/christian/ - Christian Discussion and Fellowship

The Apostles Peter and Paul were martyred at Rome and commissioned successors there. Constantinople's only claim to apostolic succession is that Saint Andrew visited there. But that doesn't distinguish Constantinople from any of the other cities that were visited by the apostles.

Constantinople had no significance for the first 300 years of the Church. Meanwhile the Bishop of Rome was settling church-wide disputes from the 1st Century.

Constantinople's only claim to importance is that the Roman Emperor chose it as the new imperial capital in 4th Century. The Byzantines even stated this expressly as their justification for trying to elevate Constantinople to a patriarchate in the 2nd and 4th ecumenical councils.

Rome correctly rebutted every first millennium heresy. Constantinople fell for almost every first millennium heresy and had to be brought back each time by Rome.

The first millennium Church universally acknowledged Rome as the head of all churches.

Constantinople accepted reunion with Rome at the Council of Lyon in 1274 and at the Council of Florence in 1439. After Constantinople was conquered by the Ottomans, the Ottoman Sultan chose the patriarch of Constantinople, and chose the most anti-Catholic patriarch he could find.

Constantinople falsely divides God into "essence" and "energies", which is a denial of divine simplicity.

The Filioque is the historic teaching of the eastern Church Fathers.

The current "autocephalous" structure of the Eastern Orthodox is a modern innovation forced upon Constantinople by rebellious Eastern European countries in the 19th Century. Going back to the year 381, Constantinople had asserted itself as the head of the eastern churches (based on a claim to the military and political authority of the Byzantine Empire).

The Eastern Orthodox is only one of many schismatic sects that broke off from the Catholic Church in the east. There are also the Oriental Orthodox and the Church of the East.

Read "The Orthodox Eastern Church" by Father Adrian Fortescue.

Saint Jerome said it best:

>The Apostles Peter and Paul were martyred at Rome and commissioned successors there. Constantinople's only claim to apostolic succession is that Saint Andrew visited there. But that doesn't distinguish Constantinople from any of the other cities that were visited by the apostles.

Your point? how does this now make the Bishop of Rome tve Universal Bishop who everyone needs to submit to for salvation?

>Constantinople had no significance for the first 300 years of the Church. Meanwhile the Bishop of Rome was settling church-wide disputes from the 1st Century.

So?The patriarch of Constantinople isn`t our pope?

>Constantinople's only claim to importance is that the Roman Emperor chose it as the new imperial capital in 4th Century. The Byzantines even stated this expressly as their justification for trying to elevate Constantinople to a patriarchate in the 2nd and 4th ecumenical councils.

see above

Rome correctly rebutted every first millennium heresy. Constantinople fell for almost every first millennium heresy and had to be brought back each time by Rome.

so? why does this mean they can never fall into heresy?

The first millennium Church universally acknowledged Rome as the head of all churches.

Why don't you ask the vatican about that.

http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/chrstuni/ch_orthodox_docs/rc_pc_chrstuni_doc_20160921_sinodality-primacy_en.html

>Constantinople accepted reunion with Rome at the Council of Lyon in 1274 and at the Council of Florence in 1439. After Constantinople was conquered by the Ottomans, the Ottoman Sultan chose the patriarch of Constantinople, and chose the most anti-Catholic patriarch he could find.

Good God sent the turks to save us from the Catholics

>Constantinople falsely divides God into "essence" and "energies", which is a denial of divine simplicity.

I wasn't aware Aristotle was the bible?

>The Filioque is the historic teaching of the eastern Church Fathers.

proof?

>The current "autocephalous" structure of the Eastern Orthodox is a modern innovation forced upon Constantinople by rebellious Eastern European countries in the 19th Century. Going back to the year 381, Constantinople had asserted itself as the head of the eastern churches (based on a claim to the military and political authority of the Byzantine Empire).

who were the Churches established by the apostles? In the first century they clearly has local individual Churches.The technology wouldn't allow otherwise.

>The Eastern Orthodox is only one of many schismatic sects that broke off from the Catholic Church in the east. There are also the Oriental Orthodox and the Church of the East.

not an argument

>Read "The Orthodox Eastern Church" by Father Adrian Fortescue.

not an argument

The whole post is a horrific non argument filled with assumptions and logical falacies. It sounds like it was written by some 13 year old autistic tradcath.

>>664273

>>664278

>>664269

Most of those boil down to just an argument of popularity. What does it matter, whether Rome or Constantinople was more "significant" (whatever that might mean) for a period of time, this was never about "our bishop is cooler than yours" or the legitimacy of the Bishop of Rome. It is about his authority over other bishops. The post is completely missing the point.

The arguments are absolutely shitty clearly written by a LARPer, but this

>The current "autocephalous" structure of the Eastern Orthodox is a modern innovation forced upon Constantinople by rebellious Eastern European countries in the 19th Century.

is PURELY RETARDED, considering that church of my country is autocephalous SINCE THE V CENTURY!

>>664270

You cannot comment on reddit threads that are older than 6 months, and to be fair the thread there makes valid points. Simmer down, you seem stressed.

>>664277

based western rite poster

>>664269

All those arguments look like they've being made by a 15 year old