> -----Original Message-----
> From: [log in to unmask]
> [mailto:[log in to unmask]]On Behalf Of Bill East
> Sent: Friday, October 15, 1999 7:47 AM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: 39 Articles
>
>
>
> Still, its role in most church matters was secondary. The
> > most
> > senior patriarchy is Jerusalem. Antioch comes in second, Alexandria
> > third
> > and Rome fourth.
> >
> >
> Constantinople was reckoned second after Rome. The Third canon of the
> first council of Constantinople (381) reads, "The Bishop of
> Constantinople shall have the prerogative of honour after the Bishop of
> Rome; because Constantinople is New Rome." Thus it was intruded into
> second place, before Antioch and Alexandria. Jerusalem was never a
> serious runner. It was accorded respect because of its being the site
> of Christ's crucifixion and resurrection, but was never on a par with
> the other patriarchates in terms of actually doing anything.
>
What originally defined a patriarchal see was apostolic foundation, the only
exception being Constantinople. Hence, Rome's objection. I must demur on the
case of Jerusalem; geo-political factors did her in. See Acts for examples
of the power and prestige of the see of Jerusalem. The see of Limoges
attempted to claim patriarchal status in the 11th century on the basis of
the (fraudulently established) apostolicity of Saint Martial. Such a claim,
if recognized, would have given Limoges independent, autonomous (i.e.
autocephalous) status save for the authority of a general council. There
were a series of articles by Fransen (?) some 20+ years ago in ZRG Kan. abt.
on patriarchal sees.
Mike
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|