Author Topic: Who was the main Religious leader in the time of the New Roman Empire(Byzantine)  (Read 719 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline alexandros-_

  • Practicing Orthodox
  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 11
Hello, first off i am new to this forum and would like to introduce myself, i am a 15 year old Greek Orthodox Christian from California.  :)
 

  I asked myself these 2 questions a few days ago after talking to a Catholic online about the subject: I was just wondering who was the Leader of the Pre-Denominational Christian Church during Saint Constantine's days as emperor, Was it The Patriarch in the east, or the Pope (in the west)?  And why was Apostle Peter called the first pope of Rome by Catholics?)

I also just want to confirm if the excommunication of Patriarch Michael I Cerularius by  Cardinal Humbert was illegitimate or not and if the excommunication of Cardinal Humbert in return by Patriarch Cerularius was legitimate.

God Bless you and thank you! no unfriendly arguments please!
« Last Edit: March 13, 2013, 09:07:36 PM by alexandros-_ »
God bless his people! Amen.

Offline LBK

  • No Reporting Allowed
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 12,247
  • Holy Father Patrick, pray for us!
  • Faith: Orthodox
Well, for one thing, Apostle Peter was martyred in the first century AD, Emperor Constantine the Great ruled in the early fourth century.  ;)
No longer posting here. Anyone is welcome to email me at the address in my profile.

Offline alexandros-_

  • Practicing Orthodox
  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 11
Well, for one thing, Apostle Peter was martyred in the first century AD, Emperor Constantine the Great ruled in the early fourth century.  ;)
thank you for pointing that out, edited!
God bless his people! Amen.

Offline Carl Kraeff (Second Chance)

  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 7,299
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Diocese of the South (OCA)
First, welcome to the forum! I recommend that you first read "The Orthodox Church" by Metropolitan Kallistos (Ware). To answer your questions in a very simplistic way:

a. St Peter was not the first bishop of Rome. The Roman Catholic Church calls him that because of a singular interpretation of Matthew 16:18: "And I also say to you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build My church, and the gates of Hades shall not prevail against it." in conjunction with the doctrine of Apostolic Succession, Rome interprets this to mean that the entire Church, everywhere, is subject to the Bishop of Rome, who is the only legitimate successor to St Peter, the first Bishop of Rome.  This is a heresy from the Orthodox perspective.

b. However, from the earliest of times Rome was very respected amongst the ancient Patriarchates. First, because Rome was the first capital of the Roman Empire and second, because she was known as a being steadfastly orthodox. Rome was indeed the First among Equals and had a primacy of honor. That did not mean that her jurisdiction and formal power extended beyond the areas assigned to her. This situation was indeed the case during Saint Constantine's reign.
« Last Edit: March 13, 2013, 09:49:40 PM by Carl Kraeff (Second Chance) »

Offline ialmisry

  • There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
  • Hypatos
  • *****************
  • Posts: 38,479
Hello, first off i am new to this forum and would like to introduce myself, i am a 15 year old Greek Orthodox Christian from California.  :)
 

  I asked myself these 2 questions a few days ago after talking to a Catholic online about the subject: I was just wondering who was the Leader of the Pre-Denominational Christian Church during Saint Constantine's days as emperor, Was it The Patriarch in the east, or the Pope (in the west)?  And why was Apostle Peter called the first pope of Rome by Catholics?)
Pope was originally the title of the Patriarch of Alexandria (and it still is) like Pope St. Athanasius, the greatest single Christian leader in the history of the "New Roman Empire."

Rome didn't arrogate the title to itself until beginning in the seventh century.  Calling St. Peter one is anachronistic, besides heretical if taken in the Vatican I Pastor Aesternus sense.  They call him pope in hope of making it so.  It doesn't.

At times New Rome was more in leadership, sometimes Old Rome was. Sometimes Alexandria was.

During St. Constantine's reign, there was no Patriarch at New Rome, and it seems that Met. Hosius of Corbova and Eusebius of Caesarea gave more leadership than Abp. St. Sylvester of Rome.

I also just want to confirm if the excommunication of Patriarch Michael I Cerularius by  Cardinal Humbert was illegitimate or not
not.
and if the excommunication of Cardinal Humbert in return by Patriarch Cerularius was legitimate.
definitely.
God Bless you and thank you! no unfriendly arguments please!
I make no promises.
Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth

Offline alexandros-_

  • Practicing Orthodox
  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 11
First, welcome to the forum! I recommend that you first read "The Orthodox Church" by Metropolitan Kallistos (Ware). To answer your questions in a very simplistic way:

a. St Peter was not the first bishop of Rome. The Roman Catholic Church calls him that because of a singular interpretation of Matthew 16:18: "And I also say to you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build My church, and the gates of Hades shall not prevail against it." in conjunction with the doctrine of Apostolic Succession, Rome interprets this to mean that the entire Church, everywhere, is subject to the Bishop of Rome, who is the only legitimate successor to St Peter, the first Bishop of Rome.  This is a heresy from the Orthodox perspective.

b. However, from the earliest of times Rome was very respected amongst the ancient Patriarchates. First, because Rome was the first capital of the Roman Empire and second, because she was known as a being steadfastly orthodox. Rome was indeed the First among Equals and had a primacy of honor. That did not mean that her jurisdiction and formal power extended beyond the areas assigned to her. This situation was indeed the case during Saint Constantine's reign.


Hello, first off i am new to this forum and would like to introduce myself, i am a 15 year old Greek Orthodox Christian from California.  :)
 

  I asked myself these 2 questions a few days ago after talking to a Catholic online about the subject: I was just wondering who was the Leader of the Pre-Denominational Christian Church during Saint Constantine's days as emperor, Was it The Patriarch in the east, or the Pope (in the west)?  And why was Apostle Peter called the first pope of Rome by Catholics?)
Pope was originally the title of the Patriarch of Alexandria (and it still is) like Pope St. Athanasius, the greatest single Christian leader in the history of the "New Roman Empire."

Rome didn't arrogate the title to itself until beginning in the seventh century.  Calling St. Peter one is anachronistic, besides heretical if taken in the Vatican I Pastor Aesternus sense.  They call him pope in hope of making it so.  It doesn't.

At times New Rome was more in leadership, sometimes Old Rome was. Sometimes Alexandria was.

During St. Constantine's reign, there was no Patriarch at New Rome, and it seems that Met. Hosius of Corbova and Eusebius of Caesarea gave more leadership than Abp. St. Sylvester of Rome.

I also just want to confirm if the excommunication of Patriarch Michael I Cerularius by  Cardinal Humbert was illegitimate or not
not.
and if the excommunication of Cardinal Humbert in return by Patriarch Cerularius was legitimate.
definitely.
God Bless you and thank you! no unfriendly arguments please!
I make no promises.

thanks for the answers, i assumed that from the brief teachings my priest gave me, i just wanted to be sure so thanks! I've heard about St. Athanasius. And, I didn't know he was the first to called pope before the Catholics adopted it, that is very interesting, and also, i take it in the predenominational New Rome all patriarchs were the spiritual fathers/leaders of their areas of the empire and were basically equal. Is this true or was there indeed a ecumenical patriarch who lead over all? 
God bless his people! Amen.

Offline jmbejdl

  • Count-Palatine James the Spurious of Giggleswick on the Naze
  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,480
  • Great Martyr St. John the New of Suceava
First, welcome to the forum! I recommend that you first read "The Orthodox Church" by Metropolitan Kallistos (Ware). To answer your questions in a very simplistic way:

a. St Peter was not the first bishop of Rome. The Roman Catholic Church calls him that because of a singular interpretation of Matthew 16:18: "And I also say to you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build My church, and the gates of Hades shall not prevail against it." in conjunction with the doctrine of Apostolic Succession, Rome interprets this to mean that the entire Church, everywhere, is subject to the Bishop of Rome, who is the only legitimate successor to St Peter, the first Bishop of Rome.  This is a heresy from the Orthodox perspective.

b. However, from the earliest of times Rome was very respected amongst the ancient Patriarchates. First, because Rome was the first capital of the Roman Empire and second, because she was known as a being steadfastly orthodox. Rome was indeed the First among Equals and had a primacy of honor. That did not mean that her jurisdiction and formal power extended beyond the areas assigned to her. This situation was indeed the case during Saint Constantine's reign.


Hello, first off i am new to this forum and would like to introduce myself, i am a 15 year old Greek Orthodox Christian from California.  :)
 

  I asked myself these 2 questions a few days ago after talking to a Catholic online about the subject: I was just wondering who was the Leader of the Pre-Denominational Christian Church during Saint Constantine's days as emperor, Was it The Patriarch in the east, or the Pope (in the west)?  And why was Apostle Peter called the first pope of Rome by Catholics?)
Pope was originally the title of the Patriarch of Alexandria (and it still is) like Pope St. Athanasius, the greatest single Christian leader in the history of the "New Roman Empire."

Rome didn't arrogate the title to itself until beginning in the seventh century.  Calling St. Peter one is anachronistic, besides heretical if taken in the Vatican I Pastor Aesternus sense.  They call him pope in hope of making it so.  It doesn't.

At times New Rome was more in leadership, sometimes Old Rome was. Sometimes Alexandria was.

During St. Constantine's reign, there was no Patriarch at New Rome, and it seems that Met. Hosius of Corbova and Eusebius of Caesarea gave more leadership than Abp. St. Sylvester of Rome.

I also just want to confirm if the excommunication of Patriarch Michael I Cerularius by  Cardinal Humbert was illegitimate or not
not.
and if the excommunication of Cardinal Humbert in return by Patriarch Cerularius was legitimate.
definitely.
God Bless you and thank you! no unfriendly arguments please!
I make no promises.

thanks for the answers, i assumed that from the brief teachings my priest gave me, i just wanted to be sure so thanks! I've heard about St. Athanasius. And, I didn't know he was the first to called pope before the Catholics adopted it, that is very interesting, and also, i take it in the predenominational New Rome all patriarchs were the spiritual fathers/leaders of their areas of the empire and were basically equal. Is this true or was there indeed a ecumenical patriarch who lead over all? 

The Pope of Rome had a primacy of honour then just as the Patriarch of Constantinople has now. There never was and still is not a patriarch who leads over all. If you think that that is what the Ecumenical Patriarch does now then you are mistaken. The EP has no authority whatsoever over, for instance, our Patriarch Daniel.

James
We owe greater gratitude to those who humble us, wrong us, and douse us with venom, than to those who nurse us with honour and sweet words, or feed us with tasty food and confections, for bile is the best medicine for our soul. - Elder Paisios of Mount Athos

Offline ialmisry

  • There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
  • Hypatos
  • *****************
  • Posts: 38,479
First, welcome to the forum! I recommend that you first read "The Orthodox Church" by Metropolitan Kallistos (Ware). To answer your questions in a very simplistic way:

a. St Peter was not the first bishop of Rome. The Roman Catholic Church calls him that because of a singular interpretation of Matthew 16:18: "And I also say to you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build My church, and the gates of Hades shall not prevail against it." in conjunction with the doctrine of Apostolic Succession, Rome interprets this to mean that the entire Church, everywhere, is subject to the Bishop of Rome, who is the only legitimate successor to St Peter, the first Bishop of Rome.  This is a heresy from the Orthodox perspective.

b. However, from the earliest of times Rome was very respected amongst the ancient Patriarchates. First, because Rome was the first capital of the Roman Empire and second, because she was known as a being steadfastly orthodox. Rome was indeed the First among Equals and had a primacy of honor. That did not mean that her jurisdiction and formal power extended beyond the areas assigned to her. This situation was indeed the case during Saint Constantine's reign.


Hello, first off i am new to this forum and would like to introduce myself, i am a 15 year old Greek Orthodox Christian from California.  :)
 

  I asked myself these 2 questions a few days ago after talking to a Catholic online about the subject: I was just wondering who was the Leader of the Pre-Denominational Christian Church during Saint Constantine's days as emperor, Was it The Patriarch in the east, or the Pope (in the west)?  And why was Apostle Peter called the first pope of Rome by Catholics?)
Pope was originally the title of the Patriarch of Alexandria (and it still is) like Pope St. Athanasius, the greatest single Christian leader in the history of the "New Roman Empire."

Rome didn't arrogate the title to itself until beginning in the seventh century.  Calling St. Peter one is anachronistic, besides heretical if taken in the Vatican I Pastor Aesternus sense.  They call him pope in hope of making it so.  It doesn't.

At times New Rome was more in leadership, sometimes Old Rome was. Sometimes Alexandria was.

During St. Constantine's reign, there was no Patriarch at New Rome, and it seems that Met. Hosius of Corbova and Eusebius of Caesarea gave more leadership than Abp. St. Sylvester of Rome.

I also just want to confirm if the excommunication of Patriarch Michael I Cerularius by  Cardinal Humbert was illegitimate or not
not.
and if the excommunication of Cardinal Humbert in return by Patriarch Cerularius was legitimate.
definitely.
God Bless you and thank you! no unfriendly arguments please!
I make no promises.

thanks for the answers, i assumed that from the brief teachings my priest gave me, i just wanted to be sure so thanks! I've heard about St. Athanasius. And, I didn't know he was the first to called pope before the Catholics adopted it, that is very interesting, and also, i take it in the predenominational New Rome all patriarchs were the spiritual fathers/leaders of their areas of the empire and were basically equal. Is this true or was there indeed a ecumenical patriarch who lead over all? 
He wasn't the first pope: that was at least a century before, with Pope Heracles. His successor, Pope Dionysios, writing to Rome around 250 mentions
Quote
τοῦτον ἐγὼ τὸν κανόνα καὶ τὸν τύπον παρὰ τοῦ μακαρίου πάπα ἡμῶν Ἡρακλᾶ παρέλαβον.
I received this rule and ordinance from our blessed pope, Heraclas.

I just mentioned Pope St. Athanasius because he is well known, and looms so large, from his days till now.

The EP didn't get that title until EP St. John the Faster at the end of the sixth century (and the Archbishop of Rome protested it, saying "no bishop is universal").  "Ecumenical" meant "Imperial": the Emperor's barber, for instance, was the "Ecumenical Barber."  He had the position because of his proximity to power (all 7 Ecumenical Councils were held in his patriarchy).
Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth

Offline alexandros-_

  • Practicing Orthodox
  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 11
First, welcome to the forum! I recommend that you first read "The Orthodox Church" by Metropolitan Kallistos (Ware). To answer your questions in a very simplistic way:

a. St Peter was not the first bishop of Rome. The Roman Catholic Church calls him that because of a singular interpretation of Matthew 16:18: "And I also say to you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build My church, and the gates of Hades shall not prevail against it." in conjunction with the doctrine of Apostolic Succession, Rome interprets this to mean that the entire Church, everywhere, is subject to the Bishop of Rome, who is the only legitimate successor to St Peter, the first Bishop of Rome.  This is a heresy from the Orthodox perspective.

b. However, from the earliest of times Rome was very respected amongst the ancient Patriarchates. First, because Rome was the first capital of the Roman Empire and second, because she was known as a being steadfastly orthodox. Rome was indeed the First among Equals and had a primacy of honor. That did not mean that her jurisdiction and formal power extended beyond the areas assigned to her. This situation was indeed the case during Saint Constantine's reign.


Hello, first off i am new to this forum and would like to introduce myself, i am a 15 year old Greek Orthodox Christian from California.  :)
 

  I asked myself these 2 questions a few days ago after talking to a Catholic online about the subject: I was just wondering who was the Leader of the Pre-Denominational Christian Church during Saint Constantine's days as emperor, Was it The Patriarch in the east, or the Pope (in the west)?  And why was Apostle Peter called the first pope of Rome by Catholics?)
Pope was originally the title of the Patriarch of Alexandria (and it still is) like Pope St. Athanasius, the greatest single Christian leader in the history of the "New Roman Empire."

Rome didn't arrogate the title to itself until beginning in the seventh century.  Calling St. Peter one is anachronistic, besides heretical if taken in the Vatican I Pastor Aesternus sense.  They call him pope in hope of making it so.  It doesn't.

At times New Rome was more in leadership, sometimes Old Rome was. Sometimes Alexandria was.

During St. Constantine's reign, there was no Patriarch at New Rome, and it seems that Met. Hosius of Corbova and Eusebius of Caesarea gave more leadership than Abp. St. Sylvester of Rome.

I also just want to confirm if the excommunication of Patriarch Michael I Cerularius by  Cardinal Humbert was illegitimate or not
not.
and if the excommunication of Cardinal Humbert in return by Patriarch Cerularius was legitimate.
definitely.
God Bless you and thank you! no unfriendly arguments please!
I make no promises.

thanks for the answers, i assumed that from the brief teachings my priest gave me, i just wanted to be sure so thanks! I've heard about St. Athanasius. And, I didn't know he was the first to called pope before the Catholics adopted it, that is very interesting, and also, i take it in the predenominational New Rome all patriarchs were the spiritual fathers/leaders of their areas of the empire and were basically equal. Is this true or was there indeed a ecumenical patriarch who lead over all? 

The Pope of Rome had a primacy of honour then just as the Patriarch of Constantinople has now. There never was and still is not a patriarch who leads over all. If you think that that is what the Ecumenical Patriarch does now then you are mistaken. The EP has no authority whatsoever over, for instance, our Patriarch Daniel.

James
yes, but he is the spiritual leader not political, at least thats how i see it
God bless his people! Amen.

Offline LBK

  • No Reporting Allowed
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 12,247
  • Holy Father Patrick, pray for us!
  • Faith: Orthodox
yes, but he is the spiritual leader not political, at least thats how i see it

Every Orthodox bishop has equal authority. No single bishop is supreme over all. Christ called twelve apostles, not just one, and gave them all the same authority to preach, teach, baptize, etc.
« Last Edit: March 14, 2013, 10:51:59 PM by LBK »
No longer posting here. Anyone is welcome to email me at the address in my profile.

Offline Kra-nion

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 16
#..............before the Huns......Karpater vojvoda of the ruska krajina dominion krajczar krajnik...( the bloodline Mr. imp. & holy royal ).... it has to do with Golgotha & the holy apos. kingdom & his majesties royal guard ruteni.no mans land.the old country.Transylvania.the family of Trajan. .act.10;1,24..1mac.chap.8......& the shepherds(in scripture)...................what does his title mean?simp.transl., 'head father -  camp commander - of the -roman - borderline (scenery) - dominion - boarder czar - boarder conqueror'..[apparently it has to do with boarderlines on maps] ...................you  can check out apos. kingdom's ;... ...coat of arms....timeline of flags...................[ bloodline, not elected ]...don't get mixed up,it's easy to........Trajan's familys is large and represented on his coinage... so you can find info in all these cultures.... **********...........   people spell different in antiquity  like  vojvoda -woiwoda .........that word also has a meaning  of being ' with Water '............interesting; the romans that executed Christ....crown him krajnik...enthroned him krajczar...honoured him as the Karpater of the ruska krajina dom. ...  And!,.... .when they saw his bloodline,....+it was vojvoda+....phil.4;22...(his house)....matt.27;54...(family wittiness)...

Offline JamesR

  • Virginal Chicano Blood
  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 6,384
  • St. Augustine of Hippo pray for me!
  • Faith: Misotheistic Eastern Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church *of* America
I also just want to confirm if the excommunication of Patriarch Michael I Cerularius by  Cardinal Humbert was illegitimate or not and if the excommunication of Cardinal Humbert in return by Patriarch Cerularius was legitimate.

The bull of excommunication against Michael Cerularius was illegitimate because the Pope of Rome was dead at the time Cardinal Humberto delivered it.
...Or it's just possible he's a mouthy young man on an internet forum.
In the infinite wisdom of God, James can be all three.