Comments on: Constantinople denounces “Third Rome” theory

By: depeccatoradvitam

depeccatoradvitam — Thu, 10 Jul 2008 22:33:23 +0000

Russian Orthodoxy was formed as an Autocephalus head, not immediately, but after missions sent to the Kieven Hills over a thousand plus years after Christ. This led to Saint Cyril and Methodius who proffered the Cyrillic alphabet. Those missions were established by the Patriarch of the East, the Patriarch of Constantinople. Without Constantinople, they would not have been readning nor writing nor have knowledge of Christ. Without Constantinople, there would not have been the strong Czars which brought Russia to empire status. Without the empires, Russian Orthodoxy loses all claims to lands once owned by the Empire (ie: Estonia, even though Alexy II is from there). Besides, the Russian Empire was lost–first to Soviet Russia and then to freedom. Do they reclaim it? And yet, Russian Orthodoxy now claims new leadership by virtue of size and political clout (even in lands brutally Russified by Soviet displacement and forced emmigration policy–ie Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Ukraine, Belorussia, etc.). Do they remember that “the First shall be last and the last shall be first”? Maybe it was lost in transaltion, but it is not [sic] “The Fittest will be last and the last shall be fittest.” Remember, “the meek shall inherit the earth.”

Humility and unity are marks of following in Chirst’s footsteps. It seems that a little less Pharisaic chest beating and a little more submission would be in order.

By: Christianus

Christianus — Fri, 15 Feb 2008 16:27:13 +0000

I believe that it is mistaken to justify the attempts of the moskovites to appear themselves as the sole and true successors of Constatinople.
As it is correctly stated the apostolic see of Constatinople was elevated to its high rank by being the new roman capital founded by the roman emperors themselves.
The only five sees that can claim apostolicity are Rome (st peter and st paul), Constatinople (St Andrew), Alexandria (st Mark) Antioch (st peter and st paul) and Jerusalem (st James).
Moscow received christianity a thousands years after the coming of Christ.
They didn t ever be present to not even a sole ecumenical council, so for me their claims are absurd.
Simple as that.

By: jpto

jpto — Thu, 10 Jan 2008 03:43:57 +0000

PresterJosh: The problem with that theory is that New Rome was given its political status by a ruling Roman emperor. This idea of a 3rd Rome is Russian mythology. Had Konstantinos Palaiologos moved to Moscow in 1453, perhaps there would be something to the argument. But he didn’t.

It’s really disturbing that the Russian church is being so aggressive against Constantinople. The church is supposed to follow tradition and seek Christ, not alter tradition in the name of political power. Moscow should be spending all this energy it has to protect the Constantinople Patriarchate from the continuous assaults of modern Turkey, rather than look for ways to help bring the Patriarchate down. What kind of example is it setting?

By: PresterJosh

PresterJosh — Mon, 04 Jun 2007 20:45:07 +0000

Perhaps I am completely wrong, but this seems to be a rather natural consequence of the idea that Rome could be replaced by New Rome (Constantinople). If authority can shift from First Rome to Second Rome, why not Third Rome or Fourth Rome?

It may take a long time for these issues to play out, because the rise and decline of empires often does take a long time, but it wouldn’t surprise me to see a claimant to Fourth Rome in the distant future if the Catholic-Orthodox Schism isn’t healed before then (though I devoutly hope it will be).