OrthodoxChristianity.net
April 16, 2014, 08:55:12 PM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: The Rules page has been updated.  Please familiarize yourself with its contents!
 
   Home   Help Calendar Contact Treasury Tags CHAT Login Register  
Pages: 1 2 »  All   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Should the "Great and Holy Council" anthematize Vatican/restore Orth. Rome?  (Read 6055 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 35,604



« on: October 01, 2010, 09:51:24 AM »

As is well known, I'm not in favor, in present circumstances, of the convening of the "Great and Holy Council," which now, it is said, is being scheduled for two years hence. I'm also not in favor, seeing the nonsense that has being coming from it, of the Joint International Commission for Theological Dialogue Between the Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church, given the direction it has been taking.

One of the topics that the Great Council is supposed to take up is the order of the diptychs (which I am also not in favor of), usually interpreted as a contest between the Greek Church and the Russian Church.  But I got to thinking, that it doesn't have to be limited to that.

Why not do something useful, as opposed to divisive, and deal with any loose ends stemming from the fall of Orthodox Rome?

Not being a dogmatic issue, but rather canonical, a Pan-Orthodox council would competent to deal with it, and formally place Constantinople in First place in the diptychs.

Since another isssue the "Great Council" is supposed to deal with concerns the "Diaspora"-much of which, according to the Chambesy texts, includes what is/was the jurisdiction of Rome-the opportunity can be taken with setting that on a canonical basis. A local council has already done that nearly a century ago with North Africa, transferring it to Alexandria. 

Of course, because the Vatican DOES claim that its canonical position is a matter of dogma, it may become an Ecumenical Council if it picks up where Constantinople IV (879) and V left off, and condemn Ultramontanism.

(I have to admit, Mardukm gave me this idea with this:
Quote
The proscription contained in the Decree Ineffabilis Deus is not a proscription against denial of the IC. Rather, it is a proscription against obstinately opposing the teaching authority of the Church on the matter. So if you believe it is a theologoumenon (an acceptable teaching, though not a dogma), you would not be under the proscription of the Decree. The Decree on the IC accommodates the notion, “well I believe it, but I don’t believe it should be imposed on others,” for you would not be obstinately opposing the Church’s teaching. The Decree on the IC even accommodates the notion, “I’m not sure if it is true, I need to study it more and let the Holy Spirit guide me,” for you would not be obstinately opposing the Church’s teaching. The only thing that the Decree prohibits is the notion, “This is a heresy. There is absolutely no way it can be true.”

It is actually and only those who teach that it is a heresy who are imposing an absolute dogmatic imperative of belief on others and are guilty of separating the Church over the matter, not the Catholic Church. Lucky for all of us, no Orthodox Synod (Eastern or Oriental) has ever definitively defined the IC to be a heresy. So let’s go with the flow, and instead of prematurely accusing the Catholic Church of heresy on the matter, let’s study the matter in the hopes of achieving understanding. At the very least, as stated, if one can admit that it is a valid theologoumenon, then the dogma of the IC, according to the Decree, would pose no obstacle to unity.

Fair enough. But despite your own interpretations/apprehensions, the fact remains that the Catholic Church herself understands invincible ignorance to mitigate any proscription this dogma might have, even apart from the text of the dogma. That is something non-Catholics should consider in their assessment of the dogmatic character of the decrees.

In other words, many people probably feel condemned by the Decrees, but objectively, from the Catholic POV, they are not.

I wonder if they were Ukrainian. The Russian Orthodox Church in the Ukraine has traditionally had a strong Tradition of belief in the IC, until it was systematically forbidden from the turn of the 19th/20th century onwards.
http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=496818

But that is not exactly necessary: the Pan-Orthodox Synod of Jerusalem sufficed to condemn the errors of Protestantism.

Of course, the Council could also take the opportunity to elect an Orthodox hiearch and install him in Rome. Habemus Papam.  Such a move will, of course, be seen as provacative. The worth of it will have to be decided on the basis on how serious and to what extent the "Great Council" is in "desire for the swift healing of every canonical anomaly that has arisen from historical circumstances and pastoral requirements, such as in the so-called Orthodox Diaspora, with a view to overcoming every possible influence that is foreign to Orthodox ecclesiology." Maybe installing him in Ravenna or Milan may be less provacative. Or, better yet, the Patriarchate of the West be broken up, and the hierarch being primate of Italy and Malta. I can see, if the Vatican caves to the UOCC and formally recognizes the title appropriated for its primate-"Primate of Kiev-Halych and All Rus'-that Russia might be less concerned about being provacative.

P.S. I put this in "Faith Issues" and not "Orthodox-Catholic Discussion" (where, though, I understand it may end up), because at the Great Council, only the Orthodox will be participating. We do not need Rome to hold such a Council, and as long as he does not confess the Orthodox Faith, the supreme pontiff of the Vatican will not have a seat.  Hence, it is a Faith issue of the Orthodox. The followers of the Vatican, of course, and in particular given the continued exsitence of Joint International Commission for Theological Dialogue Between the Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church, can comment as they please.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
Michał Kalina
Stratopedarches
**************
Offline Offline

Posts: 21,465


WWW
« Reply #1 on: October 01, 2010, 09:59:57 AM »

Rome has their own Bishops of Constantinople, Alexandria (multiple), Antioch (multiple) and Jerusalem (multiple) so why not?
Logged

Byzantinism
no longer posting here
Carl Kraeff (Second Chance)
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 6,169



« Reply #2 on: October 01, 2010, 10:34:24 AM »

You trying to put some sunlight on the charade?
Logged

Michal: "SC, love you in this thread."
stashko
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: ИСТОЧНИ ПРАВОСЛАВНИ СРБИН
Jurisdiction: Non Ecumenist Free Serbian Orthodox Church
Posts: 4,998


Wonderworking Sitka Icon


« Reply #3 on: October 01, 2010, 10:48:52 AM »

i say yes ,condemn Vatican Rome as the Heretics they are , and set up our own Holy Orthodox Patriarchate of rome .....Many Catholic are also feed up with rome as it is ....... Grin
« Last Edit: October 01, 2010, 10:49:43 AM by stashko » Logged

ГОСПОДЕ ГОСПОДЕ ,ПОГЛЕДАЈ СА НЕБА ,ДОЂИ И ПОСЕТИ ТВОЈ ВИНОГРАД ТВОЈА ДЕСНИЦА ПОСАДИЛА АМИН АМИН.
Michał Kalina
Stratopedarches
**************
Offline Offline

Posts: 21,465


WWW
« Reply #4 on: October 01, 2010, 11:01:12 AM »

You trying to put some sunlight on the charade?

My bad, there is no Catholic Bishop of Constantinople (there are a few Bishops of Istanbul) but one Catholic (Melchite) Bishop (more precisely - Patriarch) of Alexandria, Antioch and Jerusalem is Gregory III Laham, another one Bishop-Patriarch of Alexandria (Coptic) is Antonios Naguib, another two Bishops-Patriarchs of Antioch (Maronite and Syrian) are respectively Nasrallah Peter Sfeir and Ignace Joseph III Younan, another one Patriarch of Jerusalem (Latin) is Fouad Twal, another one Bishop of Jerusalem is Gregory Peter Melki (Syrian). There are also Armenian Bishops of Alexandria and Jerusalem.

To summarise there are (at least - I might have not found all of them) 4 Catholic Bishops of Alexandria, 3 Catholic Bishops of Antioch and 4 Catholic Bishops of Jerusalem.
« Last Edit: October 01, 2010, 11:02:00 AM by Michał Kalina » Logged

Byzantinism
no longer posting here
jah777
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Posts: 1,603


« Reply #5 on: October 01, 2010, 11:17:46 AM »

To be very honest, I sincerely believe that the best thing a Pan-Orthodox Council can do for the Church, aside from putting an end to the jurisdictional overlap in the “diaspora,” is to confirm the MP’s position on prayer with non-Orthodox, affirm and restate the decisions from the Jerusalem Council regarding Protestantism, and reaffirm the Pan-Orthodox Councils from the 16th century on Roman Catholicism and the New Calendar innovation, returning all churches to the Julian Calendar which the majority of the Church follows anyway.  Then, as a consequence of these decisions, establish a bishop in Rome as the Orthodox Patriarch/Pope.  Very clear declarations need to be made on ecumenism, what it is, and what both is and is not acceptable in inter-confessional meetings.  The manner in which converts are to be received, the relationship between Confession and Communion, the matter of shortening services, etc. should also be discussed – not for the sake of uniformity but at least for Pan-Orthodox consensus.  Finally, a response to those who have gone into schism over Communism, the New Calendar, Ecumenism, etc., a thorough examination of the issues, a decision, and a clear message to those who have gone into schism.  At least this would all be a good starting point.  

Impossible?  With God, nothing is impossible.  
« Last Edit: October 01, 2010, 11:19:12 AM by jah777 » Logged
Fr. George
formerly "Cleveland"
Administrator
Stratopedarches
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox (Catholic) Christian
Jurisdiction: GOA - Metropolis of Pittsburgh
Posts: 19,841


May the Lord bless you and keep you always!


« Reply #6 on: October 01, 2010, 11:18:58 AM »

Isa, I do have to say, even though we've disagreed numerous times on issues mentioned in the OP, I find the premise and direction of your post to be truly fascinating, and certainly worthy of further discussion - not only here, but on a level "closer to the action."  Great points, great ideas!
Logged

"The man who doesn't read good books has no advantage over the one who can't read them." Mark Twain
---------------------
Ordained on 17 & 18-Oct 2009. Please forgive me if earlier posts are poorly worded or incorrect in any way.
88Devin12
Moderated
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 4,841



« Reply #7 on: October 01, 2010, 11:19:26 AM »

Maybe not anathematize, you cannot anathematize someone who is outside of the Church... (what would be the point other than to slap them in the face?)

I think setting up a Bishop in Rome would be a good idea. Maybe encourage a Western Rite as well. That Bishop (maybe becoming a Patriarch out of honor for Rome?) would be someone who could dialogue with the Roman Catholics, but would be there to help guide the Orthodox faithful, and would be there to help guide them back to Orthodoxy.

Even if the Roman Catholic Church continues it's spiral downwards, maybe an Orthodox Bishop/Patriarch in Rome could help be a light amist the darkness.
Logged
Fabio Leite
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 2,496



WWW
« Reply #8 on: October 01, 2010, 11:25:58 AM »

(1)I think it would be a good idea. If West Europe is to be canonically organized, it will need a Bishop of Rome. Not only that, but in the middle to long term, one has to think of the reorganization of the Western Patriarchate. The Vatican had one thousand years to repent.

(2)Also, I would like to see the recognition of the 8th and 9th imperial councils, and, if the Holy Spirit is allowed to act, of all the Pan-Orthodox councils that have happened in the last five centuries.

(3)I would like to see dialogue being guided to be joint-work with other Christian confessions for morality, ethics, Godly inspired human rights, for life, and against secularism, militant atheism and pro-death ideologies. At the same time immediately cease and desist all talks about "union" that do not put it as repentance and conversion.

(4)Lastly, I would like to see a commitment to mission in Latin America, having in view the American experience to avoid the problems that eventually rose there and incorporate the many good lessons of bringing the Church to the new continent.

As a transversal subject, in view of itens (1) and (4), the jurisdictions of the Orthodox Church would have to create committees to analyze and study these 1000 years of Western history to identify the *many* positive points it has brought to us, much like the Fathers did with Greek paganism. The West created the greatest material prosperity humanity has ever known, has produced philosophy, art, men and women of great character, and managed to creat systems of government that provide men with liberty from Ceasar's oppression, a first in human history too. Western civilization has show inventivity and a capacity of reinvent itself that no other has ever shown and these things have to be *incorporated* and *improved*.
Logged

Many Energies, Three Persons, Two Natures, One God.
Schultz
Christian. Guitarist. Zymurgist. Librarian.
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 6,410


Scion of the McKeesport Becks.


WWW
« Reply #9 on: October 01, 2010, 11:27:21 AM »

Maybe the Orthodox can install a Bishop of Avignon   laugh
Logged

"Hearing a nun's confession is like being stoned to death with popcorn." --Abp. Fulton Sheen
Fabio Leite
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 2,496



WWW
« Reply #10 on: October 01, 2010, 11:28:27 AM »

Maybe not anathematize, you cannot anathematize someone who is outside of the Church... (what would be the point other than to slap them in the face?)

I think setting up a Bishop in Rome would be a good idea. Maybe encourage a Western Rite as well. That Bishop (maybe becoming a Patriarch out of honor for Rome?) would be someone who could dialogue with the Roman Catholics, but would be there to help guide the Orthodox faithful, and would be there to help guide them back to Orthodoxy.

Even if the Roman Catholic Church continues it's spiral downwards, maybe an Orthodox Bishop/Patriarch in Rome could help be a light amist the darkness.

Is there anywhere a fair assessment of Orthodoxy in Western Europe? How is the Church doing in Germany, Italy, Belgium, Netherlands, Spain, Portugal, etc? If we have again an Orthodox Bishop of Rome, who would be his flock? Due to the secularization of Europe and the large drop-out from the local heresies into atheism or agnosticism, I can only think it's probably doing very badly.
« Last Edit: October 01, 2010, 11:30:06 AM by Fabio Leite » Logged

Many Energies, Three Persons, Two Natures, One God.
Fabio Leite
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 2,496



WWW
« Reply #11 on: October 01, 2010, 11:34:45 AM »

Wow!

There are almost a million Orthodox in Italy!

Eastern Orthodox: 950,000
Romanian Orthodox: 500,000  
Ukrainian Orthodox: 180,000  
Moldovan Orthodox: 100,000  
Others (Bulgarian Orthodox, Serbian Orthodox, Greek Orthodox, Russian Orthodox, etc.): 180,000

And we are 1.2% of the local population! It more than justifies a Bishop of Rome. Smiley Considering that the Romanians are the largest group, over a half, more numerous than all the others put together and that they are Latins as well, maybe the first bishop could be an Italian speaking Romanian. Smiley I can only wonder the great blessing that would be to have one of those holy Romanian monastics elected as the new Bishop of Rome, Patriarch of the West.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christianity_in_Italy

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_Italy#cite_note-Caritas_Dossier_Immigrazione_2007-3
« Last Edit: October 01, 2010, 11:36:50 AM by Fabio Leite » Logged

Many Energies, Three Persons, Two Natures, One God.
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 35,604



« Reply #12 on: October 01, 2010, 11:50:31 AM »

To be very honest, I sincerely believe that the best thing a Pan-Orthodox Council can do for the Church, aside from putting an end to the jurisdictional overlap in the “diaspora,” is to confirm the MP’s position on prayer with non-Orthodox, affirm and restate the decisions from the Jerusalem Council regarding Protestantism, and reaffirm the Pan-Orthodox Councils from the 16th century on Roman Catholicism and the New Calendar innovation, returning all churches to the Julian Calendar which the majority of the Church follows anyway.

Everyone, except perhaps the Finns, are on the Julian Calendar. The question is revised or not.

 Then, as a consequence of these decisions, establish a bishop in Rome as the Orthodox Patriarch/Pope.  Very clear declarations need to be made on ecumenism, what it is, and what both is and is not acceptable in inter-confessional meetings.  The manner in which converts are to be received, the relationship between Confession and Communion, the matter of shortening services, etc. should also be discussed – not for the sake of uniformity but at least for Pan-Orthodox consensus.

Given the aftermath of the Moscow Synod of 1666, I steer clear of the last couple issues.

 Finally, a response to those who have gone into schism over Communism, the New Calendar, Ecumenism, etc., a thorough examination of the issues, a decision, and a clear message to those who have gone into schism.  At least this would all be a good starting point.  

Impossible?  With God, nothing is impossible.  

I would think extreme economia should be exercised and those groups should be allowed what was allowed Nestorius at Ephesus: to state their case in Council.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 35,604



« Reply #13 on: October 01, 2010, 12:44:40 PM »

Wow!

There are almost a million Orthodox in Italy!

Eastern Orthodox: 950,000
Romanian Orthodox: 500,000  
Ukrainian Orthodox: 180,000  
Moldovan Orthodox: 100,000  
Others (Bulgarian Orthodox, Serbian Orthodox, Greek Orthodox, Russian Orthodox, etc.): 180,000

And we are 1.2% of the local population! It more than justifies a Bishop of Rome. Smiley Considering that the Romanians are the largest group, over a half, more numerous than all the others put together and that they are Latins as well, maybe the first bishop could be an Italian speaking Romanian. Smiley I can only wonder the great blessing that would be to have one of those holy Romanian monastics elected as the new Bishop of Rome, Patriarch of the West.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christianity_in_Italy

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_Italy#cite_note-Caritas_Dossier_Immigrazione_2007-3
Given the relations Romania has cultivated with Italy, that would be an excellent way to go about it.

Pope John Paul II (of blessed memory) used to say that "if the Romanians were really Latin, they would be Roman Catholic" (why a Slav, who called the Romanian and any Latin "Vlach" "foreignor" should worry about the Latinness of the Romanians, escaped me). It was a big scandal when I was in Romanian in 1992 (the Patriarch called for all work of the Joint International Commission for Theological Dialogue Between the Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church to cease), when the CCC, just released, was being advertised to come out that year in Romanian (English would have to wait a few years more). Well, if the Romans are really Latin, they should have no problem with a Romanian Patriarch.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
Noddy999
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Orthodox
Posts: 30


« Reply #14 on: October 01, 2010, 02:31:03 PM »

What do the Orthodox want? A Patriarch of Rome? Possibly. A Pope in Constantinople? Never.
Logged
bogdan
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 1,615



« Reply #15 on: October 01, 2010, 02:40:55 PM »

I think putting in place an Orthodox Pope of Rome would be a brilliant move. As someone noted, it would instantly resolve Europe's canonical issues.

The most likely way for this to happen, in my mind, would be if the European Episcopal Assemblies called for it.
Logged
Marc1152
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Rocor
Posts: 11,858


Probiotic .. Antibiotic


« Reply #16 on: October 01, 2010, 03:57:56 PM »

Wow!

There are almost a million Orthodox in Italy!

Eastern Orthodox: 950,000
Romanian Orthodox: 500,000  
Ukrainian Orthodox: 180,000  
Moldovan Orthodox: 100,000  
Others (Bulgarian Orthodox, Serbian Orthodox, Greek Orthodox, Russian Orthodox, etc.): 180,000

And we are 1.2% of the local population! It more than justifies a Bishop of Rome. Smiley Considering that the Romanians are the largest group, over a half, more numerous than all the others put together and that they are Latins as well, maybe the first bishop could be an Italian speaking Romanian. Smiley I can only wonder the great blessing that would be to have one of those holy Romanian monastics elected as the new Bishop of Rome, Patriarch of the West.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christianity_in_Italy

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_Italy#cite_note-Caritas_Dossier_Immigrazione_2007-3

Naw................Pick someone Polish.  that will learn em :_
Logged

\"Why were so many Civil War battles fought in National Parks? \"
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 30,403


EXTERMINATE!


« Reply #17 on: October 01, 2010, 08:51:40 PM »

P.S. I put this in "Faith Issues" and not "Orthodox-Catholic Discussion" (where, though, I understand it may end up), because at the Great Council, only the Orthodox will be participating. We do not need Rome to hold such a Council, and as long as he does not confess the Orthodox Faith, the supreme pontiff of the Vatican will not have a seat.  Hence, it is a Faith issue of the Orthodox. The followers of the Vatican, of course, and in particular given the continued exsitence of Joint International Commission for Theological Dialogue Between the Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church, can comment as they please.
As Ialmisry stated in the OP, this topic is about an issue internal to the Orthodox Church, hence his decision to start this thread on the Faith Issues board.  I've also pointed out many times the statement on the forum index regarding how the Faith Issues board is a place for discussion of issues pertinent to the Orthodox Christian faith and have explained how Roman Catholics are permitted to engage us in discussion here only as is necessary to correct our misunderstandings of your faith.  The RC activity I've seen on this thread goes well beyond this permission and is far too much like trolling.  I've not moved this thread, since the topic of discussion is a legitimate issue for us Orthodox to discuss amongst ourselves, and I'm not going to move this thread just because a bunch of RC's want to frolic on it.  I therefore call on all Catholics who have posted on this thread to stop doing so and to leave us Orthodox alone to discuss this issue without your interference.  A couple of you know better than to do what you've done, since I've already warned you multiple times, so don't be surprised if you receive some kind of sanction for this behavior.

- PeterTheAleut
Faith Issues Section Moderator
« Last Edit: October 01, 2010, 09:47:21 PM by PeterTheAleut » Logged
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 35,604



« Reply #18 on: October 01, 2010, 09:20:59 PM »

Back to the OP:

One thing I've been thinking about is the issue of Rome over its Patriarchate. Before the Vatican dropping the title of "Patriarch of the West" there were those of us who were heartened by the words of then Card. Ratzinger for a larger role of the local bishop conferences. About half of the countries now in the Western Patriarchate of 1054 have their own national Protestant churches. The Chambesy texts divide it into 9 EA.

So on all levels, I think that there is no reason to try to reconstruct an Orthodox Patriarchate of the West, anymore than the Churches of the Balkans should be united to Constantinople, nor Poland, the Czech Lands and Slovakia and Finland reunited to Moscow (I'd add Georgia, but I don't think it should have been united to Moscow in the first place).  Rather the idea should be to form the EA into regional Holy Synods. Under whose authority is another isssue: I would say that Poland should oversee Germany because of proximity, but I understand that Moscow has a strong presence there already and infrastructure. Finland, though, I think could oversee the rest of Scandinavia easy enough (although that may involve making it into an autocephalous Church). Rome, of course, would still be the see of Itay.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
Paisius
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Multi-Jurisdictional
Posts: 816


Reframed


« Reply #19 on: October 01, 2010, 09:52:46 PM »

I think establishing an Orthodox Bishop of Rome would be an unnecessarily provocative action. It also seems to me to be at least tacit recognition of some of the Roman Catholic claims. We haven't needed a Bishop of Rome for 1,000 years; why install one now?


In Christ
Joe
Logged

"Is it really true that political self-interest is nobler somehow than economic self-interest?" - Milton Friedman
FormerReformer
Convertodox of the convertodox
Site Supporter
Archon
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: I'll take (e) for "all of the above"
Posts: 2,392



WWW
« Reply #20 on: October 01, 2010, 10:17:32 PM »

I think establishing an Orthodox Bishop of Rome would be an unnecessarily provocative action. It also seems to me to be at least tacit recognition of some of the Roman Catholic claims. We haven't needed a Bishop of Rome for 1,000 years; why install one now?


In Christ
Joe

But where else would one seat an Orthodox hierarch in Italy?  Rome has long been the unity point for the Italian peninsula (everyone wanted to claim some connection to the glories of the great empire), even before the end of the 19th century when a unified Italian state came into existence.

However, if Rome is out-of-bounds as too provocative, might I suggest Naples, post-schism capital of Orthodox Southern Italy?
Logged

"Funny," said Lancelot, "how the people who can't pray say that prayers are not answered, however much the people who can pray say they are."  TH White

Oh, no: I've succumbed to Hyperdoxy!
Paisius
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Multi-Jurisdictional
Posts: 816


Reframed


« Reply #21 on: October 01, 2010, 10:57:12 PM »



But where else would one seat an Orthodox hierarch in Italy?  Rome has long been the unity point for the Italian peninsula (everyone wanted to claim some connection to the glories of the great empire), even before the end of the 19th century when a unified Italian state came into existence.

However, if Rome is out-of-bounds as too provocative, might I suggest Naples, post-schism capital of Orthodox Southern Italy?


I'm sure there are Orthodox bishops in Italy now. Where are their sees located?
Logged

"Is it really true that political self-interest is nobler somehow than economic self-interest?" - Milton Friedman
FormerReformer
Convertodox of the convertodox
Site Supporter
Archon
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: I'll take (e) for "all of the above"
Posts: 2,392



WWW
« Reply #22 on: October 01, 2010, 11:30:05 PM »



But where else would one seat an Orthodox hierarch in Italy?  Rome has long been the unity point for the Italian peninsula (everyone wanted to claim some connection to the glories of the great empire), even before the end of the 19th century when a unified Italian state came into existence.

However, if Rome is out-of-bounds as too provocative, might I suggest Naples, post-schism capital of Orthodox Southern Italy?


I'm sure there are Orthodox bishops in Italy now. Where are their sees located?

Good question.  After 30 minutes of searching online, I am turning up no information other than that there are Orthodox jurisdictions in Italy, and a Greek Metropolitan of Italy and Southern Europe (but his specific residence is not mentioned).
« Last Edit: October 01, 2010, 11:31:16 PM by FormerReformer » Logged

"Funny," said Lancelot, "how the people who can't pray say that prayers are not answered, however much the people who can pray say they are."  TH White

Oh, no: I've succumbed to Hyperdoxy!
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 35,604



« Reply #23 on: October 01, 2010, 11:51:27 PM »

I think establishing an Orthodox Bishop of Rome would be an unnecessarily provocative action. It also seems to me to be at least tacit recognition of some of the Roman Catholic claims. We haven't needed a Bishop of Rome for 1,000 years; why install one now?


In Christ
Joe

But where else would one seat an Orthodox hierarch in Italy?  Rome has long been the unity point for the Italian peninsula (everyone wanted to claim some connection to the glories of the great empire), even before the end of the 19th century when a unified Italian state came into existence.

However, if Rome is out-of-bounds as too provocative, might I suggest Naples, post-schism capital of Orthodox Southern Italy?
I think that is Palermo.

Another candidate would be Ravenna-the capital of the exarch sent from Constantinople-or Milan, which was the capital at the time of the conversion of the Emperor to the Church (hence "Edict of Milan). In the later, of course, is the Holy Synod of Milan which, IIRC, brought Heorhij back to Orthodoxy.  Milan, even after Trent, continued to maintain its own, Ambrosian, rite which the HSM uses.  If they can be reconcilled to the Church they can serve in reclaiming another WRO, and further bringing the West back into Orthodoxy.

Another candidate, and the prime one after Rome, would be Venice, where the EP has his exarchate in the Cathedral that dates back to the 16th century. The EP, by all accounts and rights, has jurisdiction over Itay (Met. Abp. Gennadios was first consecrated bishop of Napes, btw, the first bishop outside of Venice I believe since the schism). If the decision is taken not to "provoke" the siuation with the Vatican, the Met. might stay there and remain under the EP as it has always been-the Phanar's infamous Tomos of 1908 explicitely exempted Venice from the jurisdiction being "confered" on the Church of Greece. I do agree with Fabio, however, that the Romanians would be a natural choice to lead the Metropolis of Italy and Malta. It would be gesture of great import for Orthodoxy I believe, if Constantinople did not stand on its rights and instead let the Romanians rise to the occasion.

If a bishop is installed in Rome, I especially would recommend that the EP not stand on his rights. Given the symbolic value of Rome, it would devolve I'm afraid into a contest between New Rome and Third Rome over Old Rome. Perhaps a happy medium along the lines of the Tomos of 1908 can be adopted for the Metropolis of Italy, whereby the Romanian Orthodox Church would play the role the CoG did in the 1908: the EP's rights would be acknowledged, but jurisdiction would be exercised by the Romanian Orthodox Church, and of course the bishops making up the EA under their direction. Rivalry between Russia (which has that cathedral in Rome)

might thereby be defused.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
FormerReformer
Convertodox of the convertodox
Site Supporter
Archon
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: I'll take (e) for "all of the above"
Posts: 2,392



WWW
« Reply #24 on: October 02, 2010, 12:11:09 AM »

^ Naples and Palermo were both Byzantine capitals (Palermo of Sicily, Naples of Campania) until the Norman conquest (and the later Sicilian Vespers Revolution which saw kings sitting in both Naples and Palermo in the Kingdom of Two Sicilies, with very confusing histories of rule for both cities in the following centuries).  Due to my own familial bias I suggested Naples.
Logged

"Funny," said Lancelot, "how the people who can't pray say that prayers are not answered, however much the people who can pray say they are."  TH White

Oh, no: I've succumbed to Hyperdoxy!
88Devin12
Moderated
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 4,841



« Reply #25 on: October 02, 2010, 01:00:46 AM »

As best as I could get from numbers online, it seems there are 4-5 million Orthodox Christians in Europe. (I couldn't find numbers for Ireland or the U.K., so that doesn't count them)

Place a Bishop/Patriarch in Rome, set the Patriarchate over the Western European countries.
Logged
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 35,604



« Reply #26 on: October 02, 2010, 01:05:40 AM »



But where else would one seat an Orthodox hierarch in Italy?  Rome has long been the unity point for the Italian peninsula (everyone wanted to claim some connection to the glories of the great empire), even before the end of the 19th century when a unified Italian state came into existence.

However, if Rome is out-of-bounds as too provocative, might I suggest Naples, post-schism capital of Orthodox Southern Italy?


I'm sure there are Orthodox bishops in Italy now. Where are their sees located?

Good question.  After 30 minutes of searching online, I am turning up no information other than that there are Orthodox jurisdictions in Italy, and a Greek Metropolitan of Italy and Southern Europe (but his specific residence is not mentioned).

The EP has his Metropolitan Cathedral in Venice overseeing 49 parishes
http://www.ortodossia.it/Home.egl.htm

Romania installed a bishop in Lucca, + Silouan Span, but his see is officially in Rome (!)  overseeing 100 parishes, and as posted before, a milliion Romanians, the largest Orthodox group in Italy.

The Serbian Metropolitan of Zagreb (i.e.  Croatia) and Ljubjana (i.e. Slovenia), +Jovan, is also, for Serbs, of "All Italy." Given the connection of that region with Venice, not a suprise. There are about 70,000 Serbs there, how religious I do not know.

There is the schismatic Orthodox Church in Italy, in communion with the "alternative synod" of Bulgaria and Philoret in Kiev. It had a bishop, a convert from the Vatican, +Met. Antnio, who dies last year and has not been replaced.

The Russian bishop of Korsun has a deanery in Italy, and ROCOR has some presence but no bishop. The Ukrainian-KP and some ROCORettes are there too.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 35,604



« Reply #27 on: October 02, 2010, 01:14:08 AM »

As best as I could get from numbers online, it seems there are 4-5 million Orthodox Christians in Europe. (I couldn't find numbers for Ireland or the U.K., so that doesn't count them)

Place a Bishop/Patriarch in Rome, set the Patriarchate over the Western European countries.
Is there any reason to keep the entire region in one patriarchate?
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
88Devin12
Moderated
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 4,841



« Reply #28 on: October 02, 2010, 01:35:07 AM »

As best as I could get from numbers online, it seems there are 4-5 million Orthodox Christians in Europe. (I couldn't find numbers for Ireland or the U.K., so that doesn't count them)

Place a Bishop/Patriarch in Rome, set the Patriarchate over the Western European countries.
Is there any reason to keep the entire region in one patriarchate?

Not necessarily, but it is a smaller region than the U.S., Canada, and South America... (in fact, 2 or maybe 3 of our diocese in the U.S. would equal Western Europe alone)

Of course, I'm not suggesting the U.S., Canada or S. America get Patriarchates...
Logged
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 35,604



« Reply #29 on: October 02, 2010, 02:09:31 AM »

I think establishing an Orthodox Bishop of Rome would be an unnecessarily provocative action. It also seems to me to be at least tacit recognition of some of the Roman Catholic claims. We haven't needed a Bishop of Rome for 1,000 years; why install one now?


In Christ
Joe
Because we are there in full force now. As Fabio posted, a million Orthodox, more than enough for a bishop.  

Indeed, I know that us NOT appointing a bishop is often misconstrued as recognition of the Vatican's claims.  After all, we have a Pope in Alexandria and a Patriarch in Antioch, although the OO have theirs there too. The One, Holy, Catholic, Apostolic and Orthodox Church is more than competant to install a successor to St. Peter at Rome.

It is odd that we have no probllem, for instance, multiplying Orthodox bishops of Chicago (where the Vatican had a bishop in 1842, whom it raised to archbishop in 1880: the earliest Orthodox parishes weren't established until 1892 and during the twentieth century various Orthodox jurisdictions established their own diocese) until Chicago now has half a dozen Orthodox bishops, but some would hesitate to put one Orthodox bishop in Rome.  That would seem a recognition that the Vatican had a claim to the see despite its abandonment of Orthodoxy. Such a view is a serious skewing of Orthodox ecclesiology.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 35,604



« Reply #30 on: October 02, 2010, 02:13:02 AM »

As best as I could get from numbers online, it seems there are 4-5 million Orthodox Christians in Europe. (I couldn't find numbers for Ireland or the U.K., so that doesn't count them)

Place a Bishop/Patriarch in Rome, set the Patriarchate over the Western European countries.
Is there any reason to keep the entire region in one patriarchate?

Not necessarily, but it is a smaller region than the U.S., Canada, and South America... (in fact, 2 or maybe 3 of our diocese in the U.S. would equal Western Europe alone)

Of course, I'm not suggesting the U.S., Canada or S. America get Patriarchates...
It is smaller, but more diverse. In this the US and Canada resemble Russia.

Western Europe is more populous in Orthodox also it would seem.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 30,403


EXTERMINATE!


« Reply #31 on: October 02, 2010, 03:24:04 AM »

The Catholic responses to this topic have been moved to Orthodox-Catholic Discussion.

http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php?topic=30234.0

Please remember my directive in Reply #17.
« Last Edit: October 02, 2010, 03:31:32 AM by PeterTheAleut » Logged
Noddy999
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Orthodox
Posts: 30


« Reply #32 on: October 02, 2010, 05:37:30 AM »

Why all the talk of imposing the oversight of existing Patriarchates over what will be the resurrection or restoration of an ancient one. Surely this would be an opportunity to establish a truely canonical situation in Western Europe, that is assuming that the Roman Church does not return to Orthodoxy. We do not want to perpetuate existing uncanonical realities.
Logged
Punch
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Serbian Orthodox
Jurisdiction: New Gracanica Metropolitanate
Posts: 4,456



« Reply #33 on: October 02, 2010, 09:45:00 AM »

I think establishing an Orthodox Bishop of Rome would be an unnecessarily provocative action. It also seems to me to be at least tacit recognition of some of the Roman Catholic claims. We haven't needed a Bishop of Rome for 1,000 years; why install one now?


In Christ
Joe
Because we are there in full force now. As Fabio posted, a million Orthodox, more than enough for a bishop.  

Indeed, I know that us NOT appointing a bishop is often misconstrued as recognition of the Vatican's claims.  After all, we have a Pope in Alexandria and a Patriarch in Antioch, although the OO have theirs there too. The One, Holy, Catholic, Apostolic and Orthodox Church is more than competant to install a successor to St. Peter at Rome.

It is odd that we have no probllem, for instance, multiplying Orthodox bishops of Chicago (where the Vatican had a bishop in 1842, whom it raised to archbishop in 1880: the earliest Orthodox parishes weren't established until 1892 and during the twentieth century various Orthodox jurisdictions established their own diocese) until Chicago now has half a dozen Orthodox bishops, but some would hesitate to put one Orthodox bishop in Rome.  That would seem a recognition that the Vatican had a claim to the see despite its abandonment of Orthodoxy. Such a view is a serious skewing of Orthodox ecclesiology.

Agreed.  After 1000 years of separation, it is time for the Orthodox world to realize that the Latin Pope is outside the Church and has no part of it.  By installing an Orthodox Pope in Rome, with the agreement of the other main local Churches, we would truly show the world that we are the ONE Holy CATHOLIC and Apostolic Church.  The sooner the better!
Logged

God did not create man equal.  Samuel Colt made man equal.  Blessed be the Peacemaker.
Fabio Leite
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 2,496



WWW
« Reply #34 on: October 02, 2010, 12:06:14 PM »

Two italian Orthodox sites:

http://spazioinwind.libero.it/sanmassimo_decaita/

http://digilander.libero.it/ortodossia/mainen.htm

The second, in its English session, has a link to this surprising and great article:


"Is the Theologian Ioannis Zizioulas proclaiming Orthodoxy?"
http://digilander.libero.it/ortodossia/Zizioulas.htm
« Last Edit: October 02, 2010, 12:06:45 PM by Fabio Leite » Logged

Many Energies, Three Persons, Two Natures, One God.
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 35,604



« Reply #35 on: October 02, 2010, 12:13:59 PM »

I dug up something from when the Vatican dropped the title "Patriarch of the West": What Does It Mean for the Orthodox? Archbishop Hilarion Alfeyev
Quote
Some analysts saw in this omission the desire to improve the relations with the Orthodox Church. The former prefect of the Congregation for the Oriental Churches, Cardinal Achille Silvestrini is reported to have said that the deletion was a "sign of ecumenical sensitivity" on the part of Pope Benedict. The cardinal said that in the past some people used the title to provoke negative comparisons between the claims of universal jurisdiction by the worldwide "Patriarchate of the West" and the more restricted size and jurisdiction of the traditional Orthodox patriarchates. According to the cardinal, the pope's gesture "is meant to stimulate the ecumenical journey."

However, it is not at all clear how the removal of the title could possibly ameliorate Catholic-Orthodox relations. It seems that the omission of the title "Patriarch of the West" is meant to confirm the claim to universal church jurisdiction that is reflected in the pope's other titles, and if the Orthodox reaction to the gesture will not be positive, it should not be a surprise.
http://www.orthodoxytoday.org/articles6/HilarionPope.php

Abp. Hilarion also expressed a wish:
Quote
It is to be hoped that the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity will publish an official comment on the removal of the title.
which they did
http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/chrstuni/general-docs/rc_pc_chrstuni_doc_20060322_patriarca-occidente_fr.html
Quote
...we can affirm the historical perspective that the ancient Patriarchs of the East, established by the Councils of Constantinople (381) and Chalcedon (451), concerned a fairly clearly demarcated territory, while the territory of the see of the Bishop of Rome remained vague.
Quote
...
Given the Phanar's modern claims regarding canon 28 of the latter Council, this affirmation is interesting. It is also wrong, as St. Nektarios' commentary on the Pedalion shows: Constantinople's borders to the East, North was West were vague, the latter because more and more territory assigned to Rome was reassigned to New Rome.
Quote
The title "Patriarch of the West" was adopted during the year 642 by Pope Theodore I. Subsequently, this title has been used very rarely, and without a clear meaning.  Its development occurred in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, through the proliferation of titles of the Pope in the Pontifical Yearbook, it appeared for the first time in 1863.

Currently, the meaning of the term "West" refers to a cultural context that is not only related to Western Europe but including the United States of America to Australia and New Zealand , thus differentiating itself from other cultural contexts. Naturally, such a meaning of "West" does not describe an ecclesiastical territory or be used as defining a patriarchal territory. If one wants to give the term 'West' a meaning applicable to ecclesiastical juridical language, it could be understood only with reference to the Latin Church. The title "Patriarch of the West" while describing the special relationship of the Bishop of Rome in the Latin Church and could express the particular jurisdiction of the Bishop of Rome for the Latin Church.

Therefore, the title "Patriarch of the West", unclear from the beginning, became obsolete in the evolution of history and virtually useless/useable. Continuing to use it no longer has meaning. This is even truer that with Vatican II, the Catholic Church has found for the Latin Church a canonical ordering appropriate to contemporary needs through the episcopal conferences and their international meetings.
Of course, the formation of the Orthodox "Episcopal Assemblies" in those very territories as the Latin "diaspora" is what is going to bring this issue to a head for the Orthodox, much like 1204 did for Constantinople, as the P.C.P.C.U's concluding remarks should make clear:
Quote
To maintain the title "Patriarch of the West" would not change in reality the recognition, performed in a particularly solemn manner, by Vatican II, the ancient patriarchal Churches (Lumen Gentium, 23). Such a deletion can leave even less to imply new demands.  To renounce said  title conveys a historical and theological realism, and at the same time, being the renunciation of a pretension, waiver that could be used to ecumenical dialogue.

When I was a wee little lad, I remember it being pointed out that the Supreme Court, by deciding it did not have the jurisdiction to enforce an order, gave up a little power in the case at bar, while taking on the enormous power of judicial review.  The Orthodox are well aware that the Vatican, giving up the title Patriarch of the West, wasn't giving up its claims on universal jurisdiction.  The ancienct patriarchal Churches (i.e. the first 4 in the Orthodox diptychs of today, although Georgia should be included), nor any autocephalous Orthodox Church depends on any recognition from the Vatican, or even (as the case of Constantinople shows) Rome.  It is such historic and theological realism that should animate the EA to deal with such historica and theological realities.  I go on with Abp. Hilarion's anaylsis:
Quote
The mass media reported that in the new edition of the "Annuario Pontificio" for 2006 the pope's title "Patriarch of the West" has been dropped. Now the official list of titles includes: "Bishop of Rome, Vicar of Jesus Christ, Successor of the Prince of the Apostles, Supreme Pontiff of the Universal Church, Primate of Italy, Archbishop and Metropolitan of the Roman Province, Sovereign of the State of the Vatican City, Servant of the Servants of God"....in the West, there was only one Patriarchate of Rome, while in the East there were four Patriarchates. The Patriarchate of the West together with the four Eastern Patriarchates constituted the so-called "pentarchy"...It is the title "Bishop of Rome" that remains then most acceptable for the Orthodox Churches, since it points to the pope's role as diocesan bishop of the city of Rome. The title "Archbishop and Metropolitan of the Roman Province" shows that the pope's jurisdiction includes not only the city of Rome, but also the province. The title "Primate of Italy" indicates that the Bishop of Rome is "first among equals" among the bishops of Italy, i.e., using Orthodox language, primate of a Local Church. With this understanding, neither of the three titles would pose any problem for the Orthodox in case of the re-establishment of the Eucharistic communion between East and West.  In this case the Pope of Rome could also be considered as the "Patriarch of the West", i.e. the spiritual leader of all those Christians who do not belong to the ancient "Eastern Patriarchates" or to those Local Orthodox Churches that appeared in the second millennium.
It wouldn't pose a problem except for the historical and thelogical reality that there are Orthodox in Rome, Lazio (the Roman Province), Italy and the rest of the West outside of those Local Orthodox Churches, and Pope Benedict XVI is not among their number.  The Orthodox diptychs of those bishops upholding the Creed of the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Orthodox Church manifest communion with Christ's Church, not communion with the bishop of Rome (nor, as was suggested at Ravenna, communion with the bishop of New Rome). At present, those Orthodox are in communion Bp Siluan, the Romanian bishop of Rome installed in the Roman Province at Lucca, and Met. Gennadios, the Greek Primate of Itay. That the office of the Orthodox Bishop of Rome and Roman Province and the office of the Orthodox Primate of Itay are held by two different bishops is not a problem. The problem stems from them representing two different jurisdictions and their jurisdiction overlapping, with at least two other jurisdictions exercising in their jurisdictions in Itay from overseas.  That Constantinople, and the Orthodox Churches of Greece, Bularia, Romania, Serbia, Albania, Czech Lands and Slovakia, Poland and Finnland were once partly or totally within the Patriarchate of the West but now, as autocephalous Churches, have no reference to Rome does not (nor should it) bother us. So two the formation of EA in the West outside of Italy having no reference to Rome shouldn't concern or vex us in the slightest.
Quote
The model of church unity between East and West will be discussed by the Mixed Catholic-Orthodox Theological Commission that will meet after a six-year break in the fall of 2006. It is clear that this model will be hypothetic, since there remain many obstacles, both of dogmatic and of ecclesiological character, for the restoration of the full communion. However, the main obstacle to unity, according to many Orthodox theologians, is the teaching on the primacy of the Bishop of Rome. It is this teaching that will be discussed in the framework of the Mixed Commission. In this context unacceptable and even scandalous, from the Orthodox point of view, are precisely those titles that remain in the list, i.e. Vicar of Jesus Christ, Successor of the Prince of the Apostles, Supreme Pontiff of the Universal Church.

Indeed! And if the "Great and Holy Council" convenes in 2012, it is going to have to deal with that fact.  As Abp. Hilarion points out:
Quote
The title "Supreme Pontiff" (pontifex maximus) originally belonged to the pagan emperors of Rome. It was not rejected by Emperor Constantine when he converted to Christianity. With relation to the pope of Rome the title "Supreme Pontiff of the Universal Church" points to the pope's universal jurisdiction which is not and will never be recognized by the Orthodox Churches. It is precisely this title that should have been dropped first, had the move been motivated by the quest for "ecumenical progress" and desire for amelioration of the Catholic-Orthodox relations.

With the convening of the EA, the long overdo to see "historical and theological realities."  We were told at the time of the dropping of the title that we would "just get over it." I think we should.  William Tighe, a communicant of the Vatican "always imagined that its removal by the present pope was an act of “ecumenical honesty,” no more and no less."
http://wdtprs.com/blog/2010/08/dropping-patriarch-of-the-west-and-changing-titles-of-roman-basilicas-to-papal/
Time has come for the Orthodox for such honesty. No discussion of the EA and the diptychs at the "Great and Holy Council" will progress without it.


Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
MyMapleStory
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Approaching Orthodoxy
Jurisdiction: Will probably be Greek
Posts: 181


« Reply #36 on: October 03, 2010, 12:12:32 AM »

If such a council did create a Patriarch of Rome, what would happen should the Catholics become orthodox? Thats one thing that might be considered, as well as further baring any attempt at reconciliation between the two. Such a statement would hinder it. ON the other hand I can admit the good it would do as pointed out by others in the forum. Truely I have no stance.
Logged
deusveritasest
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: None
Jurisdiction: None
Posts: 7,528



WWW
« Reply #37 on: October 03, 2010, 02:47:24 AM »

If such a council did create a Patriarch of Rome, what would happen should the Catholics become orthodox?

The ones in Western Europe would become subject to the Orthodox Patriarch of Rome, of course.

Because of the lack of international, universal, papal supremacy, the ones outside of Western Europe would no longer be subject to Rome but rather their local synods.
Logged

I stopped posting here in August 2011 because of stark disagreement with the policies of the administration and moderating team of the forums. If you desire, feel free to PM me, message me on Facebook (link in profile), or email me: cddombrowski@gmail.com
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 35,604



« Reply #38 on: December 10, 2010, 05:48:40 PM »

This matter, coming from the oppostie direction, i.e. reception of Rome back into Orhtodoxy, on this thread.
Rome hasn't lost anything.They are still active:
Quote from: 6th canon of Nicea
Let the ancient customs prevail which were in vogue in Egypt and Libya and Pentapolis, to allow the bishop of Alexandria to have authority over all these parts, since this is also the treatment usually accorded to the bishop of Rome. Likewise with reference to Antioch, and in other provinces, let the seniority be preserved to the Churches. In general it is obvious that in the case in which anyone has been made a bishop without the Metropolitan’s approval, the great Council has prescribed that such a person must not be a Bishop. If, however, to the common vote of all, though reasonable and in accordance with an ecclesiastical Canon, two or three men object on account of a private quarrel, let the vote of the majority prevail.
Quote from: 2nd canon of Constantinople I
Let the Bishop of Constantinople, however, have the priorities of honor after the Bishop of Rome, because of its being New Rome.
Quote from: 36th canon of 'in Trullo'
Renewing the laws made by the one hundred and fifty Holy Fathers who assembled in this God-guarded imperial capital city, and by the six hundred and thirty of those who assembled in Chalcedon, we decree that the throne of Constantinople shall enjoy equal seniorities (or priorities) with the throne of older Rome, and in ecclesiastical matters shall be magnified like the latter, coming second after the latter; after which the throne of the great city of the Alexandrians shall come next, then that of Antioch, and after this the throne of the city of the Jerusalemites.
http://www.intratext.com/IXT/ENG0835/_INDEX.HTM
the activities of heretical bishops and schismatic ecclesiastical structures does not have any standing or bearing under the canons.

Rome has lost all of North Africa, now under Alexandria.

Rome had lost the Balkans: Constantinople had taken these lands, but since then they are now autocephalous in their own right. They will not go back under Rome. Ditto Hungary, Slovakia, the Czech Lands and Poland.

The issue of the diptychs have been brought up at least twice since 1054. When Moscow was elevated to the Patriarchate, and when the Holy Governing Synod replaced the Patriarchate.
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,28302.msg497851/topicseen.html#msg497851

On that basis, the issue of Rome at the head of the diptychs can claimed to have been dealt with.

I'm beginning to wonder if the EA of Italy will even have to deal with this issue.  It should, just to make sure, but the decision to recognize the Holy Governing Synod as the successor/replacement for the Patriarch of Moscow (linked above), and what seems to be in the Golden Bull of 1589 elevating Moscow to Patriarchate (DOES ANYONE HAVE THE TEXT?), seems to argue that the dyptichs have already been changed.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
Michał Kalina
Stratopedarches
**************
Offline Offline

Posts: 21,465


WWW
« Reply #39 on: December 10, 2010, 05:49:38 PM »

Dyptychs - maybe. Canons - I doubt.
Logged

Byzantinism
no longer posting here
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 35,604



« Reply #40 on: December 10, 2010, 06:23:54 PM »

Dyptychs - maybe. Canons - I doubt.
The issue of the diptychs have been brought up at least twice since 1054. When Moscow was elevated to the Patriarchate, and when the Holy Governing Synod replaced the Patriarchate.
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,28302.msg497851/topicseen.html#msg497851

On that basis, the issue of Rome at the head of the diptychs can claimed to have been dealt with.


No. The first 5 places remain unchanged, don't they?

I don't think that they have.  When Moscow was elevated to Patriarchate, it had originally wanted to be before Antioch,, or even  before Alexandria.  The Pope of Alexandria withheld his approval for a while.
http://books.google.com/books?id=Q6tsSekX77kC&pg=PA32&dq=Meletius+Pigus+1590&hl=en&ei=-KQCTfCkNcWTnQfZoZTlDQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CCMQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=Meletius%20Pigus%201590&f=false
Then on February 12, 1593 Pope Meletius of Alexandria held a council where Moscow's autocephalous patriarchate was agree to, and affirmed a previous council of Constantinople, where the Patriarchs of Constantinople, Antioch and Jerusalem required of the Patriarch of Moscow to recognize the primacy of the EP.  Depending on the wording, the position of Rome may have already been dealt with, as it was stated that Moscow would have fifth place after Jerusalem, which it has to this day.  However, if Rome counted, Moscow would have had sixth place after Jerusalem.
« Last Edit: December 10, 2010, 06:24:31 PM by ialmisry » Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
Aindriú
Faster! Funnier!
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Cynical
Jurisdiction: Vestibule of Hell
Posts: 3,908



WWW
« Reply #41 on: December 10, 2010, 08:56:11 PM »

So, "anthematize". You want to sing the Vatican with honor?  Grin
Logged


I'm going to need this.
deusveritasest
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: None
Jurisdiction: None
Posts: 7,528



WWW
« Reply #42 on: December 10, 2010, 09:03:52 PM »

Does it not occur to anyone that this will do no good?

It would serve the faithful in the former area of the Patriarchate of the West.

That instead of fighting against Rome for supremacy of the faith (by the way, Orthodoxy is still about 800 million believers off),

As has been pointed out before, the membership figures are incomparable. Yours are strictly derived from those who have been baptized and have not been found to have left the faith. OTOH, I have been told that often the figures for the Orthodox jurisdictions are based off of attendance at the Paschal Liturgy. So while that may leave room for many Christmas-Easter only members, it does not leave room for all the totally non-attendant members that your figures do.

It would be interesting to see just how different our figures would be if you used the same process for figuring the membership.

we might want to work together like we did for the first 1000 years?

That won't be possible until there is a return to the faith of the Church before the division.

Except, you know, that Apostolic Succession does not work that way:

In case you hadn't figured it out yet, we have significantly different doctrines of Apostolic Succession.
Logged

I stopped posting here in August 2011 because of stark disagreement with the policies of the administration and moderating team of the forums. If you desire, feel free to PM me, message me on Facebook (link in profile), or email me: cddombrowski@gmail.com
Jetavan
Most Humble Servant of Pan-Vespuccian and Holocenic Hominids
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Christic
Jurisdiction: Dixie
Posts: 6,069


Barlaam and Josaphat


WWW
« Reply #43 on: December 10, 2010, 09:24:16 PM »

The only line which preserves that title runs from Peter to Benedict XVI.
That's debatable.
Logged

If you will, you can become all flame.
Extra caritatem nulla salus.
In order to become whole, take the "I" out of "holiness".
सर्वभूतहित
Ἄνω σχῶμεν τὰς καρδίας
"Those who say religion has nothing to do with politics do not know what religion is." -- Mohandas Gandhi
Y dduw bo'r diolch.
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 30,403


EXTERMINATE!


« Reply #44 on: December 11, 2010, 12:13:29 AM »

lubeltri and ChristusDominus,

Despite what the title of this thread may lead you to believe, this is still the Faith Issues board, and I need you to recognize that by letting us Orthodox discuss amongst ourselves how we are to relate to your church. Remember that such discussions are sometimes intended to be internal, kinda like a football team huddling up to discuss their next play. If the time comes that I decide it best to move this thread to Orthodox-Catholic Discussion, then you'll be free to engage this subject to your heart's content. But not until then.
Logged
Tags: pentarchy 
Pages: 1 2 »  All   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.18 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.177 seconds with 72 queries.