The patriarch in Rome was the first among equals because it was the patriarchate founded by St. Peter. In order of importance it was Rome, Constantinople, Alexandria and Antioch as relative equals, and then Jerusalem was given an honorary seat.
- 2
- 1
-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
The patriarch in Rome was the first among equals because it was the patriarchate founded by St. Peter. In order of importance it was Rome, Constantinople, Alexandria and Antioch as relative equals, and then Jerusalem was given an honorary seat.
That's the way rome tells the story but not how it's been noted down in the orthodox and coptic writers. No one except rome gave st peter such an elevated position, peter got an elevated position becuase he founded the patriarchate of rome not rome because of st peter.
- 2
- 1
Pretty sure it was a certain figure important to the church that said to Peter "You are the rock upon which I shall build my church."
The Orthodox church only argued that being "first among peers" did not grant the Patriarch of Rome suzerainty over the other patriarchs.
- 3
Really did he now? Did you hear him say it? No wait you read it in a book, written by priests in the very churches who benefitted from him saying those words. You can't prove that said person ever lived even less that he said any of the things he suposedly said. And the bible is no more source than the communist manifesto. In fact it's more of a source the cumminist manifesto for all that it's interpretation of history is removed from reality at least it doesn't have people walking on water.
- 9
The point being; in Church tradition, Peter was special. The appointed head of the church by Jesus Christ. Quit trying to distract from the fact that you have your early church politics completely backward.
- 4
In catholic tradition peter was special. because he helped them justify being special. truth be told you may be right the councils of calcedon and nikea may have ratified this claim but honestly that just means some old men sat down and decided that certain religious truth benefitted them and gave them power. I'm sorry but the opinion of the people who came up with the concept of heresy I can do without.
And I still want to see a source that the partiarch of rome held an elevated position accoriding to anyone but catholics. Do we have any orthodox people or even better copts here who could shine some light on this? I just find it ver convenient that catholic is the majoriy of christendom today and it just happens that when we look at the way they tell the story they were the original unaltered kind and all others have just gone astray... I'm sorry but that reeks of the winner writing history.
Last edited:
- 7
Considering the Bible was compiled hundreds of years before the schism happened both East and West accepted what it said. Which goes against your idea that the Catholic Church is alone is considering the importance of Peter.
Considering it was an Orthodox man who had told me that the Patriarch of Rome was the First among Peers BEFORE he split off I think that's enough evidence to suggest that's true.
- 4
I am still struggling to find you point. You are arguing over the title a character has in a mod which is appearently derived from catholic sources as to what they called the bishop of rome themselves. As with as many titles as possible in the game, the name represents what that person, people of the same culture or the same religious branch call it. The game does not strive to name everything according to the ultimate objective truth, which would be ridiculous and break any immersion.
Stop blowing posts of people up to make it seem they did something incredibly offensive
Stop blowing posts of people up to make it seem they did something incredibly offensive
- 1
And the bible says the same thing in the ortodox and catholic churches? Despite beign written in diffrent languages (the orthodox bible is in greek as i recall)? Also such thing at which verses you place emphaisise on matters as do which of the books you deem important, for an example in the west the gospel of John is usually overlooked despite being the only one written by one of the apostles, and it clearly states that John was the aposstle whom jesus loved above all, so I guess Peter wasn't the most important.
I made a joke about the title and a song actually. As for early church policy does it really matter it's like people arguing over how to interpret sillmarillion (on a note I ridicule organised religion, formalised religious doctrine, and religious texts, not religion itself). You're the ones takign it seriously I view it all as a big reeking pile of propaganda by pretty much everyone who ever had a say in defining these things. But when 4 and 1 part ways then it's the 1 that leaves, so at the end of the day, be he supreme or not, the pope still threw a hissyfit and said "Screw you guys I'm going to found my own religion where I am the only one who matters".
The pope ragequitted united christendom. Thus the ridicolous claim of catholicism to be the original christendom is null and void, the original christendom probably faded into obscurity while they were hiding from the romans, and whatever remained was obliterated by the implementation of religious doctorine by the councils.
Last edited:
- 3
It says the same thing in both Orthodox and Catholic Bibles. As I said before, the Bible was compiled before the split. And no, John is not the only book to have been written by an Apostle: Matthew was written by the Apostle Matthew, and Peter had written a couple epistles towards the end of the New Testament.
The split between East and West was not as simple as the Pope just "Ragequitting" as the West had already developed plenty of differences to the Eastern Church which caused more friction between them. It wasn't just about Papal Supremacy.
- 4
I don't know about you but this is the first ever time I have seen Bavaria ruling all of the Karling empire.
Also, Bulgaria formed Pannonia. And on the top you see a portion of the huge empire of Sigurd Ring. In the few years he'll control all of Denmark, all of Finland a big part of Norway. And it would be kept intact by Ragnar, who (for the first time in a month) turned out to be actually powerful and great in stats. Charlie and his bro both died in 771, so this is the only surviving son of Karloman ruling here.
From the same game 60 years later:
There are two 'Danmarks' now. And what's more, they are completely separate and exist at the same time.
Karling empire is dead. The cruel Bavarian couldn't keep his empire intact and it exploded into eye-burning bordergore within moments of his death. Frisia is formed and ruled by 'De Chartres' dynasty. A French line of the same dynasty rules West Francia. Bavaria has reverted to same dynasty that ruled it before Karling invasion. The Karling dynasty is reduced to a minor duchy by an old duke with hardly any heirs, and no claims on any kingdom at all.
Ragnar's giant empire broke up into shambles right after his death. His sons lost even more lands later on to the Suomi. The new power was the super duchy of Nidaros in Norway...before it too broke up. Saxony is actually run by by some Pommeranian warlord and not real Saxons.
Another fact - Byzantium is ruled by a Alan empress whose heir is from the ruling Lombard dynasty. Some Isaurian prince made a host and tried to take over it but failed miserably. ERE is about to break up imminently. And Abbasid blob which usually breaks up by this time, is super stable and is expanding crazy into India and Central Asia, after having conquered all of Middle East to the last county...except Zunbils who somehow survived right and are now 'peacefully' surrounded by them from all sides.
Aaaand the game ended. I wish I could've taken more screenshots but sadly this game crashed and I didn't save.
Last edited:
I don't know about you but this is the first ever time I have seen Bavaria ruling all of the Karling empire.
Also, Bulgaria formed Pannonia. And on the top you see a portion of the huge empire of Sigurd Ring. In the few years he'll control all of Denmark, all of Finland a big part of Norway. And it would be kept intact by Ragnar, who (for the first time in a month) turned out to be actually powerful and great in stats. Charlie and his bro both died in 771, so this is the only surviving son of Karloman ruling here.
There are two 'Danmarks' now. And what's more, they are completely separate and exist at the same time.
Karling empire is dead. The Bavarian king couldn't keep his realm intact and it exploded into eye-burning bordergore within moments of his death. Frisia is formed and ruled by 'De Chartres' dynasty. A French line of the same dynasty rules West Francia. Bavaria has reverted to same dynasty that ruled it before Karling invasion. The Karling dynasty is reduced to a minor duchy by an old duke with hardly any heirs, and no claims on any kingdom at all.
Ragnar's giant empire broke up into shambles right after his death. His sons lost even more lands later on to the Suomi. The new power was the super duchy of Nidaros in Norway...before it too broke up.
Another fact - Byzantium is ruled by a Alan empress whose heir is from the ruling Lombard dynasty. Some Isaurian prince made a host and tried to take over it but failed miserably. ERE is about to break up imminently. And Abbasid blob which usually breaks up by this time, is super stable and is expanding crazy into India and Central Asia, after having conquered all of Middle East to the last county...except Zunbils who somehow survived right and are now 'peacefully' surrounded by them from all sides.
I wish I could've taken more screenshots but sadly this game crashed and I didn't save.
Please tell me that the Bavaria was German, and that Frisia is Dutch/Frisian.
Bavaria was Frankish. And Frisia was Dutch/Frisian for a while before turning into French and then Occitain.
Goddammit I hate the Franks...They get everywhere in the CM startBavaria was Frankish. And Frisia was Dutch/Frisian for a while before turning into French and then Occitain.
Goddammit I hate the Franks...They get everywhere in the CM start
You should be thankful they are not all Karlings. In every single game, regardless of whether their empire survives or not, Karlings spread like plague and entire western and northern Europe is usually run by this one damn dynasty.
- 1
- 1
.png){kind=avatar}
You should be thankful they are not all Karlings. In every single game, regardless of whether their empire survives or not, Karlings spread like plague and entire western and northern Europe is usually run by this one damn dynasty.
In my current game, I had Karloman (Charlemagne's bro) killed after he inherited everything and made all available Kingdom titles instead of pushing for an Empire. The shattering left the Karlings with only Middle Francia and Saxony. Now at the turn of the millennium, they only hold Middle Francia and are close to losing it.
I'll have to post that game soon, it has some neat things in it.
Last edited:
On the topic of the Karlings, why does everyone hate them so much? Yes early start they tend to make a muck of things. However if you play with one all the way through and are able to export the late game to EU4 the Karolingian ideas are amazing, second only to Rome's ideas.
- 2
Try fighting one and watch as all of them band together against them, Plus their dynastic prestige makes them irresistible to female rulers, meaning more Karlings on foreign thrones
- 2
Actually I think the Karling ideas are vastly superior to the Roman ones. The Roman ideas are pretty mediocre.
- 2
- 2