Some confusion you might be able to clear up for me :)

[stray bullet]

"Let there be only four patriarchs in the whole world as there are four writers of the Gospel, and four rivers, etc. And let there be a prince and chief over them, the lord of the see of the Divine Peter at Rome, according as the Apostles commanded. And after him the lord of the great Alexandria, which is the see of Mark. And the third is the lord of Ephesus, which is the see of John the Divine who speaks divine things. And the fourth and last is my lord of Antioch, which is another see of Peter..." - from Canon XXXIX of the Council of Nicea

Can someone explain the relationship between Ephesus and Constantinople? Wasn't Constantinople founded by Andrew?
Did Ephesus fall and Constantinope take its place? Why did Alexandria fall to third place and Constantinople get second?

I've been trying to get a clear picture of eastern See history and wanted you guys' views.
Thanks :)

[Maximus]

"Let there be only four patriarchs in the whole world as there are four writers of the Gospel, and four rivers, etc. And let there be a prince and chief over them, the lord of the see of the Divine Peter at Rome, according as the Apostles commanded. And after him the lord of the great Alexandria, which is the see of Mark. And the third is the lord of Ephesus, which is the see of John the Divine who speaks divine things. And the fourth and last is my lord of Antioch, which is another see of Peter..." - from Canon XXXIX of the Council of Nicea

Can someone explain the relationship between Ephesus and Constantinople? Wasn't Constantinople founded by Andrew?
Did Ephesus fall and Constantinope take its place? Why did Alexandria fall to third place and Constantinople get second?

I've been trying to get a clear picture of eastern See history and wanted you guys' views.
Thanks :)

Part of your confusion arises from the fact that there are only twenty genuine canons of the Holy Council of Nicea.

Canon XXXIX (39) is one of the doubtful or spurious canons, of much later origin.

If you want a Catholic source to support my assertion, check out this article (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11044a.htm) from The Catholic Encyclopedia.

I don't believe there ever was a patriarch in Ephesus.

[stray bullet]

Part of your confusion arises from the fact that there are only twenty genuine canons of the Holy Council of Nicea.

Canon XXXIX (39) is one of the doubtful or spurious canons, of much later origin.

If you want a Catholic source to support my assertion, check out this article (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11044a.htm) from The Catholic Encyclopedia.

I don't believe there ever was a patriarch in Ephesus.

So you conclude there is something seriously wrong with this bit of text and Jerusalem-Antioch-Alexandrian-Constantinope-Rome were always it as far as Apostolic Sees?

[Maximus]

So you conclude there is something seriously wrong with this bit of text and Jerusalem-Antioch-Alexandrian-Constantinope-Rome were always it as far as Apostolic Sees?

Yes, that's it.

Nothing I have ever read has ever even hinted that Ephesus was a patriarchal see, including the transcripts of the other ecumenical councils.

If it had been, one would think the Council of Ephesus (431) would have had as president the patriarch of that city, yet St. Cyril of Alexandria presided over that council.

As I understand it, no serious scholar accepts any canon beyond #20 as authentically Nicene. None of the churches that accept the authority of the Council of Nicea accept more than twenty canons, as well (I believe).

[OrthoCanuck]

What about Constantinople? It became a Patriarchate after Niceae because it was founded in 330 AD, so it wasn't founded by an Apostle. But which Apostle does it consider its founder?

Peace.

[Maximus]

What about Constantinople? It became a Patriarchate after Niceae because it was founded in 330 AD, so it wasn't founded by an Apostle. But which Apostle does it consider its founder?

Peace.

The church at Byzantium (the name of Constantinople before Constantine built it up into the second Rome) was founded by St. Andrew. It was originally not a patriarchal see but was elevated to that rank because of its status as the capitol of the Eastern Roman Empire.

In the early Church there were no patriarchs. That rank was created by the administrative necessities of the Church as it grew rapidly in numbers and as Christianity became the religion of the Roman Empire.

According to St. Jerome (Letter to Evangelus), in the early Church bishop and presbyter were two words for the same office, and each church had a council of presbyters. The office of bishop came to be what it is today when the presbyters decided to elevate one of their number to executive rank in order to settle disputes. Later, these bishops came to have the rule over all of the churches of a city or a province, called a diocese, the word for a Roman political and administrative area.

[OrthoCanuck]

The church at Byzantium (the name of Constantinople before Constantine built it up into the second Rome) was founded by St. Andrew. It was originally not a patriarchal see but was elevated to that rank because of its status as the capitol of the Eastern Roman Empire.


Thanks for clearing that up.


Peace.

[stray bullet]

Yes, that's it.

Nothing I have ever read has ever even hinted that Ephesus was a patriarchal see, including the transcripts of the other ecumenical councils.

If it had been, one would think the Council of Ephesus (431) would have had as president the patriarch of that city, yet St. Cyril of Alexandria presided over that council.

As I understand it, no serious scholar accepts any canon beyond #20 as authentically Nicene. None of the churches that accept the authority of the Council of Nicea accept more than twenty canons, as well (I believe).

Be that as it may, why is it even said if it was totally made up? I'm basically trying to figure out where it came from.

[Maximus]

Be that as it may, why is it even said if it was totally made up? I'm basically trying to figure out where it came from.

My guess is that the author of that canon made a fairly glaring error, the kind of error that enables scholars to determine which canons are spurious and which are genuine.

I haven't read everything, but what I have read of Church history and the Fathers never ever mentions a patriarch of Ephesus.

[Matrona]

My guess is that the author of that canon made a fairly glaring error, the kind of error that enables scholars to determine which canons are spurious and which are genuine.

I don't think the title "patriarch" came into vogue until a generation or two after Nicea. There are 20 genuine canons of Nicea and 40-60 more that are later additions and aren't borne out by the historical sources. IOW, to put it bluntly, number 39 is no more an authentic canon than I am a raccoon.

It's been a little while since I researched this, but from what I remember, this one came from Maronite sources.

[Maximus]

I don't think the title "patriarch" came into vogue until a generation or two after Nicea. There are 20 genuine canons of Nicea and 40-60 more that are later additions and aren't borne out by the historical sources. IOW, to put it bluntly, number 39 is no more an authentic canon than I am a raccoon.

It's been a little while since I researched this, but from what I remember, this one came from Maronite sources.

I seem to remember that also, that most of the additional canons are written in Syriac, but my memory could be faulty on that.

If I recall correctly, a couple of years ago I created a thread on the extra canons attributed to Nicea.

They are interesting because of their assertions of papal primacy.

Of course, that mere fact makes them obviously spurious, because if papal primacy had been so clearly and definitively asserted that early on (325), there never would have been any disputes over it, or those disputes would most certainly have taken on a different character.

[Prawnik]

Even if Canon XXIX were genuine, the meaning of "lord and prince" isn't defined. To my feline mind, "infallible" or "infallible in matters of dogma" does not necessarily follow from "lord and prince". The term could even be read to mean "first among equals", although that might be a stretch.