I guess I should have gone through all my mail before firing off a
question on the Patriarch of Constantinople. My concerns, as so
often, have already been perfectly answered. Thank you, Bill and
Mark.
Jim Bugslag
> Date: Fri, 15 Oct 1999 00:51:34 EDT
> Subject: Re: 39 Articles
> From: [log in to unmask]
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Reply-to: [log in to unmask]
> In a message dated 99-10-14 18:58:11 EDT, you write:
>
> << f you look back as far as 330 when Constatinople was the heart of the
> Orthodox Christianity, then we know that the Patriach of Constantinople was
> the most senior of the four Eastern Patriachs, the others being Jerusalem,
> Antioch and Alexandria. >>
>
>
> Not quite. The bishop of Constantinople was the last of the ancient
> ecclesiastics to be recognized as a patriarch, and that was not until the end
> of the 4th cent. (if memory serves) and even then it was contested by Rome.
> The only reason it was propsed or accepted as such was because it was the
> home church of the emperor and subsequently hosted any number of ecumenical
> councils. Still, its role in most church matters was secondary. The most
> senior patriarchy is Jerusalem. Antioch comes in second, Alexandria third
> and Rome fourth.
>
> BTW, its Theotokos, not Theokotos
>
> mark
>
>
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|