Is Moscow the Third Rome?

David Cabrera said:

If yes, how if Constantinople is still part of the Orthodox Church and there is no successor of the Roman/Byzantine Empire?

Click to expand...

No. There is no Roman Empire, Rome fell in 1453. We Orthodox are Roman in the sense that we have the Roman, Catholic faith. In that sense, Russia is Roman, as is Greece and Georgia and Bulgaria and Romania, etc. None are Rome.

I can't find it, but I remember reading a great bishop and one of the best living theologians today, a true champion of Orthodoxy, Metropolitan Hierotheos of Nafpaktos, saying that it is impossible for there to be a Third Rome, and that Constantinople was never called "Second Rome", but "New Rome".

If Russia were truly Third Rome, surely one of the Tsars would have called an Ecumenical Council (never happened, I'm sure no one would have recognised his authority to do so) and the Synod would have assigned Moscow as the first among equals, or at least second after Constantinople.

except, again, Patriarch Jeremias of Constantinople signed a charter when Moscow was granted autocephaly which calls Moscow Third Rome.

ArmyMatt said:

except, again, Patriarch Jeremias of Constantinople signed a charter when Moscow was granted autocephaly which calls Moscow Third Rome.

Click to expand...

Okay, but I don't think that actually makes it Third Rome.

Protomartyr Alban said:

Okay, but I don't think that actually makes it Third Rome.

Click to expand...

so what would make it Third Rome?

ArmyMatt said:

so what would make it Third Rome?

Click to expand...

Protomartyr Alban said:

If Russia were truly Third Rome, surely one of the Tsars would have called an Ecumenical Council (never happened, I'm sure no one would have recognised his authority to do so) and the Synod would have assigned Moscow as the first among equals, or at least second after Constantinople.

Click to expand...

why would that make it Third Rome?

ArmyMatt said:

why would that make it Third Rome?

Click to expand...

The Roman Emperor proclaimed Constantinople to be New Rome, and the Ecumenical Council responded accordingly. Neither ever happened with Moscow/Russia.

Protomartyr Alban said:

The Roman Emperor proclaimed Constantinople to be New Rome, and the Ecumenical Council responded accordingly. Neither ever happened with Moscow/Russia.

Click to expand...

why is that the necessary criteria?

Because that's literally the only reason Constantinople became New Rome, the Emperor made it so, and as a result the Church recognised it. What other criteria would there be that would make something like this legit? Empires may be heavily influenced by or even based on other empires, it doesn't mean it's the actual continuation. What makes Russia a Third Rome? Just because a bishop once said it when he granted them autocephaly, it doesn't mean it actually is, for the reasons stated.

Protomartyr Alban said:

Because that's literally the only reason Constantinople became New Rome, the Emperor made it so, and as a result the Church recognised it. What other criteria would there be that would make something like this legit? Empires may be heavily influenced by or even based on other empires, it doesn't mean it's the actual continuation. What makes Russia a Third Rome? Just because a bishop once said it when he granted them autocephaly, it doesn't mean it actually is, for the reasons stated.

Click to expand...

well, for one, Russia isn't Third Rome, Moscow is. for two, it's because Russia was an Orthodox Empire whose Tsars intermarried with the Byzantine Caesars. for three, it's in their recognized charter from Constantinople.

ArmyMatt said:

well, for one, Russia isn't Third Rome, Moscow is. for two, it's because Russia was an Orthodox Empire whose Tsars intermarried with the Byzantine Caesars. for three, it's in their recognized charter from Constantinople.

Click to expand...

There have been many Orthodox Empires and royals marry royals from all over. Is the charter you're referring to the autocephaly grant in which they were called Third Rome? Because none of these things, at least in my opinion and the opinion of many outside of Russia, make Moscow Third Rome. I don't consider this a hill I would die on though and I've said all I can on the issue, so I think I'll leave it there.
Thanks for the discussion.

Protomartyr Alban said:

There have been many Orthodox Empires and royals marry royals from all over. Is the charter you're referring to the autocephaly grant in which they were called Third Rome? Because none of these things, at least in my opinion and the opinion of many outside of Russia, make Moscow Third Rome. I don't consider this a hill I would die on though and I've said all I can on the issue, so I think I'll leave it there.
Thanks for the discussion.

Click to expand...

either the tomos itself or a charter given at the same time. either way, it is an official document signed by many non-Russian bishops which call Moscow Third Rome.

so the question, in my opinion, isn't whether Moscow is Third Rome but what does that mean?

ArmyMatt said:

well, for one, Russia isn't Third Rome, Moscow is. for two, it's because Russia was an Orthodox Empire whose Tsars intermarried with the Byzantine Caesars. for three, it's in their recognized charter from Constantinople.

Click to expand...

If the Ecumenical Patriarch has the power to call Moscow "the Third Rome", wouldn't he have to power to take that designation away?

tz620q said:

If the Ecumenical Patriarch has the power to call Moscow "the Third Rome", wouldn't he have to power to take that designation away?

Click to expand...

the EP wasn't the only bishop who signed the charter, so no.

Moscow is indeed Third Rome,, its basically etched in stone at this point. This is why the last royal family of Russia is known as the House of Romanov (of the Romans) His actual surname was Alexandrovich yet every history book on earth knows them as the Romanovs. Tsar means caesar so the Romanovs are literally referred to as the caesar of the Romans whether you like it or not.
From the earliest times from St. Hippolytus to Cyril of Jerusalem believed the Roman empire was the restraining force allowing the gospel to spread. Once the empire is taken out so is any restraining force against satan. Currently there is no restraining force hence 2 world wars and the onset of secular humanism (the post Christian world)

buzuxi02 said:

Moscow is indeed Third Rome,, its basically etched in stone at this point. This is why the last royal family of Russia is known as the House of Romanov (of the Romans) His actual surname was Alexandrovich yet every history book on earth knows them as the Romanovs. Tsar means caesar so the Romanovs are literally referred to as the caesar of the Romans whether you like it or not.
From the earliest times from St. Hippolytus to Cyril of Jerusalem believed the Roman empire was the restraining force allowing the gospel to spread. Once the empire is taken out so is any restraining force against satan. Currently there is no restraining force hence 2 world wars and the onset of secular humanism (the post Christian world)

Click to expand...

Strictly speaking, the Romanov surname came from Nikita Romanovitch, who was regent for Ivan the Terrible's son. This was actually just his patronymic, as his father was named Roman Yurievich. His son became the Patriach Filaret and his grandson the first Romanov Tsar, Michael.
The usage of thinking of Muscovy as the Third Rome was already established by then though, which is why Romanov was so apt as a dynastic name, but the origin is not associated with the 'Third Rome' idea, though the first name Roman itself is ultimately derived from the Roman Empire.

Regardless, the direct male line Romanovs went extinct and the throne went to a son of a daughter of Peter the Great, who became Peter III. This makes their technical surname Holstein-Gottorp which they further hyphenated with Romanov, and renders the whole final Russian Royal house a cadet house of Oldenburg. I think you are confusing Nicholas II's patronymic of Alexandrovitch, with a surname. It's a different thing entirely.