This was a result of the primacy of his see, Constantinople. He enjoyed this honorary status (and the rights, duties, and obligations that come from it) because of the idea that Constantinople was the "Second Rome." It was not the result of any dogmatic reason, like the Pope's primacy, but instead based upon necessity and the antiquity/honor of the Patriarchate of Constantinople.
Anyway, there has been some recent turmoil within the Orthodox Church, as the Patriarch of Moscow and All-Russia has been making moves that seem like an attempt to make Moscow the "Third Rome." In other words, the Patriarch of Moscow wants to become the primus inter pares and assume the Patriarch of Moscow's role and title. I won't get into a large discussion of the history, pros, or cons of this, but...
One reason that has often been cited for not moving the Ecumenical Patriarchate is that it would be a sign of "giving up" on Constantinople (Istanbul) and the surrounding area (Turkey). In essence, it would be like saying there's no hope for Christian conversion of Constantinople, so let's move it to a more "Orthodox" Patriarchate and See. However...
Turkey has been talking about converting Hagia Sophia into a fully active mosque for use as an active Islamic place of worship. Hagia Sophia was, in essence, the Patriarchal cathedral until the Muslim conquest of the area. From 1935, it has been a museum.
But if these talks turn out, and Hagia Sophia is converted into a mosque... is it time to "give up" on Constantinople and move the Ecumenical Patriarchate? Symbolically, this would be a blow to the Orthodox Church generally and the Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople particularly.
So, what do you think? It might be hard to comment on a matter not pertaining to your own Church, but I think you can/should still make your thoughts known!
No comments:
Post a Comment