OrthodoxChristianity.net
July 23, 2014, 07:24:03 AM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Reminder: No political discussions in the public fora.  If you do not have access to the private Politics Forum, please send a PM to Fr. George.
 
   Home   Help Calendar Contact Treasury Tags Login Register  
Pages: 1   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Why is it...?  (Read 2079 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Schultz
Christian. Guitarist. Zymurgist. Librarian.
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 6,461


Scion of the McKeesport Becks.


WWW
« on: May 01, 2007, 12:35:53 PM »

That your run of the mill Continuing Anglican (not ECUSA/"Canterburians") can't readily admit that:

a) Henry VIII established the Church of England

and

b) part, if not most, of his motivation to separate from Rome was due to the fact that he wanted to marry his mistress

They like to play word games with the first premise (eg. "Henry didn't "establish" the Church, it was established by Joseph of Aramethea in AD37") and totally downplay, if not outright deny, the second.

Logged

"Hearing a nun's confession is like being stoned to death with popcorn." --Abp. Fulton Sheen
Aristibule
Your Weaker Brother
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: ROCOR
Posts: 515


Xeno


« Reply #1 on: May 01, 2007, 01:01:06 PM »

Probably because the polemic that 'Henry the VIII founded the Church of England' is also a gross-oversimplification, and false at that.

To begin with, the Church of England was a continuation of the local Catholic dioceses of England. This is why the Catholic hierarchy have no Archbishop of London, nor of York, or Lincoln. Those three sees were lost to the Roman church by the schism of those bodies (note, schism - not 'creation of new church'.) The worship of the Church of England during Henry VIII's rule was the Sarum use of the Roman rite, with commemorations of the Pope removed, as well as commemorations of more recent saints. Even with the 1st Book of Common Prayer (1549) the liturgy was considered a Catholic rite by Rome - it was not until the Ordinal was changed that Rome changed its views on the matter. The 2nd Prayer Book was the first Protestant book, but was never accepted by the Church of England - it was promoted for a few months in one year by the Government, but never became widespread. It was not until the rule of Queen Elizabeth the I of England that  they had a fully Protestant liturgy, and final schism with Rome.

However, those bishops during the reign of Elizabeth I, Henry VIII, and Edward VI did not look to Henry VIII as the founder - but to the local history of their church. In fact, the English church had a long history of considering their local church independent of Rome. The Witenagamot - the Anglo-Saxon 'parliament' of England forbade appeals to Rome in AD 690, then again in AD 747 where Canterbury was considered as the Primate of the Church in England (it had moved successively from Gloucester/Glastonbury, to London, to Caerleon, to Menevia, to Canterbury.)

As for the founding with St. Joseph of Arimathea and St. Aristibule, and the conversion of Bran the Blessed - it is asserted by Welsh tradition, such as Rhigyfarch (who asserted the independence of the See of Menevia from the Norman See of Canterbury.) Rome itself and its bishops accepted the claim at the Councils of Pisa, Constance, Sienna and Basle - all during the 15th c., only a century before the Henrician Schism (note, that is the historical name of Henry VIII's schism - the Henrician Schism, not the 'Founding of the Church of England'.)

Personally, I'm a little protective of Continuing Anglicans and Old Catholics - many of their clergy, laity, and even hierarchs are 'almost Orthodox'. There is a bit of diversity with Continuing Anglicans, but they do tend to preserve much of their various Anglican traditions that the TEC has willingly sloughed off. Yet, you will find some in TEC or the Anglican Communion that will not claim Henry VIII to have 'started' any Church, but to have reasserted a perennial claim of the Church in the Isles - that 'the buck stops here', and that their church has Apostolic origins. And they should - as such is correct: we Orthodox know it, Rome knows it, etc.
Logged

"We must begin at once to "build again the tabernacle which is fallen down, and to build again the ruins thereof, and to set it up;" for HE WHO GAVE THE THOUGHT IN OUR HEART HE LAID ALSO THE RESPONSIBILITY ON US THAT THIS THOUGHT SHOULD NOT REMAIN BARREN." - J.J. Overbeck, 1866
Schultz
Christian. Guitarist. Zymurgist. Librarian.
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 6,461


Scion of the McKeesport Becks.


WWW
« Reply #2 on: May 01, 2007, 01:06:26 PM »

See, you're playing the word game, too.

I never said that Henry "founded" the Church of England, but "established" the CofE, which is the correct political term when dealing with a politically "official" ecclesiastical body.

I'm not the one using polemics, but I am the one who insists on using plain and widely accepted English when discussing a topic.  I do not deny or even doubt that Joseph of Arimathea brought Christianity to the Mighty Isles.

I do, however, have problems with a lay secular authority claiming to be head of a Christian church.
« Last Edit: May 01, 2007, 01:07:52 PM by Schultz » Logged

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

Jurisdiction: ACROD
Posts: 2,076


« Reply #3 on: May 01, 2007, 01:08:43 PM »

Quote
I'm not the one using polemics

From what I've seen many Catholic apologists do though, and in a rather sneering "you're not a real church" way when dealing with Anglicans.
Logged
Aristibule
Your Weaker Brother
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: ROCOR
Posts: 515


Xeno


« Reply #4 on: May 01, 2007, 01:10:40 PM »

He didn't 'establish' it either - he just took it into schism. Saying 'established' is a word-game. What I'm saying isn't a word-game, but the truth of the history - he *schismed* from Rome, and then various parties in the Church of England introduced various new teachings, none of which never became universal in the Church of England. The extent of Rome's control over local churches in the West was also at a high point that it had not held previously.

So, no - no word-games here - just honesty about what happened.
Logged

"We must begin at once to "build again the tabernacle which is fallen down, and to build again the ruins thereof, and to set it up;" for HE WHO GAVE THE THOUGHT IN OUR HEART HE LAID ALSO THE RESPONSIBILITY ON US THAT THIS THOUGHT SHOULD NOT REMAIN BARREN." - J.J. Overbeck, 1866
Schultz
Christian. Guitarist. Zymurgist. Librarian.
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 6,461


Scion of the McKeesport Becks.


WWW
« Reply #5 on: May 01, 2007, 01:15:05 PM »

Okay, fair enough.  Perhaps Henry didn't "establish" the Church in the sense I'm using.  Would you go so far to say that his daughter did such a thing?

It still doesn't change the fact that he fashioned himself as head of the Church, which is my main problem with Anglicanism as traditionally understood.
Logged

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

Jurisdiction: ACROD
Posts: 2,076


« Reply #6 on: May 01, 2007, 01:23:10 PM »

It still doesn't change the fact that he fashioned himself as head of the Church, which is my main problem with Anglicanism as traditionally understood.

Schultz, he wasn't the first or last to covet that position.  The whole history of interaction between Popes and Emperors in the West is littered with a lot of inglorious history on both sides.  There was a lot of hook and crook involved involved with all parties.

I believe it's also likely that the Pope was probably going to let the divorce go through if political considerations hadn't been imposed on him.
Logged
Schultz
Christian. Guitarist. Zymurgist. Librarian.
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 6,461


Scion of the McKeesport Becks.


WWW
« Reply #7 on: May 01, 2007, 01:24:25 PM »

From what I've seen many Catholic apologists do though, and in a rather sneering "you're not a real church" way when dealing with Anglicans.

Which is exactly what i'm trying to stay away from.  If I'm failing at that, it's not because I want to have this attitude.  

All I'm asking for is the same honesty I try to exhibit when I admit that, as a Catholic, the papacy has, at times, exerted political power under the guise of ecclesiastical power and that there have been some real bad eggs on the throne of Peter.

I just don't understand the reluctance of some CAs to admit that Henry's divorces were just plain wrong.  Case in point, the friend I'm discussing this issue with now actually defends Henry's divorce from Catherine and marriage to Anne Boleyn on the grounds of "conscience".

Logged

"Hearing a nun's confession is like being stoned to death with popcorn." --Abp. Fulton Sheen
Aristibule
Your Weaker Brother
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: ROCOR
Posts: 515


Xeno


« Reply #8 on: May 01, 2007, 01:31:15 PM »

No, I wouldn't say any such thing about Elizabeth either - simply that she finalized the schism. Having said that, the monarch is really not 'head of the Church of England'. Polemicists like to say so (even some of our Orthodox polemicists), but really the Head of the Church of England is the Archbishop of Canterbury - but only in that he is the primate of their college of Bishops. The Anglicans have a Synodal model with the ABC as 'first among equals' - very much like us Orthodox. In theory and praxis, the relation of the British monarch to the CoE is not Caesaropapism, but similar (not exactly) to the Russian Czar or Byzantine Emperor (again, neither of those were caesaropapism.) There are some differences - in which I find aspects that either side had better - none were perfect.

Much of this one can find out by discussing it with Anglicans who are educated about their faith - they, like Catholics, Orthodox, Copts, etc - don't always live up (or down) to polemics about them. Not all of them are really educated about their own tradition either.

Then again - the divorce (and I agree it was wrong) is not the whole of the cause for the Schism, there are many other factors I would be glad to discuss. Part of it was that many had learned Protestant ideas from the Continent, and were importing books. Some saw schism as a way to make some cash (follow the money - who really gained from the loss of the monasteries?) Some were simply reasserting principles that one also saw later in France (true Gallicanism, not the Caesaro-papist kind - no Pope is above an Ecumenical Council, sure as no King is above the Pope.) Much of it had to do with Spanish maneuvering with a mind to conquering Britain. Good Queen Mary (bless her) - which as a Scot, I do love - she didn't understand that, nor the character of the English people and their religion. Her extremism the other way I also blame for the schism - she confirmed the fears of most English that they were trying to make England into the Continent. This is important to remember in that English Catholicism was the greatest in piety during that period - Italy, France and Spain were very marked by nominalism and sin during that period. Government interference was in fact a matter of life during those centuries - especially with Rome.
Logged

"We must begin at once to "build again the tabernacle which is fallen down, and to build again the ruins thereof, and to set it up;" for HE WHO GAVE THE THOUGHT IN OUR HEART HE LAID ALSO THE RESPONSIBILITY ON US THAT THIS THOUGHT SHOULD NOT REMAIN BARREN." - J.J. Overbeck, 1866
Schultz
Christian. Guitarist. Zymurgist. Librarian.
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 6,461


Scion of the McKeesport Becks.


WWW
« Reply #9 on: May 01, 2007, 01:36:38 PM »

Schultz, he wasn't the first or last to covet that position.  The whole history of interaction between Popes and Emperors in the West is littered with a lot of inglorious history on both sides.  There was a lot of hook and crook involved involved with all parties.

I believe it's also likely that the Pope was probably going to let the divorce go through if political considerations hadn't been imposed on him.

You are right, of course.  He was not the first or the last to do so.  Ever since Constantine the Great himself we've had monarchs meddling in church affairs.

But, as a Catholic, I don't understand why one of the base claims behind the Henrican Schism, that the lay secular monarch of a particular church's region/state/nation can be the Head of that particular church, can be upheld as Truth in the way that it is by some members of the Anglican Communion.
Logged

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

Jurisdiction: ACROD
Posts: 2,076


« Reply #10 on: May 01, 2007, 01:39:40 PM »

Quote
I just don't understand the reluctance of some CAs to admit that Henry's divorces were just plain wrong.

They're probably put off by the motivations of some, but not all, people who want to use this to undercut their validity.  I really don't think it was the divorces per se that are the issue.  I would guess other monarchs have had their marriages dissolved in order to get a male heir.  I think the issue with Henry is the way he dispatched his wives, which is most unsavory.

Anyway, what Henry wanted, later monarchs such as Joseph II of Austria got.  That was after excommunication and interdict ceased to be effective tools of political control however.  That was the lesson Henry probably taught the Papacy.
« Last Edit: May 01, 2007, 01:39:52 PM by welkodox » Logged
James2
Mr.
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: skeptic
Posts: 735



« Reply #11 on: May 01, 2007, 03:16:06 PM »

To begin with, the Church of England was a continuation of the local Catholic dioceses of England. This is why the Catholic hierarchy have no Archbishop of London, nor of York, or Lincoln.  Those three sees were lost to the Roman church by the schism of those bodies (note, schism - not 'creation of new church'.)

Was Lincoln ever an archdiocese?

The worship of the Church of England during Henry VIII's rule was the Sarum use of the Roman rite, with commemorations of the Pope removed, as well as commemorations of more recent saints.

But remember that it was Henry VIII who suppressed the monasteries - hardly a Catholic or Orthodox thing to do.

Even with the 1st Book of Common Prayer (1549) the liturgy was considered a Catholic rite by Rome - it was not until the Ordinal was changed that Rome changed its views on the matter.

I know that Bishop Gardiner said that he found the 1549 BCP acceptable while incarcerated in the Tower, but when did Rome ever say so?
Logged
Aristibule
Your Weaker Brother
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: ROCOR
Posts: 515


Xeno


« Reply #12 on: May 01, 2007, 08:04:12 PM »

Was Lincoln ever an archdiocese?

No, but it was a bishopric - a see, and was lost in 1584. In fact, it was Cardinal Wolsey's see - http://www.catholic-hierarchy.org/diocese/dl516.html Canterbury, York, and Lincoln were the three sees lost to Rome during that period - Canterbury and York being the two Archbishoprics. They also lost all the sees of Scotland and Wales - that's another story though.

Quote
But remember that it was Henry VIII who suppressed the monasteries - hardly a Catholic or Orthodox thing to do.

He did it because his ministers wanted it - and why? Because they wanted the loot. In fact, that was most often the reason behind every Calvinist movement, which I think is unique amongst the Protestants. Then again, there were Catholic monarchs before who looted Catholic Orders and had them suppressed because he wanted their wealth - consider the Knights Templar and Phillip of France. Consider Ivan the Terrible. Henry, of course, died holding to every other contemporary Catholic doctrine. He simply was a murderer and an adulterer, and a very bad Catholic.

Quote
I know that Bishop Gardiner said that he found the 1549 BCP acceptable while incarcerated in the Tower, but when did Rome ever say so?

Rome treated it de facto as so - it only ever met resistance in Cornwall and Wales, where the Rebellion for keeping the Sarum Use in Latin was as much about the English language being forced on a population that did not speak it, as it was about a change in religion. After all, there had been many parts of the services translated into English before the Henrician Schism (and, the 1549 is after the reign of Henry VIII.) Catholics were not forbidden from attending 1549 BCP services - that was later, and in fact was instigated over other matters than the form of the BCP. The 1549 BCP actually lasted through the period when the Government attempted to replace it with the second prayer book, and was reinstituted after Mary's reign. It was the interim rite until QEI-England was excommunicated and had the 1559 Prayer Book approved - which was far more Protestant in theology than the 1st Prayer Book. The 1549 continued as the normative text in Scotland with the SEC until the 1719 (besides the few English churches that came in later after the 1662, and used that rite.) The first Anglican text to really receive Rome's condemnation was the Ordinal. We've had that whole conversation elsewhere as to Rome and the 1549, I'll try to dig it up for you (without breaking forum rules.)
Logged

"We must begin at once to "build again the tabernacle which is fallen down, and to build again the ruins thereof, and to set it up;" for HE WHO GAVE THE THOUGHT IN OUR HEART HE LAID ALSO THE RESPONSIBILITY ON US THAT THIS THOUGHT SHOULD NOT REMAIN BARREN." - J.J. Overbeck, 1866
GiC
Resident Atheist
Site Supporter
Merarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Mathematician
Posts: 9,490



« Reply #13 on: May 01, 2007, 08:28:09 PM »

I do, however, have problems with a lay secular authority claiming to be head of a Christian church.

Well, not all of us have problems with that. The Emperor was, at least in a temporal sense, the head of the Church since he served as the Viceregent of Christ on earth.
Logged

"The liberties of people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them." -- Patrick Henry
lubeltri
Latin Catholic layman
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Boston
Posts: 3,795



« Reply #14 on: May 01, 2007, 08:39:28 PM »

Aristibule,

Definitely try to find that. I would love to read up more on Rome and the 1549 BCP.
Logged
Νεκτάριος
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Posts: 5,437



« Reply #15 on: May 02, 2007, 01:21:50 AM »

Schultz,

Look at this from the perspective of such an Anglican.  Their communion represents to them the best option of preserving traditional Christian worship and ethos (and in that sense, especially liturgically, many Anglicans are far better off than the RCC) without having to compromise and accept issues like Papal Infallibility or Universal Jurisdiction.  In their daily life Henry VIII is no more present than Honorius I in the life of a Catholic. 
Logged
James2
Mr.
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: skeptic
Posts: 735



« Reply #16 on: May 02, 2007, 01:16:22 PM »

No, but it was a bishopric - a see, and was lost in 1584. In fact, it was Cardinal Wolsey's see - http://www.catholic-hierarchy.org/diocese/dl516.html Canterbury, York, and Lincoln were the three sees lost to Rome during that period - Canterbury and York being the two Archbishoprics. They also lost all the sees of Scotland and Wales - that's another story though.

I'm confused.  What happened in 1584 to cause Lincoln to be be lost to Rome?  Wouldn't it have been lost in 1570 when the Pope excommunicated Elizabeth I?  And what about all the other medieval English sees (Salisbury, Durham, London, etc.) - weren't they lost also?
Logged
Aristibule
Your Weaker Brother
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: ROCOR
Posts: 515


Xeno


« Reply #17 on: May 02, 2007, 05:44:03 PM »

...bah... wierd database issue
« Last Edit: May 02, 2007, 05:45:48 PM by Aristibule » Logged

"We must begin at once to "build again the tabernacle which is fallen down, and to build again the ruins thereof, and to set it up;" for HE WHO GAVE THE THOUGHT IN OUR HEART HE LAID ALSO THE RESPONSIBILITY ON US THAT THIS THOUGHT SHOULD NOT REMAIN BARREN." - J.J. Overbeck, 1866
Aristibule
Your Weaker Brother
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: ROCOR
Posts: 515


Xeno


« Reply #18 on: May 02, 2007, 05:45:11 PM »

I'm confused.  What happened in 1584 to cause Lincoln to be be lost to Rome?  Wouldn't it have been lost in 1570 when the Pope excommunicated Elizabeth I?  And what about all the other medieval English sees (Salisbury, Durham, London, etc.) - weren't they lost also?

1584 was the date of the death of the last Bishop of Lincoln to be in communion with Rome. The two *previous* bishops were in schism. After 1584, the see remained in the Church of England. Why aren't other sees considered lost? I don't know, maybe more are - but it is instructive that the Roman church has not made bishops of those places occupied by Anglican bishops (even with the nullification of Anglican orders in the past.) I don't know if anyone has bothered to consider the effect of Old Catholic orders on that judgement either. However, those three sees are considered lost - not suppressed, not vacant. I don't have an answer for that yet - but I'm studying towards it.
Logged

"We must begin at once to "build again the tabernacle which is fallen down, and to build again the ruins thereof, and to set it up;" for HE WHO GAVE THE THOUGHT IN OUR HEART HE LAID ALSO THE RESPONSIBILITY ON US THAT THIS THOUGHT SHOULD NOT REMAIN BARREN." - J.J. Overbeck, 1866
serb1389
Lord, remember me when you come into your Kingdom!
Global Moderator
Merarches
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Metropolis of San Francisco
Posts: 8,189


Michał Kalina's biggest fan

FrNPantic
WWW
« Reply #19 on: May 04, 2007, 08:53:54 PM »

Forgive my ignorance, but what does "lost" mean?  How is a see lost?  Why isn't it vacant, or suppressed or anything else? 
Logged

I got nothing.
I forgot the maps
March 27th and May 30th 2010 were my Ordination dates, please forgive everything before that
Aristibule
Your Weaker Brother
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: ROCOR
Posts: 515


Xeno


« Reply #20 on: May 04, 2007, 11:23:07 PM »

Vacant means it is still within the Roman communion, but no bishop is assigned yet - ie sede vacante. Suppressed means the see no longer exists - usually suppressed sees have their property and jurisdiction given to another. A lost see still exists but is with another group - in this case, the Church of England. That is a little different than 'territory lost', which is simply territory from one jurisdiction coming under that of another - from what I understand, canonically iffy from our Orthodox pov.

Part of the history of the old English Catholics (also called Recusants) is that they became effectively without an episcopate during the Penal period. There were secular clergy, often 'catacomb' who were most often chaplains to families - their education was not always that high. Then there were the Jesuits, trained in their Continental schools. They were organized according to regional Vicariates. Only with the Catholic Emancipation in the 19th c. did the Roman Catholics gain an episcopate in Britain, which were given sees not the same as those held already by the Church of England, though some revived the names of old sees of the English Catholic Church. 

If one wants to begin an investigation of the complexity of the English history, a good place to start is with H.O. Wakeman M.A.'s "An Introduction to the History of the Church of England." Rivington's, 1898. The late 19th c. and early 20th c. have many other good works, but there are also some books of worth from the late 20th c. (Eamon Duffy's 'Stripping of the Altars'.)
Logged

"We must begin at once to "build again the tabernacle which is fallen down, and to build again the ruins thereof, and to set it up;" for HE WHO GAVE THE THOUGHT IN OUR HEART HE LAID ALSO THE RESPONSIBILITY ON US THAT THIS THOUGHT SHOULD NOT REMAIN BARREN." - J.J. Overbeck, 1866
serb1389
Lord, remember me when you come into your Kingdom!
Global Moderator
Merarches
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Metropolis of San Francisco
Posts: 8,189


Michał Kalina's biggest fan

FrNPantic
WWW
« Reply #21 on: May 05, 2007, 08:23:18 AM »

thanks for the explanation!! 

I don't think things like this exist in the Orthodox Church.  I'm probobly wrong though. 

My understanding is that once a diocese is created its there for forever.  It can be vacant, but never does it cease to exist.  Using your definition of "lost" I think this is what basically happens in the Orthodox church.  However, I would never use the term lost. 

Are those official definitions, or just something you came up with? 

Thanks again (espcially for the references). 
Logged

I got nothing.
I forgot the maps
March 27th and May 30th 2010 were my Ordination dates, please forgive everything before that
Aristibule
Your Weaker Brother
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: ROCOR
Posts: 515


Xeno


« Reply #22 on: May 05, 2007, 11:49:17 AM »

They are apparently legal terms used in canon law.

For that matter, we do have those terms in Orthodoxy. Which is why we've had things like Constantinople's territory created by carving out a chunk of Antioch's territory. Or the headship of the church of Rus moving from Kiev to Moscow. Sees can be transferred, merged, have their territory added to or taken away from, suppressed, created, or even lost - but whether a given situation is right or not depends on the canons and Christian charity.

All Western sees are 'Lost' to Orthodoxy - except, modern Orthodox hierarchs have mostly chosen to ignore that situation entirely and have titular bishops in the West. The same way Rome has no Archbishop of Canterbury, Orthodoxy has no Pope of Rome (and, they shouldn't if it is a Greek or Russian Byzantine rite bishop - that would be theft of a canonical territory.) I'm sitting here in North America, which is a lost see - being the canonical territory of the pre-Schism popes of Rome, the pre-schism Archbishops of Hamburg-Bremen, and the first bishopric on this continent - that of Gardar in Greenland. The first missionaries on the mainland were in fact Saxon and Irish priests. IIRC, there is a canon that states bishops may not take territory from a diocese that has lost its hierarchy, nor may they set up their own bishops there. In fact, they are supposed to restore an Orthodox episcopate to the people living there. AFAIK, that has only been done a few times for us in the West - when the Patriarch of Serbia and future first-hierarch of ROCOR consecrated a Western bishop of Moravia and Silesia, or when the Russians consecrated a Western bishop of Hrodno and later a Western bishop of St. Denis in Paris. I'm not sure how to count the short-lived episcopate of the Western bishop of Washington DC which was consecrated by the Russian Metropolia here in the USA, nor how to count the Western archbishop of London that Antioch and Alexandria brought in from the English Old Catholics.  I don't count the ones that the 'Living Church' consecrated - though one of that number was almost consecrated by Moscow in the 1960s, but the man was impatient and did not know the proper letters had already been sent and replied to - all that was left was to inform him of his impending consecration (that was here in the USA, in NY.)

Logged

"We must begin at once to "build again the tabernacle which is fallen down, and to build again the ruins thereof, and to set it up;" for HE WHO GAVE THE THOUGHT IN OUR HEART HE LAID ALSO THE RESPONSIBILITY ON US THAT THIS THOUGHT SHOULD NOT REMAIN BARREN." - J.J. Overbeck, 1866
Tags:
Pages: 1   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 0.101 seconds with 51 queries.