Talk:Metrophanes of Byzantium

Saints Low‑importance

	Saints portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Saints, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Saints and other individuals commemorated in Christian liturgical calendars on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SaintsWikipedia:WikiProject SaintsTemplate:WikiProject SaintsSaints articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Biography

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles

Contradictions

Latest comment: 18 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

There are two references given in the text and the facts in this article mainly come from the American Orthodox Church [1] but the other reference [2] contradicts it. In this one Dometius is his grandfather rather than his father, the first patriarch was Nectarius in 381 AD and there is a bishop Rouphinos in between the reigns of Dometius and Probus.

I have just noticed that there are contradictions in the text too - was he made bishop in 306 or 316?

The birth date seems dodgy too - I suppose it's possible that a man could live to 117 but a birth date of 209AD means that he was 63 when his father (or grandfather!) became bishop, 94 when his brother (or father!) became bishop and 107 when he got the job himself (if you take the later date of 316). I guess the Byzantines weren't looking for young blood when they made their choices.

A quick search hasn't turned up any more solid references so can someone please settle what is fact and what is conjecture in this lot?

--Spondoolicks 11:54, 23 January 2006 (UTC)Reply

According to the Patriarchate of Constantinople [3], METROPHANES occupied the office 306-314. I would be more inclined to trust the source at Fordham than the OCA source for this reason.Dogface 21:30, 23 January 2006 (UTC)Reply

Okay the info from the OCA seems to mainly be rubbish so I've taken it out. Metrophanes was not proclaimed patriarch of Constantinople at the Council of Nicaea as he had already been succeeded by Alexander 11 years before both the council and Constantine's move to Byzantium. What we have left is that he was bishop 306-314 succeeded Probus and was succeded by Alexander. Not a lot really so I've added a stub tag.

Sheesh, are many of the saints articles like this? I came across the Saint Telemachus article the other day and that too was wrong in almost every detail. I think I may have to look at some more. --Spondoolicks 10:42, 24 January 2006 (UTC)Reply

Saints deemed "minor" by Roman Catholic and Anglican authorities are very often subject to horribly erroneous information in the West. The problem isn't even restricted to "minor" Saints, either. Consider how Saint Nicholas is portrayed in the West. Who remembers his spirited defense against Arianism? Dogface 12:54, 26 January 2006 (UTC)Reply

Add topic