top of page

The Evolution of the Titular Head of Orthodoxy.

under construction.......

One of the things that refutes the Catholic religion and Orthodox ay the same time, is the issue of the concept of the Titular Head of the Orthodox Church versus The Pope as Head of the Church (both heresies as Jesus is the only Head of the Church). The Schism of 1054 was in reality about the interpretation of Matthew 16 that "On this rock I will build my church" referred to Peter (Bishop of Rome). In reality in Greek it says "You are a stone, and on this Rock" (himself, Jesus, the subject of the declaration "You are the Christ!") "I will build my church.

However neither the Orthodox or Catholics want to emphasize the split in their unity was based on this, as it just brings people back to the reality Jesus is the Head of the Church. The result of these situation of claims and counterclaims over the Head of the Church is two absurd lists of names, one for the Pope and one for the Titular Head of Orthodoxy, both supposedly going back to the disciples.

The Orthodox know nothing of history. It is FAKE history they know. Take "the first two bishops of Antioch". Clearly both examples of FORGED history. They simply took two names out the bible (Onesimus and Stachys), and pretended they were two Orthodox style bishops, with entirely ZERO evidence they were. Why? Because they do not even know if these two men WERE the two characters from the new testament, they just THINK they MIGHT be!!! Thus they have nearly NO INFORMATION about their lives. Then they say "Their beliefs were our beliefs!" what utter BUNK!!!

From the beginning I want to make it plain that the whole idea of the Titular Head of Orthodoxy we see today is utterly false because:


1) Jesus said the church began in Jerusalem, in the very scripture were he establishes his "gospel by which we are saved" by grace through Faith alone (Luke 24:44-48), as in verse 47 he states "repentance for the forgiveness of sins will be preached in his name to all nations, beginning at Jerusalem." 

2) There never was a Pope type figure, saying there was is the pinnacle example of the Nicolaitan heresy (Matt 23:8).

3) Even if there was such a symbolic top man figure, it is yet another total heresy to say who this person was depended on the decision of the mass murderer, and fake Christian, Constantine the Great to create a "new Rome" in the city of Byzantium, later changed to the name Constantinople. And why would such a symbolic top man figure be in Rome before Byzantium, when the church began in Jerusalem?

4) The jurisdiction of power the "See of Constantinople" had at the beginning was small, and grew bigger and bigger and bigger over time, so its concept is further proven to be evolutionary, not some facet reflecting something going on in the early church. 

The Pope type figure of Eastern Orthodoxy is the Bishop over the "See" of the cluster of provinces vaguely grouped together under the name of Constantinople.


The first Titular Head of the Christian Faith they say was in the See of Rome, as the bishop of the See of Constantinople only became the "New Titular Head" of the Faith by a slow process over time,  after the mass murderer Constantine the Great moved the capital of his Roman Empire to what was later called Constantinople by calling the city of Byzantium "New Rome" (Nova Roma). Indeed Constantine himself took the name "First Among Equals" for himself also.  

Prior to the moving of the imperial capital, the bishop of Byzantium had been under the authority of the metropolitan of Heraclea, but beginning in the 4th century, he grew to become independent in his own right and even to exercise authority throughout what is now GreeceAsia MinorPontus, and Thrace. With the development of the hierarchical structure of the Church, the bishop of Constantinople came to be styled as exarch (a position superior to metropolitan). Constantinople was recognized as the fourth patriarchate at the First Council of Constantinople in 381, after AntiochAlexandria, and Rome. The patriarch was usually appointed by Antioch.

Historically the first church established was that in Jerusalem. It makes no sense if you are going to imagine a "Titular Head" to say the first was in the Roman See. To me their logic is totally faulty. It was Jesus himself who said the church began at Jerusalem


The rise of the 5 Sees.

bottom of page