OrthodoxChristianity.net
November 23, 2014, 09:46:35 PM *
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 2 »  All   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: EP is locum tenens for the Pope of Rome  (Read 6676 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« on: October 02, 2009, 11:17:27 PM »

This is an interesting claim.

A British Court is told by a Bishop of the Ecumenical Patriarchate that the
Ecumenical Patriarch is the locum tenens of the Pope of Rome.

See Paragraph 37 and Paragraph 38.

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Ch/2009/1250.html

The EP presumably sees the Diocese of Rome as vacant.

Notice also the claim that Western Europe forms the canonical territory
of the EP and the bishops and parishes of the Russians, Serbs, Romanians
and Antiochians are infringing on Constantinople's territory.

Fr Ambrose

« Last Edit: October 02, 2009, 11:19:27 PM by Irish Hermit » Logged
Paisius
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Wherever the wind blows......
Posts: 1,194


Scheherazade


« Reply #1 on: October 02, 2009, 11:24:38 PM »

This is an interesting claim.

A British Court is told by a Bishop of the Ecumenical Patriarchate that the
Ecumenical Patriarch is the locum tenens of the Pope of Rome.

See Paragraph 37 and Paragraph 38.

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Ch/2009/1250.html

The EP presumably sees the Diocese of Rome as vacant.

Notice also the claim that Western Europe forms the canonical territory
of the EP and the bishops and parishes of the Russians, Serbs, Romanians
and Antiochians are infringing on Constantinople's territory.

Fr Ambrose



If that is indeed the position of His All Holiness then that puts recent ecumenical relations with Roman Catholics in a whole new light.  Undecided





Logged

"Government is the great fiction, through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else." - Frédéric Bastiat
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #2 on: October 02, 2009, 11:38:24 PM »


If that is indeed the position of His All Holiness then that puts recent ecumenical relations with Roman Catholics in a whole new light.  Undecided

To my mind it is a good thing that the Church is becoming aware of the extent of the Ecumenical Patriarch's self-understanding of his authority.

Hopefully it will mean that the bishops of the Church will discuss it at the upcoming Great Council and render decisions on it.
Logged
Paisius
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Wherever the wind blows......
Posts: 1,194


Scheherazade


« Reply #3 on: October 02, 2009, 11:55:44 PM »


If that is indeed the position of His All Holiness then that puts recent ecumenical relations with Roman Catholics in a whole new light.  Undecided

To my mind it is a good thing that the Church is becoming aware of the extent of the Ecumenical Patriarch's self-understanding of his authority.

Hopefully it will mean that the bishops of the Church will discuss it at the upcoming Great Council and render decisions on it.

Also, so much for the two lungs theory and charges of false ecumenism.  Wink

I for one feel the authority of the Ecumenical Patriarchate should be strengthened but as you say, that is a matter for the upcoming Council.
Logged

"Government is the great fiction, through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else." - Frédéric Bastiat
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: 37,963



« Reply #4 on: October 02, 2009, 11:57:55 PM »

This is an interesting claim.

A British Court is told by a Bishop of the Ecumenical Patriarchate that the
Ecumenical Patriarch is the locum tenens of the Pope of Rome.

See Paragraph 37 and Paragraph 38.

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Ch/2009/1250.html

The EP presumably sees the Diocese of Rome as vacant.

Notice also the claim that Western Europe forms the canonical territory
of the EP and the bishops and parishes of the Russians, Serbs, Romanians
and Antiochians are infringing on Constantinople's territory.

Fr Ambrose



Ah, the latest stupidity pressed into service for the cause.

Quote
"No amount of 'metaphorical and mystical unity' can change the non-canonical nature of this situation. It is contrary to fundamental canons and is not accepted, except by 'economy', by the Ecumenical Patriarchate, which has jurisdiction in Western Europe (but only for the Orthodox), as the locum tenens of the Pope of Rome."

I surmise that the reason why the "only the Orthodox" was put in is that the Anglican bishops under British law have jurisdiction as the "Church of England," and hence forcing the British court to give the same reply to the EP that it is compeled by statute to give to the Vatican.
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
Hamartolos
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 696


« Reply #5 on: October 03, 2009, 12:15:27 AM »


Also, so much for the two lungs theory and charges of false ecumenism.  Wink


Not to be to picky or a defender of the Pope but this has always bothered me.  The Pope, when he made the '2-lungs' theory, was not referring to the Orthodox Church.  His statement was in regard to the Eastern Rite of the Catholic Church, saying that the Latin and Eastern Rite make up the entirety of the Roman Catholic Church.  I have seen so many Orthodox who seem to not be able to get it out of their head that the Pope was trying to claim jurisdiction (or something like that) over Orthodoxy.  This is not what was meant.  If we want at least civil relations (not ecumenism) with other faiths then you have to be objective and not twist words around and make assumptions.  I am not attacking you in the least.  Like I said, I have heard this countless times and it is simply not true.  It is a needless reason to hold animosity towards the leader of another faith over a statement that wasn't even referring to us to begin with.
Logged

Formerly known as "mctavix"
witega
Is it enough now, to tell you you matter?
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Diocese of the South
Posts: 1,614


« Reply #6 on: October 03, 2009, 12:39:26 AM »

I don't know whether to laugh or cry.

On the one hand, it's always nice to see a representative of the EP clearly stating the Orthodox position that the see of Rome is vacant rather than trying to weasel around the situation. On the other hand ...

I won't even get into the reasoning by which which the EP claims to be the locum tenens for Rome, but let's say we accept that: The position of locum tenens is by nature a *temporary* position. It only exists for the span of time it takes to find a real replacement. And while I suppose one could argue that for centuries it simply wasn't possible to actually consecrate an Orthodox bishop for Rome (in the same way that the Moscow Patriarchate remained in the hands of a locum tenens for 18 years after the death of St. Tikhon because the Soviets wouldn't allow a replacement to be elected). But that's not the case now. If the EP is the locum tenens of Rome, then one of his top responsibilities should be arranging for a permanent occupant for the see. (Of course, based on the argument in this case, the EP would then have to turn over all of the 'West' to said bishop of Rome, so I won't hold my breath).
Logged

Ariel Starling - New album

For it were better to suffer everything, rather than divide the Church of God. Even martyrdom for the sake of preventing division would not be less glorious than for refusing to worship idols. - St. Dionysius the Great
witega
Is it enough now, to tell you you matter?
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Diocese of the South
Posts: 1,614


« Reply #7 on: October 03, 2009, 12:52:20 AM »

Okay, I said I wouldn't get into the reasoning behind the claim, but I can't resist--the linked summary doesn't appear to include this detail. It simply has Bishop Basil asserting the point (with the judge noting that this is "a matter of controversy between the two Patriarchates"--although I'm not sure if he means the EP and MP or the EP and Patriarch of Rome).

So what is the reasoning?
The EP certainly wasn't appointed as locum tenens by the last legitimate (from an Orthodox POV) holder of the See. And Rome was *NEVER* part of the territory of the Ecumenical Patriarchate such that the Patriarch or the local synod of Constantinople could make unilateral decisions about it. And I very much doubt there was ever a council that named the EP as locum tenens (because if there had been, I assume we would have seen it referenced and trumpetted long ago).

So does anyone know the reasoning? The only one I can see is that Rome was the 'First See', so in the case of its vacancy the next See automatically becomes locum tenens? Wouldn't that mean that after Patriarch Demetrios reposed, the Patriarch of Alexandria was locum tenens of Rome AND Constantinople until the election of +Bartholomew?
Logged

Ariel Starling - New album

For it were better to suffer everything, rather than divide the Church of God. Even martyrdom for the sake of preventing division would not be less glorious than for refusing to worship idols. - St. Dionysius the Great
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 32,902


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #8 on: October 03, 2009, 12:56:42 AM »

This is an interesting claim.

A British Court is told by a Bishop of the Ecumenical Patriarchate that the
Ecumenical Patriarch is the locum tenens of the Pope of Rome.

See Paragraph 37 and Paragraph 38.

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Ch/2009/1250.html

The EP presumably sees the Diocese of Rome as vacant.

Notice also the claim that Western Europe forms the canonical territory
of the EP and the bishops and parishes of the Russians, Serbs, Romanians
and Antiochians are infringing on Constantinople's territory.

Fr Ambrose


I take it that you, a ROCOR priest therefore under Moscow's jurisdiction, have a problem with this territorial claim of the EP.
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: 37,963



« Reply #9 on: October 03, 2009, 12:58:51 AM »

just to make things more interesting, I'll mention that the Patriarch of Romania has, ex offiicio, the title "Locum Tenens of See of St. Basil at Caesarea.
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: 37,963



« Reply #10 on: October 03, 2009, 01:01:28 AM »

This is an interesting claim.

A British Court is told by a Bishop of the Ecumenical Patriarchate that the
Ecumenical Patriarch is the locum tenens of the Pope of Rome.

See Paragraph 37 and Paragraph 38.

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Ch/2009/1250.html

The EP presumably sees the Diocese of Rome as vacant.

Notice also the claim that Western Europe forms the canonical territory
of the EP and the bishops and parishes of the Russians, Serbs, Romanians
and Antiochians are infringing on Constantinople's territory.

Fr Ambrose


I take it that you, a ROCOR priest therefore under Moscow's jurisdiction, have a problem with this territorial claim of the EP.
How perceptive of you, an OCA layman and therefore of a jurisdiction not recognized by the EP. This layman under the Patriarch of Antioch, and therefore not one who has the EP as Mother Church, have a problem with the territorial claim of the EP.
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: 32,902


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #11 on: October 03, 2009, 01:30:13 AM »

This is an interesting claim.

A British Court is told by a Bishop of the Ecumenical Patriarchate that the
Ecumenical Patriarch is the locum tenens of the Pope of Rome.

See Paragraph 37 and Paragraph 38.

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Ch/2009/1250.html

The EP presumably sees the Diocese of Rome as vacant.

Notice also the claim that Western Europe forms the canonical territory
of the EP and the bishops and parishes of the Russians, Serbs, Romanians
and Antiochians are infringing on Constantinople's territory.

Fr Ambrose


I take it that you, a ROCOR priest therefore under Moscow's jurisdiction, have a problem with this territorial claim of the EP.
How perceptive of you, an OCA layman and therefore of a jurisdiction not recognized by the EP. This layman under the Patriarch of Antioch, and therefore not one who has the EP as Mother Church, have a problem with the territorial claim of the EP.
I wasn't talking to you.
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: 37,963



« Reply #12 on: October 03, 2009, 01:32:58 AM »

This is an interesting claim.

A British Court is told by a Bishop of the Ecumenical Patriarchate that the
Ecumenical Patriarch is the locum tenens of the Pope of Rome.

See Paragraph 37 and Paragraph 38.

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Ch/2009/1250.html

The EP presumably sees the Diocese of Rome as vacant.

Notice also the claim that Western Europe forms the canonical territory
of the EP and the bishops and parishes of the Russians, Serbs, Romanians
and Antiochians are infringing on Constantinople's territory.

Fr Ambrose


I take it that you, a ROCOR priest therefore under Moscow's jurisdiction, have a problem with this territorial claim of the EP.
How perceptive of you, an OCA layman and therefore of a jurisdiction not recognized by the EP. This layman under the Patriarch of Antioch, and therefore not one who has the EP as Mother Church, have a problem with the territorial claim of the EP.
I wasn't talking to you.

If you aren't PMing, yes you were.
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
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #13 on: October 03, 2009, 01:42:23 AM »

This is an interesting claim.

A British Court is told by a Bishop of the Ecumenical Patriarchate that the
Ecumenical Patriarch is the locum tenens of the Pope of Rome.

See Paragraph 37 and Paragraph 38.

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Ch/2009/1250.html

The EP presumably sees the Diocese of Rome as vacant.

Notice also the claim that Western Europe forms the canonical territory
of the EP and the bishops and parishes of the Russians, Serbs, Romanians
and Antiochians are infringing on Constantinople's territory.

Fr Ambrose


I take it that you, a ROCOR priest therefore under Moscow's jurisdiction, have a problem with this territorial claim of the EP.
Yes, I do have a problem.  I would think that it would be not just the Church of Russia and the Russian Church Abroad which would have problems but also the Serbian Patriarchate, Romania, Bulgaria, Antioch, etc., who all have bishops and parishes in Western Europe.
Logged
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 32,902


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #14 on: October 03, 2009, 02:05:23 AM »

This is an interesting claim.

A British Court is told by a Bishop of the Ecumenical Patriarchate that the
Ecumenical Patriarch is the locum tenens of the Pope of Rome.

See Paragraph 37 and Paragraph 38.

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Ch/2009/1250.html

The EP presumably sees the Diocese of Rome as vacant.

Notice also the claim that Western Europe forms the canonical territory
of the EP and the bishops and parishes of the Russians, Serbs, Romanians
and Antiochians are infringing on Constantinople's territory.

Fr Ambrose


I take it that you, a ROCOR priest therefore under Moscow's jurisdiction, have a problem with this territorial claim of the EP.
Yes, I do have a problem.  I would think that it would be not just the Church of Russia and the Russian Church Abroad which would have problems but also the Serbian Patriarchate, Romania, Bulgaria, Antioch, etc., who all have bishops and parishes in Western Europe.
And don't you think the parallel presence of so many different jurisdictions in Western Europe a canonical problem unto itself?  I'm not necessarily arguing in support of Constantinople's claims to sole jurisdictional authority there, but I think one single jurisdictional authority in Western Europe, even if it be Constantinople's, vastly preferable to the current jurisdictional quagmire I see there.
Logged
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #15 on: October 03, 2009, 02:21:13 AM »

This is an interesting claim.

A British Court is told by a Bishop of the Ecumenical Patriarchate that the
Ecumenical Patriarch is the locum tenens of the Pope of Rome.

See Paragraph 37 and Paragraph 38.

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Ch/2009/1250.html

The EP presumably sees the Diocese of Rome as vacant.

Notice also the claim that Western Europe forms the canonical territory
of the EP and the bishops and parishes of the Russians, Serbs, Romanians
and Antiochians are infringing on Constantinople's territory.

Fr Ambrose


I take it that you, a ROCOR priest therefore under Moscow's jurisdiction, have a problem with this territorial claim of the EP.
Yes, I do have a problem.  I would think that it would be not just the Church of Russia and the Russian Church Abroad which would have problems but also the Serbian Patriarchate, Romania, Bulgaria, Antioch, etc., who all have bishops and parishes in Western Europe.

And don't you think the parallel presence of so many different jurisdictions in Western Europe a canonical problem unto itself?

Not really,  I think that the immigrant communities prefer to retain their own ecclesial structures and identity.

Converts do not seem overly fussed about the overlapping Churches and dioceses and in fact the situation allows them a smorgasbord of choice to choose a Church which suits their own temperament.

Perhaps the upcoming Great Council which is supposed to address the Diaspora and its well-being will have proposals as to the best way to move towards a single administration?  In the meantime the Europeans will muddle along with what they have.
« Last Edit: October 03, 2009, 02:22:31 AM by Irish Hermit » Logged
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 32,902


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #16 on: October 03, 2009, 02:53:04 AM »

This is an interesting claim.

A British Court is told by a Bishop of the Ecumenical Patriarchate that the
Ecumenical Patriarch is the locum tenens of the Pope of Rome.

See Paragraph 37 and Paragraph 38.

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Ch/2009/1250.html

The EP presumably sees the Diocese of Rome as vacant.

Notice also the claim that Western Europe forms the canonical territory
of the EP and the bishops and parishes of the Russians, Serbs, Romanians
and Antiochians are infringing on Constantinople's territory.

Fr Ambrose


I take it that you, a ROCOR priest therefore under Moscow's jurisdiction, have a problem with this territorial claim of the EP.
Yes, I do have a problem.  I would think that it would be not just the Church of Russia and the Russian Church Abroad which would have problems but also the Serbian Patriarchate, Romania, Bulgaria, Antioch, etc., who all have bishops and parishes in Western Europe.

And don't you think the parallel presence of so many different jurisdictions in Western Europe a canonical problem unto itself?

Not really,  I think that the immigrant communities prefer to retain their own ecclesial structures and identity.
But I did not ask about what the immigrant communities prefer.  I asked about what the canons of the Church mandate (the definition of "canonical"): that we have only one Orthodox bishop per territorial region and that episcopal jurisdictions therefore not overlap.  To subject ecclesiastical structure to ethnicity, as you suggest may be good, is by definition ethnophyletism, is it not?

Converts do not seem overly fussed about the overlapping Churches and dioceses and in fact the situation allows them a smorgasbord of choice to choose a Church which suits their own temperament.
But should we tolerate an uncanonical monstrosity because this is what converts seem to prefer?  I would even venture to say that what you described is a very bad thing, since this puts the matter of choice of church into the hands of each individual, thus making the Church subservient to the whims of the individual.

Perhaps the upcoming Great Council which is supposed to address the Diaspora and its well-being will have proposals as to the best way to move towards a single administration?  In the meantime the Europeans will muddle along with what they have.
For better or for worse, maybe we have no choice but to resign ourselves to this embarrassing fact. Embarrassed
« Last Edit: October 03, 2009, 03:03:38 AM by PeterTheAleut » Logged
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #17 on: October 03, 2009, 05:28:28 AM »

This is an interesting claim.

A British Court is told by a Bishop of the Ecumenical Patriarchate that the
Ecumenical Patriarch is the locum tenens of the Pope of Rome.

See Paragraph 37 and Paragraph 38.

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Ch/2009/1250.html

The EP presumably sees the Diocese of Rome as vacant.

Notice also the claim that Western Europe forms the canonical territory
of the EP and the bishops and parishes of the Russians, Serbs, Romanians
and Antiochians are infringing on Constantinople's territory.

Fr Ambrose


I take it that you, a ROCOR priest therefore under Moscow's jurisdiction, have a problem with this territorial claim of the EP.
Yes, I do have a problem.  I would think that it would be not just the Church of Russia and the Russian Church Abroad which would have problems but also the Serbian Patriarchate, Romania, Bulgaria, Antioch, etc., who all have bishops and parishes in Western Europe.

And don't you think the parallel presence of so many different jurisdictions in Western Europe a canonical problem unto itself?

Not really,  I think that the immigrant communities prefer to retain their own ecclesial structures and identity.
But I did not ask about what the immigrant communities prefer.  I asked about what the canons of the Church mandate (the definition of "canonical"): that we have only one Orthodox bishop per territorial region and that episcopal jurisdictions therefore not overlap.

The canons exist for the well-being of the Church.  For the last 100 years the canons about canonical territory have been set aside in the Diaspora, obviously because this is, at this time, for the well-being of the Church in the Diaspora.  For the first time in its history the Church has had to face the hitherto unknown phenomenon of mass migration of members of its Local Churches into foreign countries.  It is unprecedented and the canons have not foreseen it.

Likewise the canons mandating 'one bishop, one city' will have to be set aside now because our cities have become of an immense size which the Fathers of the Councils could not have imagined.  We shall now need to divide our cities into several dioceses, each with its own bishop.   It would be possible to do what Moscow has done and appoint multiple vicar bishops for the megalopolis but this is not something envisaged by the Fathers and the Canons either.  In my opinion, rather than this somewhat artificial situation of megalopoli with subordinate vicar bishops it is more in line with Orthodox thinking ,the nature of the episcopate and the intention of the canons to make many dioceses out of our modern cities.


 
« Last Edit: October 03, 2009, 05:29:30 AM by Irish Hermit » Logged
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #18 on: October 03, 2009, 05:40:13 AM »

This is an interesting claim.

A British Court is told by a Bishop of the Ecumenical Patriarchate that the
Ecumenical Patriarch is the locum tenens of the Pope of Rome.

See Paragraph 37 and Paragraph 38.

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Ch/2009/1250.html

The EP presumably sees the Diocese of Rome as vacant.

Notice also the claim that Western Europe forms the canonical territory
of the EP and the bishops and parishes of the Russians, Serbs, Romanians
and Antiochians are infringing on Constantinople's territory.

Fr Ambrose


I take it that you, a ROCOR priest therefore under Moscow's jurisdiction, have a problem with this territorial claim of the EP.
Yes, I do have a problem.  I would think that it would be not just the Church of Russia and the Russian Church Abroad which would have problems but also the Serbian Patriarchate, Romania, Bulgaria, Antioch, etc., who all have bishops and parishes in Western Europe.

And don't you think the parallel presence of so many different jurisdictions in Western Europe a canonical problem unto itself?

Not really,  I think that the immigrant communities prefer to retain their own ecclesial structures and identity.
But I did not ask about what the immigrant communities prefer.  I asked about what the canons of the Church mandate (the definition of "canonical"): that we have only one Orthodox bishop per territorial region and that episcopal jurisdictions therefore not overlap.  To subject ecclesiastical structure to ethnicity, as you suggest may be good, is by definition ethnophyletism, is it not?

Converts do not seem overly fussed about the overlapping Churches and dioceses and in fact the situation allows them a smorgasbord of choice to choose a Church which suits their own temperament.

But should we tolerate an uncanonical monstrosity because this is what converts seem to prefer?

No, and I did not suggest that we should tolerate it for the sake of converts.  I only pointed out that a serendipity side effect of multiple Churches in one area permits converts the luxury of a smorgasbord choice of which Church to belong to.

We are tolerating what you call "an uncanonical monstrosity" because the bishops tolerate it and view it as the prevailing situation in the Diaspora which they are powerless to change or possibly not willing to change.   They may see benefits in the present situation.
Logged
Orthodoc
Supporter & Defender Of Orthodoxy
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 2,526

Those who ignore history tend to repeat it.


« Reply #19 on: October 03, 2009, 07:34:59 AM »

This is an interesting claim.

A British Court is told by a Bishop of the Ecumenical Patriarchate that the
Ecumenical Patriarch is the locum tenens of the Pope of Rome.

See Paragraph 37 and Paragraph 38.

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Ch/2009/1250.html

The EP presumably sees the Diocese of Rome as vacant.

Notice also the claim that Western Europe forms the canonical territory
of the EP and the bishops and parishes of the Russians, Serbs, Romanians
and Antiochians are infringing on Constantinople's territory.

Fr Ambrose


I take it that you, a ROCOR priest therefore under Moscow's jurisdiction, have a problem with this territorial claim of the EP.
How perceptive of you, an OCA layman and therefore of a jurisdiction not recognized by the EP. This layman under the Patriarch of Antioch, and therefore not one who has the EP as Mother Church, have a problem with the territorial claim of the EP.

As does this OCA layman.

Orthodoc
Logged

Oh Lord, Save thy people and bless thine inheritance.
Grant victory to the Orthodox Christians over their adversaries.
And by virtue of thy Cross preserve thy habitation.
AlexanderOfBergamo
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Traditionalist Christian
Jurisdiction: The Original First Millennium Church
Posts: 706


« Reply #20 on: October 03, 2009, 08:46:58 AM »

This claim is very interesting, and I personally like it. I may sound impopular, but I hoped for such a claim, even if I love my Russian Church.
I'll try and explain why I think it to be useful.
Since its beginnings, the Church tried to establish coryphei among the bishops: primi inter pares who might organize the church and grant the preservation of Orthodoxy/Catholicity. The Church of Rome, because of its role as imperial capital, for its dignity as the last see of saints Peter and Paul, and for its preservation of the deposit of faith up to that time, was chosen initially to be the head of all these coryphei, the original Pentarchy. When the capital was moved to Constantinople, this see became the second in dignity. If we acknowledge that, after Rome apostatized, the Holy Orthodox Church has remained without a true primate of the West, we must admit the Orthodox Church is really "defective" and thus Rome is essential to the Pentarchy and the Church entire - a thing I would never accept to acknowledge, personally. But if the church of Rome only had a CANONICAL primacy, as most Orthodox believe, her role as corypheus must have been absorbed in the second Patriarchate in rank, i.e. Constantinople the New Rome.
On the question of the many churches existent in the West from Diaspora, I think a new canonical reformation is necessary. The canons only took in consideration the indigenous churches of Western Europe, and not the Americas, or even the immigrant communities of diaspora in Western Europe after a 900 years of Orthodox absence from the Western countries. I still hope in the constitution of independent inter-ethnic autocephalous churches in America and in Europe, where all ethnical groups are ruled by their own primate and, at the same time, a Patriarch be appointed from the Greek Orthodox Church to serve as local coryphei under the omophorion of the EP. This would preserve unity in the West. Also, I hope for the canonical transfer of the Eastern European churches under the omophorion of the MP, considering that Moscow has founded many of these churches, or that the same Moscow See is the historical heir of the archbishopric in Kiev, and for the recognition of Moscow as a Great Patriarchate, fifth in rank after Jerusalem, to rebuilt the lost Pentarchy.The re-distribution of the Patriarchates according to their geographical jurisdictions in a full respect of the ethnic traditions, the re-unification under a unique calendar (I think that a field for discussion and agreement is still possible here, despite all hatred and divisions), and a definitive take on the "ecumenicity" of synods such as the IV and V councils of Constantinople or the Pan-Orthodox Synod of Jerusalem would be the true problems a future Pan-Orthodox Council should try to solve to preserve church unity. I pray for this to happen as soon as possible, before modernism might overcome the church and bring apostasy in her at the coming of Antichrist.

In Christ,   Alex
« Last Edit: October 03, 2009, 08:48:10 AM by AlexanderOfBergamo » Logged

"Also in the Catholic Church itself we take great care that we hold that which has been believed everywhere, always, by all. For that is truly and properly Catholic" (St. Vincent of Lérins, "The Commonitory")
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: 37,963



« Reply #21 on: October 03, 2009, 09:56:41 AM »

This is an interesting claim.

A British Court is told by a Bishop of the Ecumenical Patriarchate that the
Ecumenical Patriarch is the locum tenens of the Pope of Rome.

See Paragraph 37 and Paragraph 38.

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Ch/2009/1250.html

The EP presumably sees the Diocese of Rome as vacant.

Notice also the claim that Western Europe forms the canonical territory
of the EP and the bishops and parishes of the Russians, Serbs, Romanians
and Antiochians are infringing on Constantinople's territory.

Fr Ambrose


I take it that you, a ROCOR priest therefore under Moscow's jurisdiction, have a problem with this territorial claim of the EP.
Yes, I do have a problem.  I would think that it would be not just the Church of Russia and the Russian Church Abroad which would have problems but also the Serbian Patriarchate, Romania, Bulgaria, Antioch, etc., who all have bishops and parishes in Western Europe.

And don't you think the parallel presence of so many different jurisdictions in Western Europe a canonical problem unto itself?

Not really,  I think that the immigrant communities prefer to retain their own ecclesial structures and identity.
But I did not ask about what the immigrant communities prefer.  I asked about what the canons of the Church mandate (the definition of "canonical"): that we have only one Orthodox bishop per territorial region and that episcopal jurisdictions therefore not overlap.  To subject ecclesiastical structure to ethnicity, as you suggest may be good, is by definition ethnophyletism, is it not?

Converts do not seem overly fussed about the overlapping Churches and dioceses and in fact the situation allows them a smorgasbord of choice to choose a Church which suits their own temperament.
But should we tolerate an uncanonical monstrosity because this is what converts seem to prefer?  I would even venture to say that what you described is a very bad thing, since this puts the matter of choice of church into the hands of each individual, thus making the Church subservient to the whims of the individual.

The EP is an individual.

And he seems to both call a council and preempt its decision, like another certain patriarch we are no longer in communion with. Roll Eyes

Like North America, there was a single organized jurisdiction in Western Europe (Russia) and another in Central Europe (Serbia) until Met/Archbishop/EP/Pope Meletios came on the scene.  St. John Maximovich outlines that.

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: 37,963



« Reply #22 on: October 03, 2009, 10:02:39 AM »

This claim is very interesting, and I personally like it. I may sound impopular, but I hoped for such a claim, even if I love my Russian Church.
I'll try and explain why I think it to be useful.
Since its beginnings, the Church tried to establish coryphei among the bishops: primi inter pares who might organize the church and grant the preservation of Orthodoxy/Catholicity. The Church of Rome, because of its role as imperial capital, for its dignity as the last see of saints Peter and Paul, and for its preservation of the deposit of faith up to that time, was chosen initially to be the head of all these coryphei, the original Pentarchy. When the capital was moved to Constantinople, this see became the second in dignity. If we acknowledge that, after Rome apostatized, the Holy Orthodox Church has remained without a true primate of the West, we must admit the Orthodox Church is really "defective" and thus Rome is essential to the Pentarchy and the Church entire - a thing I would never accept to acknowledge, personally. But if the church of Rome only had a CANONICAL primacy, as most Orthodox believe, her role as corypheus must have been absorbed in the second Patriarchate in rank, i.e. Constantinople the New Rome.

Actually, an EO patriarch must be enthroned in Rome, as was done in Alexandria and Antioch.


Quote
On the question of the many churches existent in the West from Diaspora, I think a new canonical reformation is necessary. The canons only took in consideration the indigenous churches of Western Europe, and not the Americas, or even the immigrant communities of diaspora in Western Europe after a 900 years of Orthodox absence from the Western countries. I still hope in the constitution of independent inter-ethnic autocephalous churches in America and in Europe, where all ethnical groups are ruled by their own primate and, at the same time, a Patriarch be appointed from the Greek Orthodox Church to serve as local coryphei under the omophorion of the EP. This would preserve unity in the West. Also, I hope for the canonical transfer of the Eastern European churches under the omophorion of the MP, considering that Moscow has founded many of these churches, or that the same Moscow See is the historical heir of the archbishopric in Kiev, and for the recognition of Moscow as a Great Patriarchate, fifth in rank after Jerusalem, to rebuilt the lost Pentarchy.The re-distribution of the Patriarchates according to their geographical jurisdictions in a full respect of the ethnic traditions, the re-unification under a unique calendar (I think that a field for discussion and agreement is still possible here, despite all hatred and divisions), and a definitive take on the "ecumenicity" of synods such as the IV and V councils of Constantinople or the Pan-Orthodox Synod of Jerusalem would be the true problems a future Pan-Orthodox Council should try to solve to preserve church unity. I pray for this to happen as soon as possible, before modernism might overcome the church and bring apostasy in her at the coming of Antichrist.

Like Old Rome when its Ultramontanism was developing, New Rome is not in the position to do any of the above.  Rather than universal, it is, as its Chief Secretary proved earlier this year, among the most parochial of Churches.
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
AlexanderOfBergamo
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Traditionalist Christian
Jurisdiction: The Original First Millennium Church
Posts: 706


« Reply #23 on: October 03, 2009, 10:44:00 AM »

This claim is very interesting, and I personally like it. I may sound impopular, but I hoped for such a claim, even if I love my Russian Church.
I'll try and explain why I think it to be useful.
Since its beginnings, the Church tried to establish coryphei among the bishops: primi inter pares who might organize the church and grant the preservation of Orthodoxy/Catholicity. The Church of Rome, because of its role as imperial capital, for its dignity as the last see of saints Peter and Paul, and for its preservation of the deposit of faith up to that time, was chosen initially to be the head of all these coryphei, the original Pentarchy. When the capital was moved to Constantinople, this see became the second in dignity. If we acknowledge that, after Rome apostatized, the Holy Orthodox Church has remained without a true primate of the West, we must admit the Orthodox Church is really "defective" and thus Rome is essential to the Pentarchy and the Church entire - a thing I would never accept to acknowledge, personally. But if the church of Rome only had a CANONICAL primacy, as most Orthodox believe, her role as corypheus must have been absorbed in the second Patriarchate in rank, i.e. Constantinople the New Rome.

Actually, an EO patriarch must be enthroned in Rome, as was done in Alexandria and Antioch.


Quote
On the question of the many churches existent in the West from Diaspora, I think a new canonical reformation is necessary. The canons only took in consideration the indigenous churches of Western Europe, and not the Americas, or even the immigrant communities of diaspora in Western Europe after a 900 years of Orthodox absence from the Western countries. I still hope in the constitution of independent inter-ethnic autocephalous churches in America and in Europe, where all ethnical groups are ruled by their own primate and, at the same time, a Patriarch be appointed from the Greek Orthodox Church to serve as local coryphei under the omophorion of the EP. This would preserve unity in the West. Also, I hope for the canonical transfer of the Eastern European churches under the omophorion of the MP, considering that Moscow has founded many of these churches, or that the same Moscow See is the historical heir of the archbishopric in Kiev, and for the recognition of Moscow as a Great Patriarchate, fifth in rank after Jerusalem, to rebuilt the lost Pentarchy.The re-distribution of the Patriarchates according to their geographical jurisdictions in a full respect of the ethnic traditions, the re-unification under a unique calendar (I think that a field for discussion and agreement is still possible here, despite all hatred and divisions), and a definitive take on the "ecumenicity" of synods such as the IV and V councils of Constantinople or the Pan-Orthodox Synod of Jerusalem would be the true problems a future Pan-Orthodox Council should try to solve to preserve church unity. I pray for this to happen as soon as possible, before modernism might overcome the church and bring apostasy in her at the coming of Antichrist.

Like Old Rome when its Ultramontanism was developing, New Rome is not in the position to do any of the above.  Rather than universal, it is, as its Chief Secretary proved earlier this year, among the most parochial of Churches.

I don't understand your point. An Ecumenical Council can decide to suppress the Old Rome see and entrust its territories to Constantinople, if this is the opinion of the Council.

I also don't understand what trace of Ultramontanism you would see in re-affirming the role of the EP as first among equals and organizer for a Great Council. It will be the Council to decide everything, and not certaintly the Patriarch himself, as it was at the time when Old Rome presided in charity as first among equals in the episcopacy of the First Millennium church. Or are you saying that it is now impossible for the Orthodox church to convene an Ecumenical council without a true "Pope of Old Rome" on its see? That's sedevacantist ultra-montanism: claiming that we need a new infallible back after the 1054 apostasy... It sounds strange. Correct me, 'cause I just don't see any problem in convening a council.
Also, I still don't understand the eternal fight for power of the different sees. Orthodoxy claims universality, but you still live according to ethnicity.

In Christ,   Alex
Logged

"Also in the Catholic Church itself we take great care that we hold that which has been believed everywhere, always, by all. For that is truly and properly Catholic" (St. Vincent of Lérins, "The Commonitory")
observer
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 546

Vivre die Raznitsa!


« Reply #24 on: October 03, 2009, 01:03:12 PM »

Some see a quagmire indeed! Huh   I see a green meadow, a  spiritual meadow with diverse flowers of Orthodox
Tradition.  The Church is a living organism not a legal institute.  Was man made for the sabbath?  the canons were made for the Church and its growth throughout the centuries.  I don't relish the thought of some admin unity.  Which calendar?  which language? Everyone must pray on page 11 of the Orthodox Manual at 9 pm.  they had a similar method in Canadian schools.  They boasted how they knew what every child was learning on a certain date, time and area.

The EP claims to be the canonical jurisdiction of North America and I suppose South America too.  This madness has to be checked in my opinion.
Logged

Thou shalt not prefer one thing to another (Law of Liberalism)
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 32,902


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #25 on: October 03, 2009, 01:56:58 PM »

This is an interesting claim.

A British Court is told by a Bishop of the Ecumenical Patriarchate that the
Ecumenical Patriarch is the locum tenens of the Pope of Rome.

See Paragraph 37 and Paragraph 38.

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Ch/2009/1250.html

The EP presumably sees the Diocese of Rome as vacant.

Notice also the claim that Western Europe forms the canonical territory
of the EP and the bishops and parishes of the Russians, Serbs, Romanians
and Antiochians are infringing on Constantinople's territory.

Fr Ambrose


I take it that you, a ROCOR priest therefore under Moscow's jurisdiction, have a problem with this territorial claim of the EP.
Yes, I do have a problem.  I would think that it would be not just the Church of Russia and the Russian Church Abroad which would have problems but also the Serbian Patriarchate, Romania, Bulgaria, Antioch, etc., who all have bishops and parishes in Western Europe.
And don't you think the parallel presence of so many different jurisdictions in Western Europe a canonical problem unto itself?  I'm not necessarily arguing in support of Constantinople's claims to sole jurisdictional authority there, but I think one single jurisdictional authority in Western Europe, even if it be Constantinople's, vastly preferable to the current jurisdictional quagmire I see there.
Irish Hermit, ialmisry, and Orthodoc,

I think my posting record here at OC.net will show that I have been a critic of the modern EP's interpretation of Chalcedon Canon 28, so I join you in your disdain for the pro-EP sentiments expressed in the legal document Irish Hermit brought up for comment in the OP.  Thus, the ideal I would like to see in Western Europe and the Americas is one united administrative body that reflects the sacramental unity we all share (what I understand to be the spirit of the "one bishop for one city" canons) yet is also self-governing.  Until we accomplish such a situation, I think the pursuit of administrative unity more important than continued griping about the EP's spurious claims to jurisdiction in the "barbarian" lands.  If we must submit to the EP's jurisdiction, albeit temporarily, to achieve this administrative unity mandated by the spirit of the canons (that our multi-ethnic administrative unity manifest our sacramental unity), then so be it.
« Last Edit: October 03, 2009, 06:32:46 PM by PeterTheAleut » Logged
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 32,902


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #26 on: October 03, 2009, 02:01:13 PM »

This is an interesting claim.

A British Court is told by a Bishop of the Ecumenical Patriarchate that the
Ecumenical Patriarch is the locum tenens of the Pope of Rome.

See Paragraph 37 and Paragraph 38.

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Ch/2009/1250.html

The EP presumably sees the Diocese of Rome as vacant.

Notice also the claim that Western Europe forms the canonical territory
of the EP and the bishops and parishes of the Russians, Serbs, Romanians
and Antiochians are infringing on Constantinople's territory.

Fr Ambrose


I take it that you, a ROCOR priest therefore under Moscow's jurisdiction, have a problem with this territorial claim of the EP.
Yes, I do have a problem.  I would think that it would be not just the Church of Russia and the Russian Church Abroad which would have problems but also the Serbian Patriarchate, Romania, Bulgaria, Antioch, etc., who all have bishops and parishes in Western Europe.

And don't you think the parallel presence of so many different jurisdictions in Western Europe a canonical problem unto itself?

Not really,  I think that the immigrant communities prefer to retain their own ecclesial structures and identity.
But I did not ask about what the immigrant communities prefer.  I asked about what the canons of the Church mandate (the definition of "canonical"): that we have only one Orthodox bishop per territorial region and that episcopal jurisdictions therefore not overlap.  To subject ecclesiastical structure to ethnicity, as you suggest may be good, is by definition ethnophyletism, is it not?

Converts do not seem overly fussed about the overlapping Churches and dioceses and in fact the situation allows them a smorgasbord of choice to choose a Church which suits their own temperament.
But should we tolerate an uncanonical monstrosity because this is what converts seem to prefer?  I would even venture to say that what you described is a very bad thing, since this puts the matter of choice of church into the hands of each individual, thus making the Church subservient to the whims of the individual.

The EP is an individual.

And he seems to both call a council and preempt its decision, like another certain patriarch we are no longer in communion with. Roll Eyes

Like North America, there was a single organized jurisdiction in Western Europe (Russia) and another in Central Europe (Serbia) until Met/Archbishop/EP/Pope Meletios came on the scene.  St. John Maximovich outlines that.


After the Bolshevik Revolution severed ecclesiastical ties between Western Europe and Moscow, did the EP forcefully annex the Russian emigre churches in Western Europe, or did the Russian emigre churches take the initiative to pursue a transfer to the EP's jurisdiction?
Logged
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 32,902


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #27 on: October 03, 2009, 02:17:23 PM »

This is an interesting claim.

A British Court is told by a Bishop of the Ecumenical Patriarchate that the
Ecumenical Patriarch is the locum tenens of the Pope of Rome.

See Paragraph 37 and Paragraph 38.

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Ch/2009/1250.html

The EP presumably sees the Diocese of Rome as vacant.

Notice also the claim that Western Europe forms the canonical territory
of the EP and the bishops and parishes of the Russians, Serbs, Romanians
and Antiochians are infringing on Constantinople's territory.

Fr Ambrose


I take it that you, a ROCOR priest therefore under Moscow's jurisdiction, have a problem with this territorial claim of the EP.
Yes, I do have a problem.  I would think that it would be not just the Church of Russia and the Russian Church Abroad which would have problems but also the Serbian Patriarchate, Romania, Bulgaria, Antioch, etc., who all have bishops and parishes in Western Europe.

And don't you think the parallel presence of so many different jurisdictions in Western Europe a canonical problem unto itself?

Not really,  I think that the immigrant communities prefer to retain their own ecclesial structures and identity.
But I did not ask about what the immigrant communities prefer.  I asked about what the canons of the Church mandate (the definition of "canonical"): that we have only one Orthodox bishop per territorial region and that episcopal jurisdictions therefore not overlap.

The canons exist for the well-being of the Church.  For the last 100 years the canons about canonical territory have been set aside in the Diaspora, obviously because this is, at this time, for the well-being of the Church in the Diaspora.  For the first time in its history the Church has had to face the hitherto unknown phenomenon of mass migration of members of its Local Churches into foreign countries.  It is unprecedented and the canons have not foreseen it.

Likewise the canons mandating 'one bishop, one city' will have to be set aside now because our cities have become of an immense size which the Fathers of the Councils could not have imagined.  We shall now need to divide our cities into several dioceses, each with its own bishop.   It would be possible to do what Moscow has done and appoint multiple vicar bishops for the megalopolis but this is not something envisaged by the Fathers and the Canons either.  In my opinion, rather than this somewhat artificial situation of megalopoli with subordinate vicar bishops it is more in line with Orthodox thinking ,the nature of the episcopate and the intention of the canons to make many dioceses out of our modern cities.


 
The canons also serve to build the Church around her dogmas and doctrines.  As relates to this discussion, the canons mandating "one city, one bishop" serve our doctrine that our unity transcends ethnicity, as even St. Paul stated in Romans 10:12; 1 Corinthians 12:13; Galatians 3:28; and Colossians 3:11.  Right now, we preach that we are sacramentally one, a doctrine with which I rejoice, yet our administrative disunity makes us appear so fragmented that many on the outside accuse us of being divided by ethnicity and nationalism.  I'm not convinced that this accusation is entirely off the mark.  I do think we are divided to some degree by ethnicity and petty nationalisms, and I am willing to recognize the ecclesiological heresy underlying this.
Logged
Carl Kraeff (Second Chance)
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 6,925



« Reply #28 on: October 03, 2009, 06:11:07 PM »

I do think we are divided to some degree by ethnicity and petty nationalisms, and I am willing to recognize the ecclesiological heresy underlying this.

I would think that organizing along ethnicity or nations is much more valid than organizing to suit a defunct empire. After all, the Lord commanded us to reach out to all the nations of the world (Matthew 28) and the Holy Spirit at Pentecost allowed each disciple of the Lord to preach the Gospel in diverse languages (Acts 2). Except for one lonely mention ("Render therefore to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s..." Matthew 22), I see nothing in the Holy Scriptures that leads anyone to think that co-location with the Emperor conveys any particular grace or charisma to any local church. Furthermore, our organizational principle was laid out by Saint Ignatius: One bishop in one city, surrounded by his presbyters, deacons and the people.

If we are to talk about ecclesiastical heresy or deviations from the core principles of Christianity, I would start with the idea that one bishop can be superior to any other bishop; organizing churches in accordance with the major cities of the Roman Empire; placing unwarranted emphasis on the founder of a particular local church; elevating certain sees just because of collocation with the local Emperor, Tsar, Sultan; forcing a particular language down the throats of the locals; etc...

The logical sequel to Saint Ignatius' idea is for the coordinator of the worldwide church and convener of its Councils to be selected by a majority vote of the representatives of the people (1 vote for every 100,000 people for example). Alternatively, the heads of the national churches can take turn being the coordinator. What we have now has been an aberration, a series of ecclesiastical heresies.  What we have in the so-called diaspora is actually better than the disgraceful attempts by the big boys to lay claims to swaths of territory, based on outdated canons that were instituted to serve the Emperor rather than the Church. Come on people, what can be a greater ecclesiastical heresy than that?
Logged

Michal: "SC, love you in this thread."
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #29 on: October 03, 2009, 07:31:42 PM »

If we acknowledge that, after Rome apostatized, the Holy Orthodox Church has remained without a true primate of the West, we must admit the Orthodox Church is really "defective"

Absolutely no defect of course.  The loss of the Church of Rome was tragic, but so was the earlier loss of the Church of Carthage.  In neither case was the Church rendered defective.  The argument that the Orthodox Church is "wounded" by the absence of Rome is one promoted by Cardinal Ratzinger (now Pope Benedict.)

There may come a day when Constantinople ceases to exist.  Its Western clip-ons would probably link up with the Church of Greece as they once did before.  If it were to happen and Constantinople faded out of existence, it would be a tragedy of course, but it would not mean the Church was defective.


Quote
and thus Rome is essential to the Pentarchy and the Church entire

The notion of "The Pentarchy" is an attractive one.  It's somehow symmetrical and has a magic ring.  But it also has no essential place in the Church.  It is simply an historical development.   We could say that the original Church was The Triptarchy - Rome, Antioch and Alexandria.  The Pentarchy did not exist until the late 7th century - the Quinisext Council took place in 692 and declared Jerusalem a Patriarchate.
Logged
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #30 on: October 03, 2009, 07:46:31 PM »

This is an interesting claim.

A British Court is told by a Bishop of the Ecumenical Patriarchate that the
Ecumenical Patriarch is the locum tenens of the Pope of Rome.

See Paragraph 37 and Paragraph 38.

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Ch/2009/1250.html

The EP presumably sees the Diocese of Rome as vacant.

Notice also the claim that Western Europe forms the canonical territory
of the EP and the bishops and parishes of the Russians, Serbs, Romanians
and Antiochians are infringing on Constantinople's territory.

Fr Ambrose


I take it that you, a ROCOR priest therefore under Moscow's jurisdiction, have a problem with this territorial claim of the EP.
Yes, I do have a problem.  I would think that it would be not just the Church of Russia and the Russian Church Abroad which would have problems but also the Serbian Patriarchate, Romania, Bulgaria, Antioch, etc., who all have bishops and parishes in Western Europe.
And don't you think the parallel presence of so many different jurisdictions in Western Europe a canonical problem unto itself?  I'm not necessarily arguing in support of Constantinople's claims to sole jurisdictional authority there, but I think one single jurisdictional authority in Western Europe, even if it be Constantinople's, vastly preferable to the current jurisdictional quagmire I see there.
Irish Hermit, ialmisry, and Orthodoc,

I think my posting record here at OC.net will show that I have been a critic of the modern EP's interpretation of Chalcedon Canon 28, so I join you in your disdain for the pro-EP sentiments expressed in the legal document Irish Hermit brought up for comment in the OP.  Thus, the ideal I would like to see in Western Europe and the Americas is one united administrative body that reflects the sacramental unity we all share (what I understand to be the spirit of the "one bishop for one city" canons) yet is also self-governing.  Until we accomplish such a situation, I think the pursuit of administrative unity more important than continued griping about the EP's spurious claims to jurisdiction in the "barbarian" lands.  If we must submit to the EP's jurisdiction, albeit temporarily, to achieve this administrative unity mandated by the spirit of the canons (that our multi-ethnic administrative unity manifest our sacramental unity), then so be it.
Thank you for your thoughts, Peter, although I do want to point out that if you peruse my three messages in this thread prior to yours I have not been "griping" about the EP.

Message 1 was simply the fact of what was presented to the British Court.
Message 2 was saying that it is a good thing to know the claims of the EP in the Diaspora since it will expedite the work of the Great Council.
Message 13 was a response to your question about the EP's territorial claims.

I agree with you that administrative unity in Western Europe and America (I presume you mean separately) would be a good thing.  This is what we all hope the Great Council will address.   But the Council may be stymied if some Churches, either Constantinople or Moscow, make excessive claims to jurisdiction in the West.  Their claims could throw up a roadblock for the Council's work.
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: 37,963



« Reply #31 on: October 03, 2009, 10:45:22 PM »

This claim is very interesting, and I personally like it. I may sound impopular, but I hoped for such a claim, even if I love my Russian Church.
I'll try and explain why I think it to be useful.
Since its beginnings, the Church tried to establish coryphei among the bishops: primi inter pares who might organize the church and grant the preservation of Orthodoxy/Catholicity. The Church of Rome, because of its role as imperial capital, for its dignity as the last see of saints Peter and Paul, and for its preservation of the deposit of faith up to that time, was chosen initially to be the head of all these coryphei, the original Pentarchy. When the capital was moved to Constantinople, this see became the second in dignity. If we acknowledge that, after Rome apostatized, the Holy Orthodox Church has remained without a true primate of the West, we must admit the Orthodox Church is really "defective" and thus Rome is essential to the Pentarchy and the Church entire - a thing I would never accept to acknowledge, personally. But if the church of Rome only had a CANONICAL primacy, as most Orthodox believe, her role as corypheus must have been absorbed in the second Patriarchate in rank, i.e. Constantinople the New Rome.

Actually, an EO patriarch must be enthroned in Rome, as was done in Alexandria and Antioch.


Quote
On the question of the many churches existent in the West from Diaspora, I think a new canonical reformation is necessary. The canons only took in consideration the indigenous churches of Western Europe, and not the Americas, or even the immigrant communities of diaspora in Western Europe after a 900 years of Orthodox absence from the Western countries. I still hope in the constitution of independent inter-ethnic autocephalous churches in America and in Europe, where all ethnical groups are ruled by their own primate and, at the same time, a Patriarch be appointed from the Greek Orthodox Church to serve as local coryphei under the omophorion of the EP. This would preserve unity in the West. Also, I hope for the canonical transfer of the Eastern European churches under the omophorion of the MP, considering that Moscow has founded many of these churches, or that the same Moscow See is the historical heir of the archbishopric in Kiev, and for the recognition of Moscow as a Great Patriarchate, fifth in rank after Jerusalem, to rebuilt the lost Pentarchy.The re-distribution of the Patriarchates according to their geographical jurisdictions in a full respect of the ethnic traditions, the re-unification under a unique calendar (I think that a field for discussion and agreement is still possible here, despite all hatred and divisions), and a definitive take on the "ecumenicity" of synods such as the IV and V councils of Constantinople or the Pan-Orthodox Synod of Jerusalem would be the true problems a future Pan-Orthodox Council should try to solve to preserve church unity. I pray for this to happen as soon as possible, before modernism might overcome the church and bring apostasy in her at the coming of Antichrist.

Like Old Rome when its Ultramontanism was developing, New Rome is not in the position to do any of the above.  Rather than universal, it is, as its Chief Secretary proved earlier this year, among the most parochial of Churches.

I don't understand your point. An Ecumenical Council can decide to suppress the Old Rome see and entrust its territories to Constantinople, if this is the opinion of the Council.

Why would we want to do that?  The millet-i bashi for Eurabia, just what we need.

The canons are quite clear why they elevated Constantinople (and Constantinople, unlike the other four, was created, not recognized, by the Councils). Such conditions no longer exist in Constantinople a/k/a Istanbul.


Quote
I also don't understand what trace of Ultramontanism you would see in re-affirming the role of the EP as first among equals and organizer for a Great Council. It will be the Council to decide everything, and not certaintly the Patriarch himself, as it was at the time when Old Rome presided in charity as first among equals in the episcopacy of the First Millennium church. Or are you saying that it is now impossible for the Orthodox church to convene an Ecumenical council without a true "Pope of Old Rome" on its see? That's sedevacantist ultra-montanism: claiming that we need a new infallible back after the 1054 apostasy... It sounds strange. Correct me, 'cause I just don't see any problem in convening a council.

The Church needs neither Old nor New Rome to covene a Council.  We convened V Constantinople, and the Synod of Jerusalem was held in Bethlehem at the invitation and under the auspices of Patriarch of Jerusalem.

As of late the EP thinks that the Orthodox communion is defined in reference to him, e.g. the council of Ravenna defining the Orthodox as those in communion with the EP (often the Orthodox were NOT in communion with the EP), and the Chief Secretary's claim that because the OCA is not in the diptychs of the EP, it is not an autocephalous Church, and other nonsense.


Quote
Also, I still don't understand the eternal fight for power of the different sees. Orthodoxy claims universality, but you still live according to ethnicity.

In Christ,   Alex

Just because the EP has a universal title, unfortunately, doesn't mean that he isn't the ethnarch of the Phanar. His actions sure do: in Sweden the various Orthodox handed him a united administration.  He reworked it into one for the Greeks and told the others to create others for themselves.  In Norway, a group wanted to come in as WRO.  The Greek bishop was against that, because "that would mean that Orthodoxy was for Scandinavians."  A Athonite mission was planned in Norway, but the Greek bishop KO'd that for the same reason. Etc. etc. etc.
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: 32,902


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #32 on: October 03, 2009, 11:11:32 PM »

This is an interesting claim.

A British Court is told by a Bishop of the Ecumenical Patriarchate that the
Ecumenical Patriarch is the locum tenens of the Pope of Rome.

See Paragraph 37 and Paragraph 38.

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Ch/2009/1250.html

The EP presumably sees the Diocese of Rome as vacant.

Notice also the claim that Western Europe forms the canonical territory
of the EP and the bishops and parishes of the Russians, Serbs, Romanians
and Antiochians are infringing on Constantinople's territory.

Fr Ambrose


I take it that you, a ROCOR priest therefore under Moscow's jurisdiction, have a problem with this territorial claim of the EP.
Yes, I do have a problem.  I would think that it would be not just the Church of Russia and the Russian Church Abroad which would have problems but also the Serbian Patriarchate, Romania, Bulgaria, Antioch, etc., who all have bishops and parishes in Western Europe.
And don't you think the parallel presence of so many different jurisdictions in Western Europe a canonical problem unto itself?  I'm not necessarily arguing in support of Constantinople's claims to sole jurisdictional authority there, but I think one single jurisdictional authority in Western Europe, even if it be Constantinople's, vastly preferable to the current jurisdictional quagmire I see there.
Irish Hermit, ialmisry, and Orthodoc,

I think my posting record here at OC.net will show that I have been a critic of the modern EP's interpretation of Chalcedon Canon 28, so I join you in your disdain for the pro-EP sentiments expressed in the legal document Irish Hermit brought up for comment in the OP.  Thus, the ideal I would like to see in Western Europe and the Americas is one united administrative body that reflects the sacramental unity we all share (what I understand to be the spirit of the "one bishop for one city" canons) yet is also self-governing.  Until we accomplish such a situation, I think the pursuit of administrative unity more important than continued griping about the EP's spurious claims to jurisdiction in the "barbarian" lands.  If we must submit to the EP's jurisdiction, albeit temporarily, to achieve this administrative unity mandated by the spirit of the canons (that our multi-ethnic administrative unity manifest our sacramental unity), then so be it.
Thank you for your thoughts, Peter, although I do want to point out that if you peruse my three messages in this thread prior to yours I have not been "griping" about the EP.
Not singling you out to talk only about you.  Notice that I addressed my thoughts to three posters, one of whom has a reputation for griping about the EP whenever he has the chance.  If that person isn't you, then you've no need to wear the poorly fitting shoe. Wink
Logged
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #33 on: October 03, 2009, 11:18:28 PM »

This is an interesting claim.

A British Court is told by a Bishop of the Ecumenical Patriarchate that the
Ecumenical Patriarch is the locum tenens of the Pope of Rome.

See Paragraph 37 and Paragraph 38.

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Ch/2009/1250.html

The EP presumably sees the Diocese of Rome as vacant.

Notice also the claim that Western Europe forms the canonical territory
of the EP and the bishops and parishes of the Russians, Serbs, Romanians
and Antiochians are infringing on Constantinople's territory.

Fr Ambrose


I take it that you, a ROCOR priest therefore under Moscow's jurisdiction, have a problem with this territorial claim of the EP.
Yes, I do have a problem.  I would think that it would be not just the Church of Russia and the Russian Church Abroad which would have problems but also the Serbian Patriarchate, Romania, Bulgaria, Antioch, etc., who all have bishops and parishes in Western Europe.
And don't you think the parallel presence of so many different jurisdictions in Western Europe a canonical problem unto itself?  I'm not necessarily arguing in support of Constantinople's claims to sole jurisdictional authority there, but I think one single jurisdictional authority in Western Europe, even if it be Constantinople's, vastly preferable to the current jurisdictional quagmire I see there.
Irish Hermit, ialmisry, and Orthodoc,

I think my posting record here at OC.net will show that I have been a critic of the modern EP's interpretation of Chalcedon Canon 28, so I join you in your disdain for the pro-EP sentiments expressed in the legal document Irish Hermit brought up for comment in the OP.  Thus, the ideal I would like to see in Western Europe and the Americas is one united administrative body that reflects the sacramental unity we all share (what I understand to be the spirit of the "one bishop for one city" canons) yet is also self-governing.  Until we accomplish such a situation, I think the pursuit of administrative unity more important than continued griping about the EP's spurious claims to jurisdiction in the "barbarian" lands.  If we must submit to the EP's jurisdiction, albeit temporarily, to achieve this administrative unity mandated by the spirit of the canons (that our multi-ethnic administrative unity manifest our sacramental unity), then so be it.
Thank you for your thoughts, Peter, although I do want to point out that if you peruse my three messages in this thread prior to yours I have not been "griping" about the EP.
Not singling you out to talk only about you.  Notice that I addressed my thoughts to three posters, one of whom has a reputation for griping about the EP whenever he has the chance.  If that person isn't you, then you've no need to wear the poorly fitting shoe. Wink

Then please be more thoughtful before including my name on a list of three people whom you are accusing of "griping."  I find that denigrates me personally in the eyes of those reading the Forum and detracts from my sincere attempts to interact with people on this forum intelligently and honestly in the expression of my thoughts and positions.
Logged
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 32,902


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #34 on: October 03, 2009, 11:26:26 PM »

This is an interesting claim.

A British Court is told by a Bishop of the Ecumenical Patriarchate that the
Ecumenical Patriarch is the locum tenens of the Pope of Rome.

See Paragraph 37 and Paragraph 38.

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Ch/2009/1250.html

The EP presumably sees the Diocese of Rome as vacant.

Notice also the claim that Western Europe forms the canonical territory
of the EP and the bishops and parishes of the Russians, Serbs, Romanians
and Antiochians are infringing on Constantinople's territory.

Fr Ambrose


I take it that you, a ROCOR priest therefore under Moscow's jurisdiction, have a problem with this territorial claim of the EP.
Yes, I do have a problem.  I would think that it would be not just the Church of Russia and the Russian Church Abroad which would have problems but also the Serbian Patriarchate, Romania, Bulgaria, Antioch, etc., who all have bishops and parishes in Western Europe.
And don't you think the parallel presence of so many different jurisdictions in Western Europe a canonical problem unto itself?  I'm not necessarily arguing in support of Constantinople's claims to sole jurisdictional authority there, but I think one single jurisdictional authority in Western Europe, even if it be Constantinople's, vastly preferable to the current jurisdictional quagmire I see there.
Irish Hermit, ialmisry, and Orthodoc,

I think my posting record here at OC.net will show that I have been a critic of the modern EP's interpretation of Chalcedon Canon 28, so I join you in your disdain for the pro-EP sentiments expressed in the legal document Irish Hermit brought up for comment in the OP.  Thus, the ideal I would like to see in Western Europe and the Americas is one united administrative body that reflects the sacramental unity we all share (what I understand to be the spirit of the "one bishop for one city" canons) yet is also self-governing.  Until we accomplish such a situation, I think the pursuit of administrative unity more important than continued griping about the EP's spurious claims to jurisdiction in the "barbarian" lands.  If we must submit to the EP's jurisdiction, albeit temporarily, to achieve this administrative unity mandated by the spirit of the canons (that our multi-ethnic administrative unity manifest our sacramental unity), then so be it.
Thank you for your thoughts, Peter, although I do want to point out that if you peruse my three messages in this thread prior to yours I have not been "griping" about the EP.
Not singling you out to talk only about you.  Notice that I addressed my thoughts to three posters, one of whom has a reputation for griping about the EP whenever he has the chance.  If that person isn't you, then you've no need to wear the poorly fitting shoe. Wink

Then please be more thoughtful before including my name on a list of three people whom you are accusing of "griping."  I find that denigrates me personally in the eyes of those reading the Forum and detracts from my sincere attempts to interact with people on this forum intelligently and honestly in the expression of my thoughts and positions.
Fr. Ambrose, you have no need to defend yourself, for I'm not attacking you.  I sincerely apologize for all that I did to provoke you to feel that I am.
Logged
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 32,902


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #35 on: October 04, 2009, 03:14:58 AM »

This is an interesting claim.

A British Court is told by a Bishop of the Ecumenical Patriarchate that the
Ecumenical Patriarch is the locum tenens of the Pope of Rome.

See Paragraph 37 and Paragraph 38.

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Ch/2009/1250.html

The EP presumably sees the Diocese of Rome as vacant.

Notice also the claim that Western Europe forms the canonical territory
of the EP and the bishops and parishes of the Russians, Serbs, Romanians
and Antiochians are infringing on Constantinople's territory.

Fr Ambrose


I take it that you, a ROCOR priest therefore under Moscow's jurisdiction, have a problem with this territorial claim of the EP.
Yes, I do have a problem.  I would think that it would be not just the Church of Russia and the Russian Church Abroad which would have problems but also the Serbian Patriarchate, Romania, Bulgaria, Antioch, etc., who all have bishops and parishes in Western Europe.
And don't you think the parallel presence of so many different jurisdictions in Western Europe a canonical problem unto itself?  I'm not necessarily arguing in support of Constantinople's claims to sole jurisdictional authority there, but I think one single jurisdictional authority in Western Europe, even if it be Constantinople's, vastly preferable to the current jurisdictional quagmire I see there.
Irish Hermit, ialmisry, and Orthodoc,

I think my posting record here at OC.net will show that I have been a critic of the modern EP's interpretation of Chalcedon Canon 28, so I join you in your disdain for the pro-EP sentiments expressed in the legal document Irish Hermit brought up for comment in the OP.  Thus, the ideal I would like to see in Western Europe and the Americas is one united administrative body that reflects the sacramental unity we all share (what I understand to be the spirit of the "one bishop for one city" canons) yet is also self-governing.  Until we accomplish such a situation, I think the pursuit of administrative unity more important than continued griping about the EP's spurious claims to jurisdiction in the "barbarian" lands.  If we must submit to the EP's jurisdiction, albeit temporarily, to achieve this administrative unity mandated by the spirit of the canons (that our multi-ethnic administrative unity manifest our sacramental unity), then so be it.
Thank you for your thoughts, Peter, although I do want to point out that if you peruse my three messages in this thread prior to yours I have not been "griping" about the EP.
Not singling you out to talk only about you.  Notice that I addressed my thoughts to three posters, one of whom has a reputation for griping about the EP whenever he has the chance.  If that person isn't you, then you've no need to wear the poorly fitting shoe. Wink

Then please be more thoughtful before including my name on a list of three people whom you are accusing of "griping."  I find that denigrates me personally in the eyes of those reading the Forum and detracts from my sincere attempts to interact with people on this forum intelligently and honestly in the expression of my thoughts and positions.
Fr. Ambrose, you have no need to defend yourself, for I'm not attacking you.  I sincerely apologize for all that I did to provoke you to feel that I am.
However, Fr. Ambrose, you do have a history on this forum of griping about the EP, which explains the question I asked in my first post on this thread.  I really don't think it would take a whole lot of work for other posters to see that history.
« Last Edit: October 04, 2009, 03:25:28 AM by PeterTheAleut » Logged
AlexanderOfBergamo
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Traditionalist Christian
Jurisdiction: The Original First Millennium Church
Posts: 706


« Reply #36 on: October 04, 2009, 05:10:51 AM »

Still I don't understand the problems of ethnicity. Why is there so much hatred for the EP? Because there's a racial problem. Russians, Serbians and whatever thing that being under the jurisdiction of the EP as an autocephalous church would be detrimental to their ethinicity? I don't understand how that could occur, really.
I think that a more homogenious unity is necessary to be reached on the territory. All the people I heard up to now, to whom I've said I'm to become Orthodox, have said "Isn't Orthodoxy an ethnic church"? Initially I felt this to be a prejudice, but maybe I was wrong.
Did the Apostles demand circumcision to the Gentiles? No. Did the Apostles demand uncircumcision to the Jews? No. Ethnicity was a problem in the 1st century as it is now, but the Church solved this creating canons to have "one bishop" for a single church, and dividing jurisdictions among the Patriarchates and the autocephalous churches on a national level. The bishop was the only sign of unity WITHIN the different traditions. This is almost exclusively a problem for cradle Orthodox alone. As a convert, I don't feel more Russian or more Greek. I feel an Italian Orthodox, and who my hierarch will be - either the EP or the MP - is literally of no importance. I prefer the Russian Church, that's true... but I could have a Russian heretic patriarch, or a good Greek patriarch as my hierarch. Faith is independent of ethnicity and of jurisdictions. You can refute to submit to your hierarch only on the grounds of heresy, and not on the grounds of ethnicity. A redistribution of the jurisdictions doesn't affect the essence of the faith, and even the preservation of the ethnicity. I say this because in Italy there's even a group of former Russian Orthodox who has accepted to stay under the EPs omophorion. They celebrate in Russian with the Old Calendar, and have preserved all their specific ethnical characteristics, nevertheless they preferred the EP then the MP subject to the Soviet Union: the name and citizenship of their hierarch had no importance, what mattered was the preservation of pure Orthodoxy.
I offer once again a model of a national church standing "over" the local jurisdictions for the Western countries alone, and only admitting a loss of power by Constantinople for Eastern European Churches. The main idea is to replace the "one bishop" at least with the "one patriarch", leaving the ethnical bishops and priests in their place.

                                                                     Ecumenical Patriarch
                                                                                  |
                                                       Patriarch of a national Autocephalous Church
|-----------------------------------|----------------------|-------------------------|--------------------------------|-------------|---------------------------------------|

Greek Orthodox Met.        Russian Orthodox Met.   Serbian Orthodox Met.     Romanian Orthodox Met.  Antiochian Orthodox Met.        Other Traditions
||||||||||||||||||||||||||        ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||     |||||||||||||||||||||||||||      |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||  ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||            ||||||
Greek Dioceses                 Russian Dioceses             Serbian Dioceses            Romanian Dioceses          Antiochians Dioceses               Other Dioceses

A model such as this would be easy to apply, and sincerely, I would hope the ordination of a convert bishop as Patriarch, i.e. a cradle American as US Patriarch, a cradle Italian as Italian Patriarch, and so on. That would grant a more "ethno-neutral" context.

Of course, this is my ideal of Church unity in the Western countries. But if you truly hate the EP for some reason, we could even advocate for re-building of the old Rome patriarchate - a thing I would still prevent. I prefer a major dignity to be conferred on the pre-existing Patriarchates then re-instituting an older one.

I know I'm dreaming, but I'm well known for my idealism...LOL

In Christ,   Alex
Logged

"Also in the Catholic Church itself we take great care that we hold that which has been believed everywhere, always, by all. For that is truly and properly Catholic" (St. Vincent of Lérins, "The Commonitory")
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: 37,963



« Reply #37 on: October 04, 2009, 08:41:41 AM »

Still I don't understand the problems of ethnicity. Why is there so much hatred for the EP? Because there's a racial problem. Russians, Serbians and whatever thing that being under the jurisdiction of the EP as an autocephalous church would be detrimental to their ethinicity? I don't understand how that could occur, really.

History.  The Phanar (as opposed to Constantinople) has a history of destroying Churches so it can Hellenize them.  Look for instance what goes on TODAY in Jerusalem.

Quote
I think that a more homogenious unity is necessary to be reached on the territory. All the people I heard up to now, to whom I've said I'm to become Orthodox, have said "Isn't Orthodoxy an ethnic church"? Initially I felt this to be a prejudice, but maybe I was wrong.
Did the Apostles demand circumcision to the Gentiles? No. Did the Apostles demand uncircumcision to the Jews? No. Ethnicity was a problem in the 1st century as it is now, but the Church solved this creating canons to have "one bishop" for a single church, and dividing jurisdictions among the Patriarchates and the autocephalous churches on a national level. The bishop was the only sign of unity WITHIN the different traditions. This is almost exclusively a problem for cradle Orthodox alone. As a convert, I don't feel more Russian or more Greek. I feel an Italian Orthodox, and who my hierarch will be - either the EP or the MP - is literally of no importance. I prefer the Russian Church, that's true... but I could have a Russian heretic patriarch, or a good Greek patriarch as my hierarch. Faith is independent of ethnicity and of jurisdictions. You can refute to submit to your hierarch only on the grounds of heresy, and not on the grounds of ethnicity.

Phyletism, according to the EP is heresy.  That is, when others do it. Roll Eyes

Quote
A redistribution of the jurisdictions doesn't affect the essence of the faith, and even the preservation of the ethnicity. I say this because in Italy there's even a group of former Russian Orthodox who has accepted to stay under the EPs omophorion. They celebrate in Russian with the Old Calendar, and have preserved all their specific ethnical characteristics, nevertheless they preferred the EP then the MP subject to the Soviet Union: the name and citizenship of their hierarch had no importance, what mattered was the preservation of pure Orthodoxy.
I offer once again a model of a national church standing "over" the local jurisdictions for the Western countries alone, and only admitting a loss of power by Constantinople for Eastern European Churches. The main idea is to replace the "one bishop" at least with the "one patriarch", leaving the ethnical bishops and priests in their place.

                                                                     Ecumenical Patriarch
                                                                                  |
                                                       Patriarch of a national Autocephalous Church
|-----------------------------------|----------------------|-------------------------|--------------------------------|-------------|---------------------------------------|

Greek Orthodox Met.        Russian Orthodox Met.   Serbian Orthodox Met.     Romanian Orthodox Met.  Antiochian Orthodox Met.        Other Traditions
||||||||||||||||||||||||||        ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||     |||||||||||||||||||||||||||      |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||  ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||            ||||||
Greek Dioceses                 Russian Dioceses             Serbian Dioceses            Romanian Dioceses          Antiochians Dioceses               Other Dioceses

A model such as this would be easy to apply, and sincerely, I would hope the ordination of a convert bishop as Patriarch, i.e. a cradle American as US Patriarch, a cradle Italian as Italian Patriarch, and so on. That would grant a more "ethno-neutral" context.

Of course, this is my ideal of Church unity in the Western countries. But if you truly hate the EP for some reason, we could even advocate for re-building of the old Rome patriarchate - a thing I would still prevent. I prefer a major dignity to be conferred on the pre-existing Patriarchates then re-instituting an older one.

I know I'm dreaming, but I'm well known for my idealism...LOL

In Christ,   Alex

The Phanar is barely existing.  One reason for its gradiose claims, which make it unsuitable to fit into Old Rome's shoes.


Otherwise, I agree with you concepts.
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
AlexanderOfBergamo
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Traditionalist Christian
Jurisdiction: The Original First Millennium Church
Posts: 706


« Reply #38 on: October 04, 2009, 11:56:59 AM »

Well, you can easily replace the EP with any other Patriarchate of the Tetrarchy, or with the MP, I don't see how that could be possible and useful, though. The MP is on the same level as the EP in its ability to interfere. And the Patriarchates of Antioch, Alexandria and Jerusalem are too weak to control the entire Western Church. Also, there are different realities. For example, Western Europe has a greater number of faithful from the Eastern European countries (Russia, Serbia, Ukraine, Romania and Bulgaria) and only a few from the Greek area. In Italy (and I think in the entire Western Europe) Patriarchates of Antioch, Alexandria and Jerusalem are completely absent. On the contrary, I see that in the US, Antioch is as relevant as Constantinople and Moscow.
A possibility which has been proposed is the re-constitution of the Old Rome Patriarchate - a thing I once hoped for, but I'm now not so certain of its good purpose. Roman Catholics are at the moment the largest denomination in the world by number of faithful, and I don't see how they could keep some good relations with Orthodoxy if you replace the Western Patriarchate with a new one. I know we shouldn't look at the Roman church for our decisions, nevertheless I still hope for a reconciliation due to my Roman Catholic origins: I know many good Catholics investigating Orthodoxy who hope for the return of their own church to the same common tradition as ours.
What I know for certain, is that a model of unity of the different ethinicities in a country under the same omophorion into one national patriarchate would be very useful. If we only had this problem solved in Italy, I think the Orthodox Church would spread faster. God knows if that could ever happen...

Anyway, thx for explaining your position, I can now understand better. I never thought of the EP as if it were so ethno-destructive to suppress all traditions but its own. Now can I ask something for clarification: what's phyletism? (As an Italian I don't understand the word)

Thx for everything, ialmisry!

In Christ,   Alex
Logged

"Also in the Catholic Church itself we take great care that we hold that which has been believed everywhere, always, by all. For that is truly and properly Catholic" (St. Vincent of Lérins, "The Commonitory")
mike
Stratopedarches
**************
Offline Offline

Posts: 21,473


« Reply #39 on: October 04, 2009, 12:32:15 PM »

There are some Antiochian Parishes across the Europe (in GB, France, Germany and maybe in Switzerland and Austria).
« Last Edit: October 04, 2009, 12:33:25 PM by mike » 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: 37,963



« Reply #40 on: October 04, 2009, 02:38:34 PM »

Well, you can easily replace the EP with any other Patriarchate of the Tetrarchy, or with the MP, I don't see how that could be possible and useful, though. The MP is on the same level as the EP in its ability to interfere. And the Patriarchates of Antioch, Alexandria and Jerusalem are too weak to control the entire Western Church. Also, there are different realities. For example, Western Europe has a greater number of faithful from the Eastern European countries (Russia, Serbia, Ukraine, Romania and Bulgaria) and only a few from the Greek area. In Italy (and I think in the entire Western Europe) Patriarchates of Antioch, Alexandria and Jerusalem are completely absent. On the contrary, I see that in the US, Antioch is as relevant as Constantinople and Moscow.
A possibility which has been proposed is the re-constitution of the Old Rome Patriarchate - a thing I once hoped for, but I'm now not so certain of its good purpose. Roman Catholics are at the moment the largest denomination in the world by number of faithful, and I don't see how they could keep some good relations with Orthodoxy if you replace the Western Patriarchate with a new one. I know we shouldn't look at the Roman church for our decisions, nevertheless I still hope for a reconciliation due to my Roman Catholic origins: I know many good Catholics investigating Orthodoxy who hope for the return of their own church to the same common tradition as ours.
What I know for certain, is that a model of unity of the different ethinicities in a country under the same omophorion into one national patriarchate would be very useful. If we only had this problem solved in Italy, I think the Orthodox Church would spread faster. God knows if that could ever happen...

Anyway, thx for explaining your position, I can now understand better. I never thought of the EP as if it were so ethno-destructive to suppress all traditions but its own. Now can I ask something for clarification: what's phyletism? (As an Italian I don't understand the word)

LOL. Don't worry: most Americans don't either.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phyletism

For some more:
Btw, I'm still waiting for my quote.
Contrary to popular thinking the Roman empire did not fall in the early centuries, only the western part fell.  The eastern part survived for almost a thousand years afterwards.  Technically the eastern catholic church (aka the Orthodox church ) was part of that empire.  If any church could be tagged Roman you cant ignore the eastern Christians.
Sorry, according to ialmisry, we have no right to be called "Roman", only the Roman Catholics can be called so.
Care to quote me on that, George?

Quote
Also, in dialoguing with someone else, do you ignore altogether what they call themselves?  Do you say "you should not call yourselves that" or should you, rather, seek to convince them that, indeed, if they truly consider yourself Roman and Catholic, that their true home is in the Church of the first millenium, the Church of the Ecumenical Councils, the Orthodox Church of the Roman-Orthodox-Catholic Councils.   This is the "meat" of ozgeorge's point--the proper use of these terms--that we should not miss (especially now that we are eating meat).
LOL.

The meat, however, is that a Hellenizing Hellenocentric Rome is no better than a Latinizing Latinocentric one.

That's your meat ialmisry. My meat is that the Roman Church is the Church of the Seven Oecumenical Councils.

I go to the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church.  I thought you were the one against mixing politics with the Church.

Quote
But let's look at your meat anyway:

Yes. Let's.

Quote
it is strange that a "Hellenizing Hellenocentric Rome" should have direct jurisdiction over  Ukrainian, Arabic, & Romanian Churches in the US and Russian & Estonian Churches in Europe without "Hellenizing" them.

Is that so?

As for the Ukrainians, the self-consecrated dead-handers were just the latest in the interesting history of the GOA and the Ukrainians and Ukrainian-Russian politics, started by Hieromonk Ahapij, evidently assigned by the Episcopalians to the parish that the GOA traces its origin.  That is, until he ran off to harrass the Russian bishop in San Francisco: The hieromonk ended up buried there on his farm "Ukraina," next to his wife. You are familiar with the term "splitting," no?

http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,19584.0.html

On the Romanians: the EP has Romanians here?  Odd, I thought they all were one happy family under Bucharest's exarchate.
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,16108.0.html

But speaking of the Romanians, I was going to post next on their cousins, the Aromanians or as you problably call them "Vlachs."  I'll start at a funeral:
Quote
Here is one exmaple for many: "In 1904 a Vlach died in Monastir [Republic of Macedonia: then too it didn't have a majority Greek population] His relations wanted to bury him in Roumanian, the Greeks insisted in Greek.  The Bishop (a Greek) forbade a Roumanian funeral, the relations would not have a Greek one.  As usual both sides appealed to the judgee of ecclesiastical affaires, the Turkish Kaimakan.  The Kaimakan, as usual, could do nothing without instructions from Constantinople, and the Porte, as usual, could not make up its mind.  So there came a preliminary order to put off the funeral till the Governement had considered the caee.  Meanwhile, as it was becoming quite time to do something, the wretched man was embalmed.  Time passed and nothing was settled.  Then both sides began fighting over the body, the market-place was shut up, and two charges of cavalry could not disperse the mob.  The Wali, desperate and helpless, as last telegraphed direct to the Sultan imploring him to let the man be buried somehow before the mob had pulled the town down.  At last the decision came.  The Government could not afford to gratify either side, so the man was to be just put in the ground without any burial at all.  See the newspaper report in Bradford: Macedonia, pp. 189-190.  "Nothing," adds Mr. Bralisford, "could be more Turkish, and nothing could be more Greek."

Fortescue adds when "Greeks publish statistics of Macedonia, nearly all the people they brazenly write as "Hellenes" are really these half-Hellenized Vlachs"

Quote
The Phanar knows that if all the Vlachs go there will be, indeed, nothing but a slender remnant of the Roman nation left to work for the "Great Idea" in Macedonia.  So it has set its face desperately against the Roumanian movement, as it does against all national feeling among the Christians that it will pretend to think Greeks.  For years there has been a regular persecusion of these Vlachs; every priest who spoke Roumanian in church was promptly excommunicated; the Greek papers never ceased heaping abuse on Margaritis and his work, and there has been a long chain of nationalistic squabbles under pretense of ecclesiastical disputes between these two parties as ludicrous to the outsider as they are degrading to the Orthodox Church.

http://books.google.com/books?id=6JkIrx4rlbwC&pg=PA332&lpg=PA332&dq=Fortescue+Vlach&source=bl&ots=ldRGEfez9U&sig=0Lk6kBcTgX1B0dNOj1YjQkP2oL4&hl=en&ei=CfUISvrLKpTFtgeC4b3gCw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1#PPA334,M1

Quote
Sir Charles Eliot clearly states his work "Turkey in Europe" that "...The Bulgarians, Serbs and Vlachs have Millets of their own and do not cooperate in the Hellenic cause" and that "we hear of Vlach bands who are said to contend (fight against) Greeks in the region of Karaferia (Veria)"".[23] There was also pressure on Aromanians to become linguistically assimilated, which can be traced back to the 18th century, when assimilation efforts were encouraged by the Greek missionary Cosmas of Aetolia (1714-1779) who taught that Aromanians should speak Greek because as he said "it's the language of our Church" and established over 100 Greek schools in northern and western Greece. The offensive of the clergy against the use of Aromanian was by no means limited to religious issues but was a tool devised in order to convince the non-Greek speakers to abandon what they regarded as a "worthless" idiom and adopt the superior Greek speech: "There we are Metsovian brothers, together with those who are fooling themselves with this sordid and vile Aromanian language... forgive me for calling it a language", "repulsive speech with a disgusting diction".[24] [25]

The Vlachs, recognized as a separate nation by the 1878 Treaty of Berlin, were for the first time incorporated in Greece only in 1881, when Thessaly and a part of Epirus were offered to Greece by the Great Powers. Having been split into two by the new borders, the bulk of the Vlachs of these province petitioned[29] the Great Powers of the time to be let to stay within the boundaries of the Ottoman Empire, but in vain. Greece followed a policy of creating a Greater Greece, according to the "Megali Idea". Most of the Aromanians became part of the Greek state in 1913 after the rest of Epirus and parts of Macedonia became part of Greece after the First Balkan War.

One of the greatest figures during the Aroumanian awakening was Apostol Margarit, a native of Avdela in southern Macedonia, on the slopes of the Pindus mountains. As early as 1862, Apostol Margarit introduced the vernacular in the school of the large prosperous town of Klissoura(Vlaho-Klisura), in the Kastoria region of Macedonia. Nicepheros, the Greek bishop of Kastoria tried for many years to close down the school, but without success. In December, 1879, the first unsuccessful attempt on the life of Apostol Margarit took place. Margarit was wounded during a second attempt on his life during December 1890. There were Vlach schools in Klissoura, Krushevo, Nizepole, Trnovo, Gopesh, Ohrid, old Avdela in the Pindus mountains and new Avdela near Veria. Later more schools were founded in Macedonia, and then a Vlach high school was established in Bitola(Monastir) in the 1880s. The Greeks were naturally alarmed by the national reawakening of the Vlachs. At their peak, just before the Balkan Wars,there were 6 secondary gymnasiums, and 113 primary schools, teaching in Vlach. Due to the ongoing pressures from the Greek Church in the Ottoman provinces of Rumelia, Vlachs and their schools were viewed with suspicion. In 1880 Greek guerrillas attacked some villages near Resen because the village priests had committed the unpardonable sin of using Vlach in the church services. In the same year the Greek bishop of Kastoria had the schoolmaster in Klissoura arrested because he taught in the Vlahs'native language. A momentous date in the history of the Vlachs was May 23, 1905, when the Sultan issued a decree officially recognizing the Vlachs and affirming their rights to maintain their schools and churches. Following the proclamation of the decree, the Greek bishops, and the armed terrorist bands they supported, unleashed a campaign of terror on the Aromanians to discourage them from taking advantage of their rights. In 1905, the Vlach abbot of the Holy Archangel monastery in the Meglen region was murdered by a Greek band. In the summer of 1905 some villages near Bitola were attacked. On October 27, 1905, Greek guerillas attacked the village of Avdela in the Pindus, birthplace of Apostol Margarit, and razed it to the ground. Then in 1906, in the town of Véria(Berea), the priest Papanace was murdered as he was on his way to church to serve the Divine Liturgy in Vlach. The Romanian Vlach school in the village of Avdhela in Pindus, which was one of the first Romanian sponsored Vlach schools, active as early as 1867, was burned and razed to the ground on 27 October 1905 by Greek guerrillas....George Padioti, an Aromanian author (born and living all his life in Greece) describes one of the last liturgy services in Vlach: “ February 1952, the Aromanian Church 'Biserica ramana Santu Dumitru', burned by German troops in spring 1944. The priest Costa Bacou officiated the last allowed liturgy in Aromanian language. Afterwards, he was not permitted anymore because he refused to forcibly officiate the divine service in Greek language."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aromanians
http://www.bulgarmak.org/agras.htm

Isn't that Roman Church of yours in charge of the new lands?

As a sidenote, this all had a profound influence on Arab history: the Ottoman adminstrator in Macedonia, Sati Husri was deeply impressed by the politics of the schools in identity formation in Macedonia, and after WWI implemented them as minister of education etc. in several Arab states.  Though a Muslim (secular), he identified the Arab Patriarchate of Antioch as "the first victory of Arab nationalism."

Too bad that hadn't extended to Jerusalem: I've been to both patriarchates, and the contrast between the vibrant Antioch and the moribund Jerusalem is striking.  Is it those Arabs that the PoJ sold to Phanar that you are talking about in the US?  Last I heard, the were still refusing to be handled like merchandise between absentee landlords (all in a days work for Phanariots).  Would it be obedience to go, or codependence?  The other Arabs I know who went to the GOA had real identity issues, thinking of themselves as ruumiy but marginalized as not being Greek.

http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,16967.0.html

Quote
In the light of facts, your meat seems to be more like a vegetarian sausage trying to be meat. Smiley

I give you some more meat, but drink your milk first. Tongue
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
SolEX01
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America, Holy Metropolis of New Jersey
Posts: 11,660


WWW
« Reply #41 on: October 04, 2009, 10:28:29 PM »

The question in my mind is 3 fold:

1.  Has any past EP ever declared Himself locum tenens of the Bishop of Rome?
2.  Has a "secret" locum tenens of the Bishop of Rome been in place since 1922 (which explains all the behaviors since then)?
3.  Do the monks of Athos and the Old Calendarists have a legitimate point that the EP, since 1922, has uncanonically made Himself locum tenens?
Logged
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 32,902


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #42 on: October 04, 2009, 11:05:04 PM »

The question in my mind is 3 fold:

1.  Has any past EP ever declared Himself locum tenens of the Bishop of Rome?
2.  Has a "secret" locum tenens of the Bishop of Rome been in place since 1922 (which explains all the behaviors since then)?
3.  Do the monks of Athos and the Old Calendarists have a legitimate point that the EP, since 1922, has uncanonically made Himself locum tenens?
I don't recall seeing in my reading of the OP's court document any statement wherein the EP calls himself the locum tenens of Rome.  However, I do see a bishop in the EP's jurisdiction identifying the EP as such.  IOW, this looks like a "close, but no cigar."  Maybe close enough for half a cigar. Wink
Logged
SolEX01
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America, Holy Metropolis of New Jersey
Posts: 11,660


WWW
« Reply #43 on: October 04, 2009, 11:14:31 PM »

I don't recall seeing in my reading of the OP's court document any statement wherein the EP calls himself the locum tenens of Rome.  However, I do see a bishop in the EP's jurisdiction identifying the EP as such.  IOW, this looks like a "close, but no cigar."  Maybe close enough for half a cigar. Wink

Said Bishop (Basil Osbourne) has since resigned, I believe?   Huh

Logged
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 32,902


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #44 on: October 04, 2009, 11:23:44 PM »

I don't recall seeing in my reading of the OP's court document any statement wherein the EP calls himself the locum tenens of Rome.  However, I do see a bishop in the EP's jurisdiction identifying the EP as such.  IOW, this looks like a "close, but no cigar."  Maybe close enough for half a cigar. Wink

Said Bishop (Basil Osbourne) has since resigned, I believe?   Huh


It does appear that he announced his retirement just about three weeks ago.  But what bearing does this have on the discussion of a legal statement made earlier this spring?
Logged
Tags: EP Bashing 
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 0.26 seconds with 71 queries.