The Patriarch of Constantinople

I was reading the official web page of the Patriarch of Constantinople and I noticed something:His All Holiness, BARTHOLOMEW, Archbishop of Constantinople, New Rome and Ecumenical Patriarch is the 270th successor of the 2,000 year-old local Christian Church founded by St. Andrew.
If Im not mistaking St Andrew was the younger brother of St Peter. On those grounds I would expect the chair of Peter to hold primacy over the universal Church, not his younger brother. I think this is very significant in the overall outlook of the PoC claiming the authority it does and that the CC is the separated body.

Its also interesting to note that they keep the term “New Rome”

[quote=Catholic Dude]I was reading the official web page of the Patriarch of Constantinople and I noticed something:His All Holiness, BARTHOLOMEW, Archbishop of Constantinople, New Rome and Ecumenical Patriarch is the 270th successor of the 2,000 year-old local Christian Church founded by St. Andrew.
If Im not mistaking St Andrew was the younger brother of St Peter. On those grounds I would expect the chair of Peter to hold primacy over the universal Church, not his younger brother. I think this is very significant in the overall outlook of the PoC claiming the authority it does and that the CC is the separated body.

Its also interesting to note that they keep the term “New Rome”
[/quote]

Peace be with you!

It is also interesting how the Orthodox Church says that ALL Apostolic Sees are supposed to be equal, and yet the Patriarch of Constantinople is the ONLY one who uses the term “His **All **Holiness”. Even the Patriarch of the West, the pope, (who, historically, has been viewed by the East as a sort of “first among equals” and is still viewed as their brother Patriarch) is referred to as “His Holiness”. The Orthodox Church also says that the pope is not a universal bishop overseeing the whole Church, and yet the Patriarch of Constantinople is the ONLY one who calls himself the Universal Bishop (Ecumenical Patriarch). The pope doesn’t even use that title.

But it is true that he is the successor of that old church, and it is true that Constantinople is the “New Rome”, so I don’t really have much of a problem with that part.

In Christ,
Rand

I agree, I dont deny a valid succession, nor the term “New Rome”. The term is a historical term talking about Constantinople, what I was getting at was all through their page “old Rome” was never seen as holding real authority and it is nothing more than a group in schism. The truth is Rome was never eclipsed by anyone.

Wasn’t Andrew the older brother of Peter?

[quote=Atreyu]Wasn’t Andrew the older brother of Peter?
[/quote]

Im pretty sure Andrew was the younger brother.

I thought Andrew was older as well.

I believe St. Andrew was the younger. The Eastern Orthodox’s claim to his fame is that he was approached by the Lord BEFORE St. Peter.

Blessings,
Marduk

[quote=mardukm]I believe St. Andrew was the younger. The Eastern Orthodox’s claim to his fame is that he was approached by the Lord BEFORE St. Peter.

Blessings,
Marduk
[/quote]

Im interested in the Scripture support for this.

It seems to me St Peter is always mentioned first and singled out. Also I dont recall ever reading " Andrew, and Peter his brother", rather Im pretty sure it always says “Peter, and Andrew his brother”, which is very significant.

The account is in John 1: 35-42.

Marduk

What I find interesting is that even though Andrew was spoken to first, he’s named as “Simon Peter’s brother”. Not that I find it relevant to the Constantinople/Rome debate, just that it’s an interesting point in the focus of the Scriptures on Peter, regardless of any conclusions drawn from it.

Peace and God bless!

It’s a well-known fact that the claims of Constantinople’s bishops to be descended from Andrew is a myth of the middle ages having absolutely no grounding in history, or even the early tradition of the Church. It was made-up to bolster this See’s claims to primacy.

Dear Sacramentalist,

If it is a myth, it is a humble myth, for it recognizes that St. Peter is elder to St. Andrew. In fact, Constantinople has NEVER claimed to have precedence over Rome. Catholics must realize that in order to avoid unjust accusations against our Eastern Orthodox brethren. The Popes have rejected the canon from the Council of Constantinople (renewed at the Council of Chalcedon) that gave Constantinople its high status NOT because she sought to usurp the primacy of Rome, but because she sought to usurp the See of Alexandria’s place as second after Rome. The papal disapproval of the canon was no selfish act, but demonstrated the right and true role of the Bishop of Rome as the preeminent defender of the dignity of the Patriarchs and confirmer of Tradition.

Blessings,
Marduk

[quote=mardukm]Dear Sacramentalist,

If it is a myth, it is a humble myth, for it recognizes that St. Peter is elder to St. Andrew. In fact, Constantinople has NEVER claimed to have precedence over Rome. Catholics must realize that in order to avoid unjust accusations against our Eastern Orthodox brethren. The Popes have rejected the canon from the Council of Constantinople (renewed at the Council of Chalcedon) that gave Constantinople its high status NOT because she sought to usurp the primacy of Rome, but because she sought to usurp the See of Alexandria’s place as second after Rome. The papal disapproval of the canon was no selfish act, but demonstrated the right and true role of the Bishop of Rome as the preeminent defender of the dignity of the Patriarchs and confirmer of Tradition.

Blessings,
Marduk
[/quote]

Indeed, and that canon would still have put Constantinople second to Rome. Even today most Eastern Orthodox believe in the “primacy” of Rome, meaning it’s to be the most highly honored Patriarchate. They just differ over what that honor implies.

Peace and God bless!

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.