 on: May 06, 2004, 10:39:06 AM »

then shouldn't it be called the holy see of damascus? if it know longer exist within the city/place where it was founded by the apstles,  then was is the point.

And shouldn't the Holy See of Rome have changed it's name to the Holy See of Avignon, when for a period of time, the Popes of Rome were actually Frenchmen living in France?
Logged
Seraphim Reeves
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 450



WWW
« Reply #10 on: May 06, 2004, 10:54:59 AM »

RomanByzantium,

Quote
then shouldn't it be called the holy see of damascus? if it know longer exist within the city/place where it was founded by the apstles,  then was is the point.

In that case, several of your medieval Popes were not in fact "Bishop of Rome" at all, but Bishops of Avignon.

Quote
and should not the patriarch of costantnople be called the patriarch of "istanbul". Constantinople doesn't longer exist.

In unaware of any Orthodox who accept what the Turks did - I've never referred to it as Istanbul, even in conversations with non-Orthodox (much to their confusion until I explain.) Smiley

Seraphim
Logged

arimethea
Getting too old for this
Section Moderator
Archon
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Holy Catholic and Apostolic Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Patriarchate of Antioch
Posts: 2,968


Does anyone really care what you think?


« Reply #11 on: May 06, 2004, 10:59:17 AM »

The see of the Patriarch of Antioch is still Antioch and will always be Antioch. There are several reasons for residing in Damascus; 1) Several earthquakes struck that region and much of Antioch was destroyd, 2) Antioch is now located in Turkey and for long periods Syria was more tolerant to Christians then Turkey/Ottoman, 3) Damascus became the dominant trade city of the region with the influx of Islamic control and the previous mention of the destruction of Antioch.

Even the Roman Catholic "Patriarch" of Antioch lives in Damascus because of many of these reasons. I am not sure how big the Christian population is in Antioch (Antakya) but I doubt it is very large because it is in Turkey and they did a very good job of killing off the Christian population in the last 400 years.

Logged

Joseph
ania
Life according to Abe Simpson:
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,097



« Reply #12 on: May 06, 2004, 11:28:54 AM »

Istanbul was Constantinople
Now it's Istanbul, not Constantinople
Been a long time gone, Constantinople
Now it's Turkish delight on a moonlit night

Every gal in Constantinople
Lives in Istanbul, not Constantinople
So if you've a date in Constantinople
She'll be waiting in Istanbul

Even old New York was once New Amsterdam
Why they changed it I can't say
People just liked it better that way

So take me back to Constantinople
No, you can't go back to Constantinople
Been a long time gone, Constantinople
Why did Constantinople get the works
That's nobody's business but the Turks

Istanbul (Istanbul)
Istanbul (Istanbul)

Even old New York was once New Amsterdam
Why they changed it I can't say
People just liked it better that way

Istanbul was Constantinople
Now it's Istanbul, not Constantinople
Been a long time gone, Constantinople
Why did Constantinople get the works
That's nobody's business but the Turks

So take me back to Constantinople
No, you can't go back to Constantinople
Been a long time gone, Constantinople
Why did Constantinople get the works
That's nobody's business but the Turks

Istanbul
Logged

Now where were we? Oh yeah - the important thing was I had an onion on my belt, which was the style at the time. They didn’t have white onions because of the war. The only thing you could get was those big yellow ones...
Αριστοκλής
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: American Carpatho-Russian Orthodox Diocese
Posts: 10,026


« Reply #13 on: May 06, 2004, 11:39:46 AM »

The see of the Patriarch of Antioch is still Antioch and will always be Antioch. There are several reasons for residing in Damascus; 1) Several earthquakes struck that region and much of Antioch was destroyd, 2) Antioch is now located in Turkey and for long periods Syria was more tolerant to Christians then Turkey/Ottoman, 3) Damascus became the dominant trade city of the region with the influx of Islamic control and the previous mention of the destruction of Antioch.

Not to mention that the Turks were not about to allow TWP Orthodox Patriarchs to continue within the borders of "Turkey".

Quote
Even the Roman Catholic "Patriarch" of Antioch lives in Damascus because of many of these reasons. I am not sure how big the Christian population is in Antioch (Antakya) but I doubt it is very large because it is in Turkey and they did a very good job of killing off the Christian population in the last 400 years.


As noted above about Avignon - the Popes (of Rome) also resided for some  periods at Ravenna.

Demetri
Logged

"Religion is a neurobiological illness and Orthodoxy is its cure." - Fr. John S. Romanides
romanbyzantium
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 479


OC.net


« Reply #14 on: May 06, 2004, 11:51:19 AM »

And shouldn't the Holy See of Rome have changed it's name to the Holy See of Avignon, when for a period of time, the Popes of Rome were actually Frenchmen living in France?

No.. it is very different. Rome still existed when the popes where exiled to france.  constantinople no longer exist.

why are we turning this thread into a ponting finger fiasco. I knew that this was going to be done.



Logged
romanbyzantium
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 479


OC.net


« Reply #15 on: May 06, 2004, 11:55:14 AM »

RomanByzantium,In that case, several of your medieval Popes were not in fact "Bishop of Rome" at all, but Bishops of Avignon.In unaware of any Orthodox who accept what the Turks did - I've never referred to it as Istanbul, even in conversations with non-Orthodox (much to their confusion until I explain.) Smiley

Seraphim


But rome still existed even when the popes where in exile to france. constantinople does not exist anymore.

Logged
romanbyzantium
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 479


OC.net


« Reply #16 on: May 06, 2004, 12:01:00 PM »

The see of the Patriarch of Antioch is still Antioch and will always be Antioch. There are several reasons for residing in Damascus; 1) Several earthquakes struck that region and much of Antioch was destroyd, 2) Antioch is now located in Turkey and for long periods Syria was more tolerant to Christians then Turkey/Ottoman, 3) Damascus became the dominant trade city of the region with the influx of Islamic control and the previous mention of the destruction of Antioch.

Even the Roman Catholic "Patriarch" of Antioch lives in Damascus because of many of these reasons. I am not sure how big the Christian population is in Antioch (Antakya) but I doubt it is very large because it is in Turkey and they did a very good job of killing off the Christian population in the last 400 years.



But antioch is different because it still exists to this day. constantinople does not exist at all.
Logged
Amadeus
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 268


I'm a llama!


« Reply #17 on: May 06, 2004, 12:21:03 PM »

Dear Friends:

Given the predisposition of RB to defend the Roman position, allow me to rephrase his question to:  "How many of the "apostolic" sees still remain in (or are back to) their original place of establishment/founding?

Let us further assume that we refer to those apostolic sees as the original 5 Patriarchates of Rome, Constantinople, Antioch, Alexandria, and Jerusalem.

Within these parameters, only the Patriarchate of Antioch seems to be displaced for the reasons already mentioned, with the Patriarchate of Constantinople in danger of being smoked out of Istanbul.

The Patriarchate of Jerusalem is, of course, presently under the strictures of the Israeli government and the Patriarchate of Alexandira is slowly being engulfed by Islam.

As a vibrant, alive, and freely "functioning" Patriarchal See, central to the governance of the territorial reaches of the Church/Churches under its provenance, arguably only the See of Rome is extant to this day, which leads me to reference made by RB on the current signification of the "Holy See."  

In modern parlance, the "Holy See" refers to none other than the Roman See. Alternately, it refers to the Vatican City State, de facto et de jure, as enshrined by international law and comity and recognized by ALL  members of the United Nations.  Thus, plenipotentiaries appointed by individual countries to the Vatican present their "letters of credence" to the Pope as ambassadors to the Holy See.

Feel free to disagree.

Amado
Logged
Brendan03
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 544



« Reply #18 on: May 06, 2004, 12:24:34 PM »

But antioch is different because it still exists to this day. constantinople does not exist at all.

What does that mean?  Both of them exist, even if the Turks renamed one of them to suit a Turkic corruption of the Greek (eis ton polli).

In any case, I for one (and I know I am going to get slagged for this) think that we should have a new first hierarch in Orthodoxy, Constantinople is not coming back, and the fact that we have the first hierarch located there is doing great harm to the Orthodox Church.   We're the first ones to argue that the canons at Chalcedon that raised the See of Constantinople had a pragmatic origin based on the status of that city as the imperial capital ... but of course, it is no longer the capital and it is no longer Orthodox, so the basis for that see being the First See, the primus-inter-pares, no longer obtains.

That begs the question of who should be that first hierarch, where he should be located and the like.  It seems likely that, because we do not have an earthly emperor to impose this on us, we will likely not agree as to who should be the first hierarch.  Moscow seems a likely choice, but noone else will agree.  Some have proposed the creation of a new Ecumenical Patriarchate somewhere ... maybe Athens or maybe even in New York.  Not likely either would fly with the other Orthodox Churches.  So likely we will remain frozen with the current system that, in a sense, ridicules our own ecclesiology.

Reminds me of something an Orthodox priest quipped to me once:  "If it looks organized, then you know that it can't be Orthodox".

Brendan
Logged

B
theodore
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 194


« Reply #19 on: May 06, 2004, 02:54:47 PM »

But antioch is different because it still exists to this day. constantinople does not exist at all.
Sure it exists.  If the Italian government renamed Rome, would the Rome cease to exist?  By your logic, the Pope no longer resides in Rome, but a new nation created from a former part of the city of Rome called Vatican City, which is it's own government.  Your original question was answered, which is, all of the original patriarchal Sees still exist.  Your attempt to insinuate that a certain See doesn't exist because of name change of the City by the civil authorities is weak.  Give it a rest.
Logged
romanbyzantium
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 479


OC.net


« Reply #20 on: May 06, 2004, 03:03:55 PM »

Sure it exists.  If the Italian government renamed Rome, would the Rome cease to exist?  By your logic, the Pope no longer resides in Rome, but a new nation created from a former part of the city of Rome called Vatican City, which is it's own government.  Your original question was answered, which is, all of the original patriarchal Sees still exist.  Your attempt to insinuate that a certain See doesn't exist because of name change of the City by the civil authorities is weak.  Give it a rest.

Your last sentence makes so sense whatsoever.

Don't get bend out of shape. No one is insinuating anthing. Your sesibilities are getting in the way. I knoew that this was going to happen.

well, Rome still exists. but the pope is head of vatican city state to protect him from political influence and it is Bishop of Rome, Italy.

« Last Edit: May 06, 2004, 03:15:20 PM by romanbyzantium » Logged
romanbyzantium
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 479


OC.net


« Reply #21 on: May 06, 2004, 03:10:27 PM »

What does that mean?  Both of them exist, even if the Turks renamed one of them to suit a Turkic corruption of the Greek (eis ton polli).


Brendan

But it is called Istanbul in the country political state of Turkey.  The Christian city of Constantinople only exists in the pages of history and memory. Constantinople was destroyed and rebuilt and taken over by the Muslims. That is the reality.

We can't go one saying that the middle east is Christian when in fact it is no longer. a long time ago... it was but, we can't blind ourselves with delusions that those are Christian lands under Muslim control.

Logged
Schultz
Christian. Guitarist. Zymurgist. Librarian.
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 6,477


Scion of the McKeesport Becks.


WWW
« Reply #22 on: May 06, 2004, 03:40:26 PM »

Quote
We can't go one saying that the middle east is Christian when in fact it is no longer. a long time ago... it was but, we can't blind ourselves with delusions that those are Christian lands under Muslim control.

We really can't go on saying Europe is either.  Whereas the Muslims have taken control of the Middle East, secular humanism has taken hold in Europe.  France has pretty much outlawed any and all public religious expression.  One look at Italian television will toss any idea that it's a "Christian" nation into the proverbial fire.  There's quite a force within the EU to expunge any mention of Europe's Christian past from the European Constitution.

« Last Edit: May 06, 2004, 03:46:05 PM by Schultz » Logged

"Hearing a nun's confession is like being stoned to death with popcorn." --Abp. Fulton Sheen
Orthodoc
Supporter & Defender Of Orthodoxy
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 2,526

Those who ignore history tend to repeat it.


« Reply #23 on: May 06, 2004, 06:27:53 PM »

[Constantinople was destroyed and rebuilt and taken over by the Muslims. That is the reality.]

Constantinople, although taken over by the Muslims,  was never destroyed and rebuilt.

Orthodoc
Logged

Oh Lord, Save thy people and bless thine inheritance.
Grant victory to the Orthodox Christians over their adversaries.
And by virtue of thy Cross preserve thy habitation.
Mor Ephrem
"Mor is right, you are wrong."
Section Moderator
Hoplitarches
*****
Online Online

Posts: 17,410


The Pope Emeritus reading OCNet


WWW
« Reply #24 on: May 06, 2004, 06:44:39 PM »

Dear RB,

Would you please expound on what, to you, determines whether a particular see has become non-existant?
Logged

Apolytikion, Tone 1, by Antonis

An eloquent crafter of divine posts
And an inheritor of the line of the Baptist
A righteous son of India
And a new apostle to the internet
O Holy Mor Ephrem,
Intercede for us, that our forum may be saved.


"Mor is a jerk." - kelly
romanbyzantium
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 479


OC.net


« Reply #25 on: May 06, 2004, 07:24:27 PM »

Dear RB,

Would you please expound on what, to you, determines whether a particular see has become non-existant?

ok... here goes... my attempt at explaining what I mean.

If the city or place seizes to exist.  How can you be bishop of rome without a rome, patriarch of antioch without antioch, etc...

To me it sounds funny to say or hear " The patriarch of constantinople", when where he lives is called Istanbul, Turkey. Constantinople is long gone and it will never return...unless by miracle of God.

They should be called Rome, Istanbul, Antioch, Alexandria, and Jerusalem.


The Dutch don't go around calling new york ...new amsterdam.

What happens when the christian community is no longer in these communities, can they still be called holy sees even with no christians living there?

Please, Please don't take what I am writing as an insult. I know how sesitive these topics can be. I am only want to generate some freindly polemics.
« Last Edit: May 06, 2004, 07:27:45 PM by romanbyzantium » Logged
romanbyzantium
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 479


OC.net


« Reply #26 on: May 06, 2004, 07:30:01 PM »

What does that mean?  Both of them exist, even if the Turks renamed one of them to suit a Turkic corruption of the Greek (eis ton polli).

In any case, I for one (and I know I am going to get slagged for this) think that we should have a new first hierarch in Orthodoxy, Constantinople is not coming back, and the fact that we have the first hierarch located there is doing great harm to the Orthodox Church.   We're the first ones to argue that the canons at Chalcedon that raised the See of Constantinople had a pragmatic origin based on the status of that city as the imperial capital ... but of course, it is no longer the capital and it is no longer Orthodox, so the basis for that see being the First See, the primus-inter-pares, no longer obtains.

That begs the question of who should be that first hierarch, where he should be located and the like.  It seems likely that, because we do not have an earthly emperor to impose this on us, we will likely not agree as to who should be the first hierarch.  Moscow seems a likely choice, but noone else will agree.  Some have proposed the creation of a new Ecumenical Patriarchate somewhere ... maybe Athens or maybe even in New York.  Not likely either would fly with the other Orthodox Churches.  So likely we will remain frozen with the current system that, in a sense, ridicules our own ecclesiology.

Reminds me of something an Orthodox priest quipped to me once:  "If it looks organized, then you know that it can't be Orthodox".

Brendan

How can you create a new ECP without an emperor? The next see in line should be regarded within orthodoxy as first among equals. I believe it is alexandria.
Logged
romanbyzantium
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 479


OC.net


« Reply #27 on: May 06, 2004, 07:31:51 PM »

[Constantinople was destroyed and rebuilt and taken over by the Muslims. That is the reality.]

Constantinople, although taken over by the Muslims,  was never destroyed and rebuilt.

Orthodoc


of course it was. what do you think happens in wars and subsequent Muslim additions and demolitions.
Logged
Mor Ephrem
"Mor is right, you are wrong."
Section Moderator
Hoplitarches
*****
Online Online

Posts: 17,410


The Pope Emeritus reading OCNet


WWW
« Reply #28 on: May 06, 2004, 07:37:43 PM »

ok... here goes... my attempt at explaining what I mean.

If the city or place seizes to exist.  How can you be bishop of rome without a rome, patriarch of antioch without antioch, etc...

To me it sounds funny to say or hear " The patriarch of constantinople", when where he lives is called Istanbul, Turkey. Constantinople is long gone and it will never return...unless by miracle of God.

But, RB, the point is that the city hasn't ceased to exist.  True, it has a different name in common parlance (although, as I believe was noted earlier in this thread, some/many/most Orthodox don't seem to have accepted the legitimacy of the name change beyond mere convention), but it is the same place.  If "Jane Doe", upon marriage, becomes "Jane Smith", she doesn't cease to exist; she merely has a different surname that addresses a different condition (married vs. single).  You do not have a problem with the Bishops of Rome being called Bishops of Rome even when they were displaced in Avignon because Rome still existed.  So does Constantinople.  

If your entire argument is based on the fact that one city has had its name changed (as it seems to me), it's a pretty lame argument.
Logged

Apolytikion, Tone 1, by Antonis

An eloquent crafter of divine posts
And an inheritor of the line of the Baptist
A righteous son of India
And a new apostle to the internet
O Holy Mor Ephrem,
Intercede for us, that our forum may be saved.


"Mor is a jerk." - kelly
romanbyzantium
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 479


OC.net


« Reply #29 on: May 06, 2004, 07:53:26 PM »

But, RB, the point is that the city hasn't ceased to exist.  True, it has a different name in common parlance (although, as I believe was noted earlier in this thread, some/many/most Orthodox don't seem to have accepted the legitimacy of the name change beyond mere convention), but it is the same place.  If "Jane Doe", upon marriage, becomes "Jane Smith", she doesn't cease to exist; she merely has a different surname that addresses a different condition (married vs. single).  You do not have a problem with the Bishops of Rome being called Bishops of Rome even when they were displaced in Avignon because Rome still existed.  So does Constantinople.  

If your entire argument is based on the fact that one city has had its name changed (as it seems to me), it's a pretty lame argument.  

Not only has the city changed in name but in everything.  culture, religion and national origin. it is not only a name change as you say. if it far more than that.

should I refer to new york as new amsterdam? and say that it is really a dutch city and not an american english one.

« Last Edit: May 06, 2004, 07:57:32 PM by romanbyzantium » Logged
arimethea
Getting too old for this
Section Moderator
Archon
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Holy Catholic and Apostolic Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Patriarchate of Antioch
Posts: 2,968


Does anyone really care what you think?


« Reply #30 on: May 06, 2004, 07:56:47 PM »

I know many people who call Isreal Palistine and refuse to call that country anything other then Palistine or Occupied Palistine. The Turks had no desire to change the name of Constantinople, it is only through their misunderstanding and lack of understanding of the greek languague that they called it es ton poll. And to your logic Antioch is now called Antaky in turkish so therefore Antioch does not exist with your criteria but the RC church still has a  "Patriarch" of Antioch in the region. And the pope still refers to the Orthodox bishop in Instanbul as the Patriarch of Constantinople, so if you are a good Roman Catholic who follows the popes example you should therefor also refer to him as the Patriarch of Constantinople.
Logged

Joseph
Mor Ephrem
"Mor is right, you are wrong."
Section Moderator
Hoplitarches
*****
Online Online

Posts: 17,410


The Pope Emeritus reading OCNet


WWW
« Reply #31 on: May 06, 2004, 07:57:04 PM »

Quote
Not only has the city changed in name but in everything.  culture, religion and national origin. it is not only a name change as you say. if it far more than that.

But no one names a town with an eye toward circumscribing culture, religion, and national origin.  They just name a town.
« Last Edit: May 06, 2004, 07:58:23 PM by Mor Ephrem » Logged

Apolytikion, Tone 1, by Antonis

An eloquent crafter of divine posts
And an inheritor of the line of the Baptist
A righteous son of India
And a new apostle to the internet
O Holy Mor Ephrem,
Intercede for us, that our forum may be saved.


"Mor is a jerk." - kelly
romanbyzantium
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 479


OC.net


« Reply #32 on: May 06, 2004, 08:02:21 PM »

I know many people who call Isreal Palistine and refuse to call that country anything other then Palistine or Occupied Palistine. The Turks had no desire to change the name of Constantinople, it is only through their misunderstanding and lack of understanding of the greek languague that they called it es ton poll. And to your logic Antioch is now called Antaky in turkish so therefore Antioch does not exist with your criteria but the RC church still has a  "Patriarch" of Antioch in the region. And the pope still refers to the Orthodox bishop in Instanbul as the Patriarch of Constantinople, so if you are a good Roman Catholic who follows the popes example you should therefor also refer to him as the Patriarch of Constantinople.

sure cause they are in denial of the obvious.

It does not matter if there was a misunderstanding. the turks conquered the city and turned it into a muslim city. they changed its culture and religion for ever.

Just the way granada was a muslim city and much of southern spain but now it is a christian stroghold. muslim granada has nothing in common with christian granada. two very different places in two different time in history.
Logged
romanbyzantium
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 479


OC.net


« Reply #33 on: May 06, 2004, 08:04:38 PM »

But no one names a town with an eye toward circumscribing culture, religion, and national origin.  They just name a town.  

of course they do. that is what conquerors do. that is the beginning of it all until nothing is left of the old.
Logged
Mor Ephrem
"Mor is right, you are wrong."
Section Moderator
Hoplitarches
*****
Online Online

Posts: 17,410


The Pope Emeritus reading OCNet


WWW
« Reply #34 on: May 06, 2004, 08:16:17 PM »

I don't know how to answer that, so I won't.  I will instead ask a question.  Why does it matter to you if the Orthodox world, Roman Catholics, etc. refer to the Ecumenical Patriarch(ate) as the Patriarch(ate) of Constantinople?
Logged

Apolytikion, Tone 1, by Antonis

An eloquent crafter of divine posts
And an inheritor of the line of the Baptist
A righteous son of India
And a new apostle to the internet
O Holy Mor Ephrem,
Intercede for us, that our forum may be saved.


"Mor is a jerk." - kelly
romanbyzantium
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 479


OC.net


« Reply #35 on: May 06, 2004, 08:22:45 PM »

I don't know how to answer that, so I won't.  I will instead ask a question.  Why does it matter to you if the Orthodox world, Roman Catholics, etc. refer to the Ecumenical Patriarch(ate) as the Patriarch(ate) of Constantinople?

It doesn't matter to me. I just asked because it sounds funny referring to a place that no longer exists as if it still does.  If the pope and the orthodox world like to reminisce about those things, I am no one to argue with them.

Logged
Mor Ephrem
"Mor is right, you are wrong."
Section Moderator
Hoplitarches
*****
Online Online

Posts: 17,410


The Pope Emeritus reading OCNet


WWW
« Reply #36 on: May 06, 2004, 08:35:52 PM »

I would like to hear your take on how the culture and religion of the city of Rome today is the same as the culture and religion of the city of Rome when Saint Linus was Pope.
Logged

Apolytikion, Tone 1, by Antonis

An eloquent crafter of divine posts
And an inheritor of the line of the Baptist
A righteous son of India
And a new apostle to the internet
O Holy Mor Ephrem,
Intercede for us, that our forum may be saved.


"Mor is a jerk." - kelly
romanbyzantium
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 479


OC.net


« Reply #37 on: May 06, 2004, 08:45:14 PM »

I would like to hear your take on how the culture and religion of the city of Rome today is the same as the culture and religion of the city of Rome when Saint Linus was Pope.  

The difference is that rome was never taken over by muslim culture and religion and became a beacon of that civilization.

Rome had a christian population and in due time became  dominant culturally and politically. the reverse happened in constantinople. The conqueror change the name of the city and proceeded with its plan until they got to istanbul, wholly muslim in all matters.

Just the same way like New Amsterdam became New York. Dutch ways gave way for english ways.

Logged
Mor Ephrem
"Mor is right, you are wrong."
Section Moderator
Hoplitarches
*****
Online Online

Posts: 17,410


The Pope Emeritus reading OCNet


WWW
« Reply #38 on: May 06, 2004, 08:53:38 PM »

The difference is that rome was never taken over by muslim culture and religion and became a beacon of that civilization.

At first, your point was that the culture and religion of the city changed, and so it's no longer the same place it once was.  Well, the present culture of old Rome is very different from what it was in the early days of the Church, and the present religion (Roman Catholicism) is in many ways very different from what it used to be (Orthodoxy).  But now are you making an exception...Islam makes all the difference?  Change is change, RB.  

For your argument's sake, I hope Rome doesn't get taken over by Muslim culture and religion...the way things are going, you never know.  Tongue
Logged

Apolytikion, Tone 1, by Antonis

An eloquent crafter of divine posts
And an inheritor of the line of the Baptist
A righteous son of India
And a new apostle to the internet
O Holy Mor Ephrem,
Intercede for us, that our forum may be saved.


"Mor is a jerk." - kelly
romanbyzantium
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 479


OC.net


« Reply #39 on: May 06, 2004, 09:04:14 PM »

At first, your point was that the culture and religion of the city changed, and so it's no longer the same place it once was.  Well, the present culture of old Rome is very different from what it was in the early days of the Church, and the present religion (Roman Catholicism) is in many ways very different from what it used to be (Orthodoxy).  But now are you making an exception...Islam makes all the difference?  Change is change, RB.  

For your argument's sake, I hope Rome doesn't get taken over by Muslim culture and religion...the way things are going, you never know.  Tongue

First, orthodoxy was never the religion of Rome. orthodoxy was/is the religion of the east NOT the west.

I am not making no exception whatsoever. one city remained christian while the other became a muslim stronghold.

As for your last comment... I highly doubt it. europeans are very concience of what/whom they are.
Logged
Mor Ephrem
"Mor is right, you are wrong."
Section Moderator
Hoplitarches
*****
Online Online

Posts: 17,410


The Pope Emeritus reading OCNet


WWW
« Reply #40 on: May 06, 2004, 09:25:30 PM »

First, orthodoxy was never the religion of Rome. orthodoxy was/is the religion of the east NOT the west.

If, by Orthodoxy, you are thinking of "Byzantine rite", then maybe.  But Orthodoxy is more than a rite.  

Quote
I am not making no exception whatsoever. one city remained christian while the other became a muslim stronghold.

Or, perhaps, one city succumbed faster than the other, which is degenerating from its Orthodox roots to "cultural Christianity", secularism, Islam, or any combination thereof?  

Quote
As for your last comment... I highly doubt it. europeans are very concience of what/whom they are.

But that's what everyone says.
Logged

Apolytikion, Tone 1, by Antonis

An eloquent crafter of divine posts
And an inheritor of the line of the Baptist
A righteous son of India
And a new apostle to the internet
O Holy Mor Ephrem,
Intercede for us, that our forum may be saved.


"Mor is a jerk." - kelly
Orthodoc
Supporter & Defender Of Orthodoxy
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 2,526

Those who ignore history tend to repeat it.


« Reply #41 on: May 06, 2004, 10:35:51 PM »

[First, orthodoxy was never the religion of Rome. orthodoxy was/is the religion of the east NOT the west. ]

That's true only if you base Orthodoxy completely on Ritual.  Which seems to be what all those Catholics in communion with Rome seem to do.  Especially those within the Unia who seem to use it as an excuse to make the false claim that they are 'Orthodox In Communion With Rome'

Orthodox Catholicity in reality, is based on a faith that is expressed in the unchanging  doctrines and dogma it believes and professes.  It has neither added to those doctrines (as Rome),  subtracted from those doctrines as Protestants, or changed those doctrines as both the RCC & Protestant churches have done.  Everything it still believes is that which was believed and formulated when the church was still basically one and  united.  It alone comes closest to St Vincents definition of what the Catholic Church is -


 "Hold fast that faith which has been believed everywhere, always, and by all."

So, yes at one time Rome was  Orthodox in its faith.  

Orthodoc




« Last Edit: May 06, 2004, 10:38:43 PM by Orthodoc » Logged

Oh Lord, Save thy people and bless thine inheritance.
Grant victory to the Orthodox Christians over their adversaries.
And by virtue of thy Cross preserve thy habitation.
Anastasios
Webdespota
Administrator
Merarches
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Old Calendarist
Posts: 10,460


Metropolitan Chrysostomos of Florina

anastasios0513
WWW
« Reply #42 on: May 06, 2004, 11:44:10 PM »

RB--

When did Constantinople cease being Roman?  331?  518?  1054?  1204?  1247? 1453?

Are the Romanians Romans?

anastasios
Logged

Please Buy My Book!

Past posts reflect stages of my life before my baptism may not be accurate expositions of Orthodox teaching. Also, I served as an Orthodox priest from 2008-2013, before resigning.
romanbyzantium
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 479


OC.net


« Reply #43 on: May 06, 2004, 11:52:48 PM »

[First, orthodoxy was never the religion of Rome. orthodoxy was/is the religion of the east NOT the west. ]

That's true only if you base Orthodoxy completely on Ritual.  Which seems to be what all those Catholics in communion with Rome seem to do.  Especially those within the Unia who seem to use it as an excuse to make the false claim that they are 'Orthodox In Communion With Rome'

Orthodox Catholicity in reality, is based on a faith that is expressed in the unchanging  doctrines and dogma it believes and professes.  It has neither added to those doctrines (as Rome),  subtracted from those doctrines as Protestants, or changed those doctrines as both the RCC & Protestant churches have done.  Everything it still believes is that which was believed and formulated when the church was still basically one and  united.  It alone comes closest to St Vincents definition of what the Catholic Church is -


 "Hold fast that faith which has been believed everywhere, always, and by all."

So, yes at one time Rome was  Orthodox in its faith.  

Orthodoc


yes orthodoc, you keep believeing that.  

then please explain why is it that you believe things that was not believed by the 2nd century christians.
Logged
romanbyzantium
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 479


OC.net


« Reply #44 on: May 07, 2004, 12:05:44 AM »

RB--

When did Constantinople cease being Roman?  331?  518?  1054?  1204?  1247? 1453?

Are the Romanians Romans?

anastasios

That is not issue at all.

the romanians do share in the roman legacy as a conquered people that were romanized.
« Last Edit: May 07, 2004, 12:17:54 AM by romanbyzantium » Logged
Tags: Roman 
Pages: 1 2 3 4 »  All   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.18 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.127 seconds with 73 queries.