In a message dated 99-10-15 07:35:33 EDT, you write:
<< 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.
>>
I was responding more to the chronological order of foundation. Also, while
the above is the correct order of precedence or seating order, the churches
of Antioch and Alexandria probably looked down upon both Old and New Rome in
regards to theological or intellectual worth. All of the christological
debates were between the various eastern prelates with those two sees taking
the lead positions; the bishop of Constantinople acted as host (emperor as
chairman) and the bishop of Rome sending an envoy to accept or veto any or
all decisions. Occasionally the Roman pontiff got "invited" to
Constantinople to be brow beaten into agreement, but generally they stayed
aloof of the proceedings.
mark
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|