OrthodoxChristianity.net
July 25, 2014, 07:23:44 AM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Reminder: No political discussions in the public fora.  If you do not have access to the private Politics Forum, please send a PM to Fr. George.
 
   Home   Help Calendar Contact Treasury Tags Login Register  
Pages: 1 2 »  All   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Autocephaly or Autonomy in the Roman communion?  (Read 3052 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
deusveritasest
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: None
Jurisdiction: None
Posts: 7,528



WWW
« on: September 22, 2010, 08:31:55 PM »

I'm curious if anyone could explain how the jurisdictional characters of the various Eastern churches of the Roman communion compare to the Eastern concepts of autocephaly and/or autonomy?
Logged

I stopped posting here in August 2011 because of stark disagreement with the policies of the administration and moderating team of the forums. If you desire, feel free to PM me, message me on Facebook (link in profile), or email me: cddombrowski@gmail.com
Mardukm
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Coptic
Posts: 423


« Reply #1 on: September 22, 2010, 11:23:39 PM »

Dear brother DeusVeritasEst,

From what I understand, the only thing that distinguishes an autonomous Church from an autocephalous Church is that the head bishop of an autonomous Church must be confirmed by a higher authority than the Synod of that autonomous Church.  That head bishop cannot be enthroned without the confirmation of the higher authority.

In the Catholic Church, there is only one autocephalous Church – the Catholic Church herself.  It is a matter of accident (I don’t use that word in the traditional secular sense, but the theological sense) that the visible head of the Catholic Church just happens to be the Patriarch of the Latin Church.

Unlike a head bishop of an autonomous Church, Patriarchs in the Catholic Church are not confirmed by the Pope, and their enthronement does not depend on such a confirmation. 

So in the Catholic communion:
- Patriarchates are not autonomous Churches, but neither are they autocephalous.

- Major Archepiscopal and Metropolitan Churches who are not under a Patriarchate are properly autonomous.

Blessings,
Marduk
Logged
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,132


Truth, Justice, and the American way!


« Reply #2 on: September 22, 2010, 11:27:06 PM »

^ Marduk,
When a Patriarch is elected, he requests communion with Rome, am I right?
Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
Mardukm
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Coptic
Posts: 423


« Reply #3 on: September 22, 2010, 11:37:53 PM »

^ Marduk,
When a Patriarch is elected, he requests communion with Rome, am I right?
Yes. This occurs after his enthronement.  He is also required to notify all other Patriarchs of his election.

Blessings
Logged
deusveritasest
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: None
Jurisdiction: None
Posts: 7,528



WWW
« Reply #4 on: September 23, 2010, 12:01:40 AM »

- Major Archepiscopal and Metropolitan Churches who are not under a Patriarchate are properly autonomous.

The election of their primates must be confirmed by the Bishop of Rome?
Logged

I stopped posting here in August 2011 because of stark disagreement with the policies of the administration and moderating team of the forums. If you desire, feel free to PM me, message me on Facebook (link in profile), or email me: cddombrowski@gmail.com
Mardukm
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Coptic
Posts: 423


« Reply #5 on: September 23, 2010, 12:08:50 AM »

- Major Archepiscopal and Metropolitan Churches who are not under a Patriarchate are properly autonomous.

The election of their primates must be confirmed by the Bishop of Rome?
Yes.  The principle is that 1) every group of bishops has a head bishop (per Apostolic Canon 34/35), and 2) the election of a bishop must always be confirmed by his head bishop before enthronement (according to the Canons of the Ecumenical Councils).

A primate within a Patriarchal jursidiction must be confirmed by the Patriarch.

Major Archebishops and Metroplitans of Churches sui juris that don't belong to any other Patriarchal Church, has the Pope as their head bishop. Thus, he would confirm their election.

Blessings

« Last Edit: September 23, 2010, 12:11:03 AM by Mardukm » Logged
deusveritasest
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: None
Jurisdiction: None
Posts: 7,528



WWW
« Reply #6 on: September 23, 2010, 12:12:30 AM »

Alright, I understand your explanation as to that group.

However, I am confused about your answer about the Patriarchal churches.

How is it that their form of jurisdiction is not essentially equivalent to the concept of autocephaly?
Logged

I stopped posting here in August 2011 because of stark disagreement with the policies of the administration and moderating team of the forums. If you desire, feel free to PM me, message me on Facebook (link in profile), or email me: cddombrowski@gmail.com
Mardukm
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Coptic
Posts: 423


« Reply #7 on: September 23, 2010, 01:04:38 AM »

Alright, I understand your explanation as to that group.

However, I am confused about your answer about the Patriarchal churches.

How is it that their form of jurisdiction is not essentially equivalent to the concept of autocephaly?
Because bishops of any order have a right to appeal to the bishop of Rome, according to the Council of Sardica whose canons were confirmed by the Seventh Ecumenical Council.  As an Oriental, that might not mean much to you, but the Canons of the Council of Sardica should still hold relevance for you because none other than Pope St. Athanasius was a member of the Sardican Council.

A strictly autocephalous Church is jurisdictionally self-contained.  For instance, a bishop of the Syriac Patriarchate cannot appeal to HH Pope Shenoute.  But the Catholic Church affirms the ancient canons in this respect.  A bishop in any Patriarchate can appeal to the bishop of Rome.  In that sense, Patriarchates within the Catholic communion are not strictly autocephalous.

Blessings
Logged
Mardukm
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Coptic
Posts: 423


« Reply #8 on: September 23, 2010, 01:19:55 AM »

The other thing I wanted to point out was that the Council of Sardica was originally intended to be an Ecumenical Council.  All the orthodox bishops of the world, including the Patriarch of Alexandria and the Patriarch of Rome were its members.  It is an unfortunate circumstance of history that almost all the bishops of the East were Arian heretics at the time, and would not attend the Council. But its canons were formulated and agreed upon by all the orthodox bishops at that time, something which should inform the ecumenical talks between the OO and the CC.

Blessings
Logged
deusveritasest
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: None
Jurisdiction: None
Posts: 7,528



WWW
« Reply #9 on: September 23, 2010, 01:58:12 AM »

For instance, a bishop of the Syriac Patriarchate cannot appeal to HH Pope Shenoute.

I don't think that's entirely true. I am sure that if a Syriac Orthodox Metropolitan was having trouble with the Patriarch and believed him to have fallen into heresy, that he would be within his rights and duties to appeal to the Coptic Pope, who has a history of presidency at pan-jurisdictional gatherings and is logically now primus inter pares of the Oriental communion, for the convoking of a Pan-Oriental Conference to address the matter.

But you are right in so far as there is no prerogative of appeal to Alexandria in and of itself.

But the Catholic Church affirms the ancient canons in this respect.

You say that as if we are overlooking and ignoring the canons of Sardica. Even if they are upheld as authoritative (I don't know as its merely a local council with regards to the Oriental ecclesiology), the canon is no longer applicable on the premise that there is no longer a bishop of Rome within the Church.

A bishop in any Patriarchate can appeal to the bishop of Rome.  In that sense, Patriarchates within the Catholic communion are not strictly autocephalous.

I get your point here. Because Rome has the prerogative of intervention with these churches, they are not strictly autonomous or autocephalous. I had already imagined that to be the case. But I want to know in the context of their typical everyday administration, as I assume real intervention from Rome is not all that common.
Logged

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

Faith: None
Jurisdiction: None
Posts: 7,528



WWW
« Reply #10 on: September 23, 2010, 02:30:54 AM »

The other thing I wanted to point out was that the Council of Sardica was originally intended to be an Ecumenical Council.  All the orthodox bishops of the world, including the Patriarch of Alexandria and the Patriarch of Rome were its members.  It is an unfortunate circumstance of history that almost all the bishops of the East were Arian heretics at the time, and would not attend the Council. But its canons were formulated and agreed upon by all the orthodox bishops at that time, something which should inform the ecumenical talks between the OO and the CC.

Blessings

What about Eustathius of Antioch and Maximus III of Jerusalem?
Logged

I stopped posting here in August 2011 because of stark disagreement with the policies of the administration and moderating team of the forums. If you desire, feel free to PM me, message me on Facebook (link in profile), or email me: cddombrowski@gmail.com
Mardukm
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Coptic
Posts: 423


« Reply #11 on: September 23, 2010, 02:32:07 AM »

Dear brother deusveritasest,

For instance, a bishop of the Syriac Patriarchate cannot appeal to HH Pope Shenoute.

I don't think that's entirely true. I am sure that if a Syriac Orthodox Metropolitan was having trouble with the Patriarch and believed him to have fallen into heresy, that he would be within his rights and duties to appeal to the Coptic Pope, who has a history of presidency at pan-jurisdictional gatherings and is logically now primus inter pares of the Oriental communion, for the convoking of a Pan-Oriental Conference to address the matter.

But you are right in so far as there is no prerogative of appeal to Alexandria in and of itself.
The Supreme authority of an autocephalous Church is the Synod.  If a Syriac Metropolitan has a problem with the Patriarch, there is no greater authority to which he can appeal except the Synod.

It is different between the Coptic-Ethiopian-Eritrean Churches.  The Ethiopian and Eritrean Churches are autocephalous by canon and in principle, but they are functionally autonomous with respect to the See of Alexandria.

Quote
But the Catholic Church affirms the ancient canons in this respect.

You say that as if we are overlooking and ignoring the canons of Sardica. Even if they are upheld as authoritative (I don't know as its merely a local council with regards to the Oriental ecclesiology), the canon is no longer applicable on the premise that there is no longer a bishop of Rome within the Church.
Of course.

Quote
A bishop in any Patriarchate can appeal to the bishop of Rome.  In that sense, Patriarchates within the Catholic communion are not strictly autocephalous.

I get your point here. Because Rome has the prerogative of intervention with these churches, they are not strictly autonomous or autocephalous. I had already imagined that to be the case. But I want to know in the context of their typical everyday administration, as I assume real intervention from Rome is not all that common.
Rome does not at all intervene in the day-to-day affairs of the non-Latin Patriarchal Churches. The Vatican Council did not grant him the prerogative to do that (contrary to the claims of many – both Catholics and non-Catholics).

But the Pope does have the authority to enforce a universal canon of the Church on local Churches.  For example, the requirement to elect a Patriarch to a vacant see within a prescribed time period is a universal canon of the Church.  If a local Church is found violating it, the Pope does have the authority to step in. This occurred a few years ago in the Chaldean Catholic Church (IIRC). The Patriarchal See had been vacant for over a month, though universal law states (IIRC) it must be filled within 20 days (indeed, no Church should be without its chief pastor).  I believe the Pope waited another 2 weeks past the deadline before he intervened.

But day-to-day administration?  No. In Catholic canon law the day-to-day administration of a Church belongs to the proper ordinary.  The word “proper” is a distinctly canonical term referring to the local ordinary who has the inherent authority to administer the day-to-day affairs of his Church. Whatever other descriptives one may attach to the office of the Pope (immediate, ordinary, supreme, etc.) with respect to a local Church, the canonical term “proper” is not one of them.

Blessings
« Last Edit: September 23, 2010, 02:34:03 AM by Mardukm » Logged
deusveritasest
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: None
Jurisdiction: None
Posts: 7,528



WWW
« Reply #12 on: September 23, 2010, 02:39:15 AM »

The Supreme authority of an autocephalous Church is the Synod.  If a Syriac Metropolitan has a problem with the Patriarch, there is no greater authority to which he can appeal except the Synod.

I'm pretty sure pan-jurisdictional conferences can be held and make judgments with authority over particular churches. A Pan-Oriental Conference, thus, would have greater authority than the Synod of any particular autocephalous churches.

It is different between the Coptic-Ethiopian-Eritrean Churches.  The Ethiopian and Eritrean Churches are autocephalous by canon and in principle, but they are functionally autonomous with respect to the See of Alexandria.

What exactly do you mean by that?

Rome does not at all intervene in the day-to-day affairs of the non-Latin Patriarchal Churches. The Vatican Council did not grant him the prerogative to do that (contrary to the claims of many – both Catholics and non-Catholics).

But the Pope does have the authority to enforce a universal canon of the Church on local Churches.  For example, the requirement to elect a Patriarch to a vacant see within a prescribed time period is a universal canon of the Church.  If a local Church is found violating it, the Pope does have the authority to step in. This occurred a few years ago in the Chaldean Catholic Church (IIRC). The Patriarchal See had been vacant for over a month, though universal law states (IIRC) it must be filled within 20 days (indeed, no Church should be without its chief pastor).  I believe the Pope waited another 2 weeks past the deadline before he intervened.

But day-to-day administration?  No. In Catholic canon law the day-to-day administration of a Church belongs to the proper ordinary.  The word “proper” is a distinctly canonical term referring to the local ordinary who has the inherent authority to administer the day-to-day affairs of his Church. Whatever other descriptives one may attach to the office of the Pope (immediate, ordinary, supreme, etc.) with respect to a local Church, the canonical term “proper” is not one of them.

As such, would it be accurate to say that the Patriarchates are autocephalous with regard to how they normally function, the intervening prerogative of Rome not considered?
Logged

I stopped posting here in August 2011 because of stark disagreement with the policies of the administration and moderating team of the forums. If you desire, feel free to PM me, message me on Facebook (link in profile), or email me: cddombrowski@gmail.com
Mardukm
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Coptic
Posts: 423


« Reply #13 on: September 23, 2010, 02:42:57 AM »

The other thing I wanted to point out was that the Council of Sardica was originally intended to be an Ecumenical Council.  All the orthodox bishops of the world, including the Patriarch of Alexandria and the Patriarch of Rome were its members.  It is an unfortunate circumstance of history that almost all the bishops of the East were Arian heretics at the time, and would not attend the Council. But its canons were formulated and agreed upon by all the orthodox bishops at that time, something which should inform the ecumenical talks between the OO and the CC.

What about Eustathius of Antioch and Maximus III of Jerusalem?
IIRC, Eustathius was in exile at the time.  I don't know about Maximus III. Didn't he initially condemn St. Athanasius?

Blessings
Logged
deusveritasest
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: None
Jurisdiction: None
Posts: 7,528



WWW
« Reply #14 on: September 23, 2010, 02:48:04 AM »

The other thing I wanted to point out was that the Council of Sardica was originally intended to be an Ecumenical Council.  All the orthodox bishops of the world, including the Patriarch of Alexandria and the Patriarch of Rome were its members.  It is an unfortunate circumstance of history that almost all the bishops of the East were Arian heretics at the time, and would not attend the Council. But its canons were formulated and agreed upon by all the orthodox bishops at that time, something which should inform the ecumenical talks between the OO and the CC.

What about Eustathius of Antioch and Maximus III of Jerusalem?
IIRC, Eustathius was in exile at the time.  I don't know about Maximus III. Didn't he initially condemn St. Athanasius?

Blessings

Yes, but I don't see anything in the content of the Synod of Tyre that would imply that all of the bishops who signed onto it were Arians, given that the convicted charge against Athanasius at the synod was non-doctrinal (it was about him supposedly blocking Egyptian grain exports to Constantinople).
« Last Edit: September 23, 2010, 02:48:29 AM by deusveritasest » Logged

I stopped posting here in August 2011 because of stark disagreement with the policies of the administration and moderating team of the forums. If you desire, feel free to PM me, message me on Facebook (link in profile), or email me: cddombrowski@gmail.com
Mardukm
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Coptic
Posts: 423


« Reply #15 on: September 23, 2010, 03:05:08 AM »

The Supreme authority of an autocephalous Church is the Synod.  If a Syriac Metropolitan has a problem with the Patriarch, there is no greater authority to which he can appeal except the Synod.

I'm pretty sure pan-jurisdictional conferences can be held and make judgments with authority over particular churches. A Pan-Oriental Conference, thus, would have greater authority than the Synod of any particular autocephalous churches.
The primary purpose of the pan-jurisdictional conferences is to strengthen the bonds of unity between the Oriental Churches. It is a merely consultative body, not at all an executive, legislative or judicial body. If you’ve read the statement coming from those conferences, you’ll see what I mean. Whatever suggestions or decisions they make must be confirmed by the supreme Holy Synods of the individual Churches.

Quote
It is different between the Coptic-Ethiopian-Eritrean Churches.  The Ethiopian and Eritrean Churches are autocephalous by canon and in principle, but they are functionally autonomous with respect to the See of Alexandria.

What exactly do you mean by that?
For example, in the tumultuous atmosphere in which the Eritrean Orthodox Church was formed, the major concern from all quarters was “who is the Patriarch of Alexandria going to side with?” Perhaps it will change in the future, but for now, there is still a very heavy deference to (if not dependence on) HH Pope Shenoute in critical issues that goes on within those Churches.

Quote
Rome does not at all intervene in the day-to-day affairs of the non-Latin Patriarchal Churches. The Vatican Council did not grant him the prerogative to do that (contrary to the claims of many – both Catholics and non-Catholics).

But the Pope does have the authority to enforce a universal canon of the Church on local Churches.  For example, the requirement to elect a Patriarch to a vacant see within a prescribed time period is a universal canon of the Church.  If a local Church is found violating it, the Pope does have the authority to step in. This occurred a few years ago in the Chaldean Catholic Church (IIRC). The Patriarchal See had been vacant for over a month, though universal law states (IIRC) it must be filled within 20 days (indeed, no Church should be without its chief pastor).  I believe the Pope waited another 2 weeks past the deadline before he intervened.

But day-to-day administration?  No. In Catholic canon law the day-to-day administration of a Church belongs to the proper ordinary.  The word “proper” is a distinctly canonical term referring to the local ordinary who has the inherent authority to administer the day-to-day affairs of his Church. Whatever other descriptives one may attach to the office of the Pope (immediate, ordinary, supreme, etc.) with respect to a local Church, the canonical term “proper” is not one of them.

As such, would it be accurate to say that the Patriarchates are autocephalous with regard to how they normally function, the intervening prerogative of Rome not considered?
Aside from his appellate authority, and a matter concerning universal canon law, the Catholic Patriarchates are effectively autocephalous.

Gotta go. See you tomorrow.

Blessings,
Marduk
Logged
deusveritasest
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: None
Jurisdiction: None
Posts: 7,528



WWW
« Reply #16 on: September 23, 2010, 03:38:55 AM »

The primary purpose of the pan-jurisdictional conferences is to strengthen the bonds of unity between the Oriental Churches. It is a merely consultative body, not at all an executive, legislative or judicial body. If you’ve read the statement coming from those conferences, you’ll see what I mean. Whatever suggestions or decisions they make must be confirmed by the supreme Holy Synods of the individual Churches.

That is only because they have not yet had need to invoke the authority of the universal Church. They have clearly done so in the past, particularly earlier in Church history.

For example, in the tumultuous atmosphere in which the Eritrean Orthodox Church was formed, the major concern from all quarters was “who is the Patriarch of Alexandria going to side with?” Perhaps it will change in the future, but for now, there is still a very heavy deference to (if not dependence on) HH Pope Shenoute in critical issues that goes on within those Churches.

I don't think that's jurisdictional. The Oriental churches have the concept of "spiritual supremacy". This is mostly a matter of honorific spiritual leadership. The Coptic Pope is understood as having this "spiritual supremacy" over his own faithful and over his daughter churches. The Syriac Patriarch is understood as having it over his own faithful and his daughter churches. Even the self-proclaimed autocephalous Indian church recognizes the Syriac Patriarch as spiritually supreme, because it is a daughter church of him. And the Armenians have this as well. The Catholicos of Etchmiadzin has "spiritual supremacy" over all Armenians, even over the Catholicosate of Cilicia, which practically speaking is autocephalous.

So I think why the opinion of the Coptic Pope has so much weight for the Ethiopians and Eritreans is because of this concept, not because he still has any actual jurisdictional authority.

Aside from his appellate authority, and a matter concerning universal canon law, the Catholic Patriarchates are effectively autocephalous.

And the Major-Archbishoprics and Metropolitans are effectively non-autocephalous but autonomous?
Logged

I stopped posting here in August 2011 because of stark disagreement with the policies of the administration and moderating team of the forums. If you desire, feel free to PM me, message me on Facebook (link in profile), or email me: cddombrowski@gmail.com
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
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: 37,124



« Reply #17 on: September 23, 2010, 06:19:49 AM »

I'm curious if anyone could explain how the jurisdictional characters of the various Eastern churches of the Roman communion compare to the Eastern concepts of autocephaly and/or autonomy?
LOL.
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
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,026



« Reply #18 on: July 04, 2011, 10:39:30 PM »

^ Marduk,
When a Patriarch is elected, he requests communion with Rome, am I right?
Yes. This occurs after his enthronement.  He is also required to notify all other Patriarchs of his election.

Blessings

Alright, I understand your explanation as to that group.

However, I am confused about your answer about the Patriarchal churches.

How is it that their form of jurisdiction is not essentially equivalent to the concept of autocephaly?

I think it makes a lot of sense that a newly-elected patriarch writes to the pope requesting ecclesiastical communion. I wonder, however, why this request is made only to pope, and not to each Catholic patriarch individually.
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
JamesRottnek
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Anglican
Jurisdiction: Episcopal Diocese of Arizona
Posts: 5,103


I am Bibleman; putting 'the' back in the Ukraine


« Reply #19 on: July 04, 2011, 10:56:38 PM »

Because the Pope is the supreme ruler of your communion.  The other Patriarchs aren't really Patriarchs in the sense that they are in the Orthodox Church, rather they are auxiliary bishops given wide latitude as are all bishops of your communion, aside from the Pope (with that latitude varying based on their position).
Logged

I know a secret about a former Supreme Court Justice.  Can you guess what it is?

The greatest tragedy in the world is when a cigarette ends.

American Spirits - the eco-friendly cigarette.

Preston Robert Kinney (September 8th, 1997-August 14, 2011
akimori makoto
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Non-heretical Christian
Jurisdiction: Fully-sik-hektic archdiocese of Australia, bro
Posts: 3,126

No-one bound by fleshly pleasures is worthy ...


« Reply #20 on: July 04, 2011, 11:04:14 PM »

Because the Pope is the supreme ruler of your communion.  The other Patriarchs aren't really Patriarchs in the sense that they are in the Orthodox Church, rather they are auxiliary bishops given wide latitude as are all bishops of your communion, aside from the Pope (with that latitude varying based on their position).

Nail hit on head.
Logged

The Episcopallian road is easy and wide, for many go through it to find destruction. lol sorry channeling Isa.
Paisius
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Multi-Jurisdictional
Posts: 816


Reframed


« Reply #21 on: July 05, 2011, 12:01:21 AM »

^ Marduk,
When a Patriarch is elected, he requests communion with Rome, am I right?
Yes. This occurs after his enthronement.  He is also required to notify all other Patriarchs of his election.

Blessings

Alright, I understand your explanation as to that group.

However, I am confused about your answer about the Patriarchal churches.

How is it that their form of jurisdiction is not essentially equivalent to the concept of autocephaly?

I think it makes a lot of sense that a newly-elected patriarch writes to the pope requesting ecclesiastical communion. I wonder, however, why this request is made only to pope, and not to each Catholic patriarch individually.


And moreover why doesn't a newly elected pope write to the other patriarchs requesting communion with them?
Logged

"Is it really true that political self-interest is nobler somehow than economic self-interest?" - Milton Friedman
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
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: 37,124



« Reply #22 on: July 05, 2011, 12:09:33 AM »

^ Marduk,
When a Patriarch is elected, he requests communion with Rome, am I right?
Yes. This occurs after his enthronement.  He is also required to notify all other Patriarchs of his election.

Blessings

Alright, I understand your explanation as to that group.

However, I am confused about your answer about the Patriarchal churches.

How is it that their form of jurisdiction is not essentially equivalent to the concept of autocephaly?

I think it makes a lot of sense that a newly-elected patriarch writes to the pope requesting ecclesiastical communion. I wonder, however, why this request is made only to pope, and not to each Catholic patriarch individually.


And moreover why doesn't a newly elected pope write to the other patriarchs requesting communion with them?
LOL. We all know the answer to that, now, don't we?
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 #23 on: July 05, 2011, 12:24:41 AM »

^ Marduk,
When a Patriarch is elected, he requests communion with Rome, am I right?
Yes. This occurs after his enthronement.  He is also required to notify all other Patriarchs of his election.

Blessings

Alright, I understand your explanation as to that group.

However, I am confused about your answer about the Patriarchal churches.

How is it that their form of jurisdiction is not essentially equivalent to the concept of autocephaly?

I think it makes a lot of sense that a newly-elected patriarch writes to the pope requesting ecclesiastical communion. I wonder, however, why this request is made only to pope, and not to each Catholic patriarch individually.


And moreover why doesn't a newly elected pope write to the other patriarchs requesting communion with them?

LOL. We all know the answer to that, now, don't we?


Catholics may rejoice that the Apostle Peter has apparently given the answer to this through the august lips of his 257th tulku Pope Leo XIII:--

"We hold upon this earth the place of God Almighty."

Encyclical, Pope Leo XIII, 20th June 1894.

« Last Edit: July 05, 2011, 12:27:26 AM by Irish Hermit » Logged
Wyatt
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Posts: 2,395


« Reply #24 on: July 05, 2011, 12:52:19 AM »

Because the Pope is the supreme ruler of your communion.  The other Patriarchs aren't really Patriarchs in the sense that they are in the Orthodox Church, rather they are auxiliary bishops given wide latitude as are all bishops of your communion, aside from the Pope (with that latitude varying based on their position).
Didn't our communion used to be your communion too?
Logged
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #25 on: July 05, 2011, 12:58:43 AM »

Because the Pope is the supreme ruler of your communion.  The other Patriarchs aren't really Patriarchs in the sense that they are in the Orthodox Church, rather they are auxiliary bishops given wide latitude as are all bishops of your communion, aside from the Pope (with that latitude varying based on their position).

Didn't our communion used to be your communion too?


Let us enjoy communion again.  Follow the will of the Lord, dear brothers, and come home.

"We are unchanged; we are still the same as we were in the eighth century... Oh that you could
only consent to be again what you were once, when we were both united in faith and communion!"

~Alexis Khomiakov
Logged
JamesRottnek
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Anglican
Jurisdiction: Episcopal Diocese of Arizona
Posts: 5,103


I am Bibleman; putting 'the' back in the Ukraine


« Reply #26 on: July 05, 2011, 01:51:59 AM »

Because the Pope is the supreme ruler of your communion.  The other Patriarchs aren't really Patriarchs in the sense that they are in the Orthodox Church, rather they are auxiliary bishops given wide latitude as are all bishops of your communion, aside from the Pope (with that latitude varying based on their position).
Didn't our communion used to be your communion too?

No.  When Rome was Orthodox, Rome was one Patriarchate of the Orthodox Communion.  This was the Communion that existed in 33 A.D., continued on to the time of the first generation of cradle Orthodox, such as St. Ignatius, included St. Justin Martyr, extended to St. John Chrysostom, was around when the Russians were baptized, existed in Constantinople in 1453, and is the same communion today.  All of the aforementioned are still a part of this Communion.  All of those who were part of the Western Church when there was communion, are still a part of the Orthodox Church Triumphant.  However, those that became heretics and schismatics broke themselves away from the communion and they created a new communion. 

In short, your communion was never Orthodox, because when Rome was Orthodox, it was a part of the Orthodox Communion.  Once Rome went into heresy and schism, that very moment, it created a new communion that was never Orthodox and never will be Orthodox.  Rome will have to rejoin the Orthodox Communion and submit herself to it if she is to be Orthodox once more.
Logged

I know a secret about a former Supreme Court Justice.  Can you guess what it is?

The greatest tragedy in the world is when a cigarette ends.

American Spirits - the eco-friendly cigarette.

Preston Robert Kinney (September 8th, 1997-August 14, 2011
WetCatechumen
Roman Catholic
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic Christianity
Jurisdiction: Latin Rite - Archdiocese of Santa Fe; Ruthenian Byzantine Catholic Eparchy of Phoenix
Posts: 297



« Reply #27 on: July 05, 2011, 04:24:50 AM »

^ Marduk,
When a Patriarch is elected, he requests communion with Rome, am I right?
Yes. This occurs after his enthronement.  He is also required to notify all other Patriarchs of his election.

Blessings

Alright, I understand your explanation as to that group.

However, I am confused about your answer about the Patriarchal churches.

How is it that their form of jurisdiction is not essentially equivalent to the concept of autocephaly?

I think it makes a lot of sense that a newly-elected patriarch writes to the pope requesting ecclesiastical communion. I wonder, however, why this request is made only to pope, and not to each Catholic patriarch individually.


And moreover why doesn't a newly elected pope write to the other patriarchs requesting communion with them?

LOL. We all know the answer to that, now, don't we?


Catholics may rejoice that the Apostle Peter has apparently given the answer to this through the august lips of his 257th tulku Pope Leo XIII:--

"We hold upon this earth the place of God Almighty."

Encyclical, Pope Leo XIII, 20th June 1894.



So each bishop doesn't hold upon the earth the place of God Almighty? Because I was to understand that even the Orthodox agree that the bishops and priests hold the place and authority of Christ.
« Last Edit: July 05, 2011, 04:32:17 AM by WetCatechumen » Logged

"And because they have nothing better to do, they take cushion and chairs to Rome. And while the Pope is saying liturgy, they go, 'Oh, oh, oh, filioque!' And the Pope say, 'Filioque? That-uh sound nice! I think I divide-uh the Church over it!'" - Comrade Real Presence
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #28 on: July 05, 2011, 06:00:18 AM »

^ Marduk,
When a Patriarch is elected, he requests communion with Rome, am I right?
Yes. This occurs after his enthronement.  He is also required to notify all other Patriarchs of his election.

Blessings

Alright, I understand your explanation as to that group.

However, I am confused about your answer about the Patriarchal churches.

How is it that their form of jurisdiction is not essentially equivalent to the concept of autocephaly?

I think it makes a lot of sense that a newly-elected patriarch writes to the pope requesting ecclesiastical communion. I wonder, however, why this request is made only to pope, and not to each Catholic patriarch individually.


And moreover why doesn't a newly elected pope write to the other patriarchs requesting communion with them?

LOL. We all know the answer to that, now, don't we?


Catholics may rejoice that the Apostle Peter has apparently given the answer to this through the august lips of his 257th tulku Pope Leo XIII:--

"We hold upon this earth the place of God Almighty."

Encyclical, Pope Leo XIII, 20th June 1894.



So each bishop doesn't hold upon the earth the place of God Almighty? Because I was to understand that even the Orthodox agree that the bishops and priests hold the place and authority of Christ.


I think this is a little distorted, unless you genuinely believe that every bishop holds on earth the same place and authority as the Pope and exercises identical powers to the Pope.
Logged
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
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: 37,124



« Reply #29 on: July 05, 2011, 06:26:21 AM »

Because the Pope is the supreme ruler of your communion.  The other Patriarchs aren't really Patriarchs in the sense that they are in the Orthodox Church, rather they are auxiliary bishops given wide latitude as are all bishops of your communion, aside from the Pope (with that latitude varying based on their position).
Didn't our communion used to be your communion too?
No, your ecclesiastical community defining the Catholic Chuch as communion with a supreme pontiff at Rome was never part of our communion, but that community arose from those who left our communion.
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
WetCatechumen
Roman Catholic
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic Christianity
Jurisdiction: Latin Rite - Archdiocese of Santa Fe; Ruthenian Byzantine Catholic Eparchy of Phoenix
Posts: 297



« Reply #30 on: July 05, 2011, 07:09:25 AM »

^ Marduk,
When a Patriarch is elected, he requests communion with Rome, am I right?
Yes. This occurs after his enthronement.  He is also required to notify all other Patriarchs of his election.

Blessings

Alright, I understand your explanation as to that group.

However, I am confused about your answer about the Patriarchal churches.

How is it that their form of jurisdiction is not essentially equivalent to the concept of autocephaly?

I think it makes a lot of sense that a newly-elected patriarch writes to the pope requesting ecclesiastical communion. I wonder, however, why this request is made only to pope, and not to each Catholic patriarch individually.


And moreover why doesn't a newly elected pope write to the other patriarchs requesting communion with them?

LOL. We all know the answer to that, now, don't we?


Catholics may rejoice that the Apostle Peter has apparently given the answer to this through the august lips of his 257th tulku Pope Leo XIII:--

"We hold upon this earth the place of God Almighty."

Encyclical, Pope Leo XIII, 20th June 1894.



So each bishop doesn't hold upon the earth the place of God Almighty? Because I was to understand that even the Orthodox agree that the bishops and priests hold the place and authority of Christ.


I think this is a little distorted, unless you genuinely believe that every bishop holds on earth the same place and authority as the Pope and exercises identical powers to the Pope.

I don't think so. The bishops hold the authority of God Almighty upon the earth. We happen to believe that the Pope holds it in a special, singular way different from other bishops. Sure, we disagree on that - but a bishop saying that he holds the place of God Almighty upon the earth isn't heretical.
Logged

"And because they have nothing better to do, they take cushion and chairs to Rome. And while the Pope is saying liturgy, they go, 'Oh, oh, oh, filioque!' And the Pope say, 'Filioque? That-uh sound nice! I think I divide-uh the Church over it!'" - Comrade Real Presence
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #31 on: July 05, 2011, 08:16:37 AM »

^ Marduk,
When a Patriarch is elected, he requests communion with Rome, am I right?
Yes. This occurs after his enthronement.  He is also required to notify all other Patriarchs of his election.

Blessings

Alright, I understand your explanation as to that group.

However, I am confused about your answer about the Patriarchal churches.

How is it that their form of jurisdiction is not essentially equivalent to the concept of autocephaly?

I think it makes a lot of sense that a newly-elected patriarch writes to the pope requesting ecclesiastical communion. I wonder, however, why this request is made only to pope, and not to each Catholic patriarch individually.


And moreover why doesn't a newly elected pope write to the other patriarchs requesting communion with them?

LOL. We all know the answer to that, now, don't we?


Catholics may rejoice that the Apostle Peter has apparently given the answer to this through the august lips of his 257th tulku Pope Leo XIII:--

"We hold upon this earth the place of God Almighty."

Encyclical, Pope Leo XIII, 20th June 1894.



So each bishop doesn't hold upon the earth the place of God Almighty? Because I was to understand that even the Orthodox agree that the bishops and priests hold the place and authority of Christ.


I think this is a little distorted, unless you genuinely believe that every bishop holds on earth the same place and authority as the Pope and exercises identical powers to the Pope.

I don't think so. The bishops hold the authority of God Almighty upon the earth. We happen to believe that the Pope holds it in a special, singular way different from other bishops. Sure, we disagree on that - but a bishop saying that he holds the place of God Almighty upon the earth isn't heretical.

So when  the Pope said "We hold upon this earth the place of God Amighty" was he speaking of his extra special powers which he does not share with anybody else or earth, or was he just speaking as one of the boys? 
Logged
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #32 on: July 05, 2011, 10:37:13 AM »

^ Marduk,
When a Patriarch is elected, he requests communion with Rome, am I right?
Yes. This occurs after his enthronement.  He is also required to notify all other Patriarchs of his election.

Blessings

Alright, I understand your explanation as to that group.

However, I am confused about your answer about the Patriarchal churches.

How is it that their form of jurisdiction is not essentially equivalent to the concept of autocephaly?

I think it makes a lot of sense that a newly-elected patriarch writes to the pope requesting ecclesiastical communion. I wonder, however, why this request is made only to pope, and not to each Catholic patriarch individually.


And moreover why doesn't a newly elected pope write to the other patriarchs requesting communion with them?

LOL. We all know the answer to that, now, don't we?


Catholics may rejoice that the Apostle Peter has apparently given the answer to this through the august lips of his 257th tulku Pope Leo XIII:--

"We hold upon this earth the place of God Almighty."

Encyclical, Pope Leo XIII, 20th June 1894.



Point of information:

Praeclara gratulationis publicae
is not an encyclical.  It is actually one of the Holy Father's exhortations of the faithful to unity.  It comes toward the end of his life and is set in the language of his time and place.

http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Leo13/l13praec.htm

http://www.ewtn.com/vexperts/showmessage.asp?number=302361&Pg=&Pgnu=&recnu=

« Last Edit: July 05, 2011, 10:40:34 AM by elijahmaria » Logged

Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,026



« Reply #33 on: July 05, 2011, 10:46:41 AM »

Because the Pope is the supreme ruler of your communion.  The other Patriarchs aren't really Patriarchs in the sense that they are in the Orthodox Church, rather they are auxiliary bishops given wide latitude as are all bishops of your communion, aside from the Pope (with that latitude varying based on their position).

Didn't our communion used to be your communion too?


Let us enjoy communion again.

Past attempts at union (e.g. the Council of Florence and the Union of Brest) haven't been as successful as we would have liked. However, I like to think that the next union(s) will be different.
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #34 on: July 05, 2011, 12:18:22 PM »

^ Marduk,
When a Patriarch is elected, he requests communion with Rome, am I right?
Yes. This occurs after his enthronement.  He is also required to notify all other Patriarchs of his election.

Blessings

Alright, I understand your explanation as to that group.

However, I am confused about your answer about the Patriarchal churches.

How is it that their form of jurisdiction is not essentially equivalent to the concept of autocephaly?

I think it makes a lot of sense that a newly-elected patriarch writes to the pope requesting ecclesiastical communion. I wonder, however, why this request is made only to pope, and not to each Catholic patriarch individually.


And moreover why doesn't a newly elected pope write to the other patriarchs requesting communion with them?

LOL. We all know the answer to that, now, don't we?


Catholics may rejoice that the Apostle Peter has apparently given the answer to this through the august lips of his 257th tulku Pope Leo XIII:--

"We hold upon this earth the place of God Almighty."

Encyclical, Pope Leo XIII, 20th June 1894.



Point of information:
Praeclara gratulationis publicae is not an encyclical.  It is actually one of the Holy Father's exhortations of the faithful to unity.  It comes toward the end of his life and is set in the language of his time and place.

http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Leo13/l13praec.htm

http://www.ewtn.com/vexperts/showmessage.asp?number=302361&Pg=&Pgnu=&recnu=

So basically, ignore it. This is now another time and another place and Peter has differing views now..
Logged
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #35 on: July 05, 2011, 12:30:33 PM »

Because the Pope is the supreme ruler of your communion.  The other Patriarchs aren't really Patriarchs in the sense that they are in the Orthodox Church, rather they are auxiliary bishops given wide latitude as are all bishops of your communion, aside from the Pope (with that latitude varying based on their position).

Didn't our communion used to be your communion too?


Let us enjoy communion again.

Past attempts at union (e.g. the Council of Florence and the Union of Brest) haven't been as successful as we would have liked. However, I like to think that the next union(s) will be different.

As we saw in another thread the Popes are not dealing honestly with the Orthodox.  They are going along with the current charade of "tell us how you'd like to see the power and position of the bishop of Rome"  but they are hiding from us what they see as the limits, what can be thrown away and what authority and power they want to retain after union is achieved. 

Will he agree, for example, that our Patriarchs are his equals and our Churches are equally autocephalous with Rome?  Or will he want to reduce the status of our Patriarchs to that of his current Eastern Catholic ones, and reduce  our Church to the same inferior autonomous ranking?

There's not a great amount of honesty and clarity coming from the Vatican.  That does not augur well for the dialogue.
Logged
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #36 on: July 05, 2011, 12:36:48 PM »

Because the Pope is the supreme ruler of your communion.  The other Patriarchs aren't really Patriarchs in the sense that they are in the Orthodox Church, rather they are auxiliary bishops given wide latitude as are all bishops of your communion, aside from the Pope (with that latitude varying based on their position).

Didn't our communion used to be your communion too?


Let us enjoy communion again.

Past attempts at union (e.g. the Council of Florence and the Union of Brest) haven't been as successful as we would have liked. However, I like to think that the next union(s) will be different.

As we saw in another thread the Popes are not dealing honestly with the Orthodox.  They are going along with the current charade of "tell us how you'd like to see the power and position of the bishop of Rome"  but they are hiding from us what they see as the limits, what can be thrown away and what authority and power they want to retain after union is achieved. 

Will he agree, for example, that our Patriarchs are his equals and our Churches are equally autocephalous with Rome?  Or will he want to reduce the status of our Patriarchs to that of his current Eastern Catholic ones, and reduce  our Church to the same inferior autonomous ranking?

There's not a great amount of honesty and clarity coming from the Vatican.  That does not augur well for the dialogue.

I don't see your false accusation reflected in any of the formal statements and clarifications from the Vatican to support your claim here.

What I see is Orthodoxy returning to the table cycle after cycle and being exceptionally warm and welcoming to the supreme pontiff when he is invited to their liturgies and jurisdictions.
« Last Edit: July 05, 2011, 12:37:49 PM by elijahmaria » Logged

Wyatt
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Posts: 2,395


« Reply #37 on: July 05, 2011, 02:32:01 PM »

Because the Pope is the supreme ruler of your communion.  The other Patriarchs aren't really Patriarchs in the sense that they are in the Orthodox Church, rather they are auxiliary bishops given wide latitude as are all bishops of your communion, aside from the Pope (with that latitude varying based on their position).
Didn't our communion used to be your communion too?

No.  When Rome was Orthodox, Rome was one Patriarchate of the Orthodox Communion.  This was the Communion that existed in 33 A.D., continued on to the time of the first generation of cradle Orthodox, such as St. Ignatius, included St. Justin Martyr, extended to St. John Chrysostom, was around when the Russians were baptized, existed in Constantinople in 1453, and is the same communion today.  All of the aforementioned are still a part of this Communion.  All of those who were part of the Western Church when there was communion, are still a part of the Orthodox Church Triumphant.  However, those that became heretics and schismatics broke themselves away from the communion and they created a new communion. 

In short, your communion was never Orthodox, because when Rome was Orthodox, it was a part of the Orthodox Communion.  Once Rome went into heresy and schism, that very moment, it created a new communion that was never Orthodox and never will be Orthodox.  Rome will have to rejoin the Orthodox Communion and submit herself to it if she is to be Orthodox once more.
No, I meant didn't you used to be Catholic? I could have sworn you were.
Logged
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
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: 37,124



« Reply #38 on: July 05, 2011, 02:55:35 PM »

Because the Pope is the supreme ruler of your communion.  The other Patriarchs aren't really Patriarchs in the sense that they are in the Orthodox Church, rather they are auxiliary bishops given wide latitude as are all bishops of your communion, aside from the Pope (with that latitude varying based on their position).

Didn't our communion used to be your communion too?


Let us enjoy communion again.

Past attempts at union (e.g. the Council of Florence and the Union of Brest) haven't been as successful as we would have liked. However, I like to think that the next union(s) will be different.

As we saw in another thread the Popes are not dealing honestly with the Orthodox.  They are going along with the current charade of "tell us how you'd like to see the power and position of the bishop of Rome"  but they are hiding from us what they see as the limits, what can be thrown away and what authority and power they want to retain after union is achieved. 

Will he agree, for example, that our Patriarchs are his equals and our Churches are equally autocephalous with Rome?  Or will he want to reduce the status of our Patriarchs to that of his current Eastern Catholic ones, and reduce  our Church to the same inferior autonomous ranking?

There's not a great amount of honesty and clarity coming from the Vatican.  That does not augur well for the dialogue.

I don't see your false accusation reflected in any of the formal statements and clarifications from the Vatican to support your claim here.


What I see is Orthodoxy returning to the table cycle after cycle and being exceptionally warm and welcoming to the supreme pontiff when he is invited to their liturgies and jurisdictions.
Oh? Do you have a citation of said Orthodox refering to your supreme pontiff as such and as such receiving him?

I do believe that they, both Orthodox and your supreme pontiff, have been exceptionally warm and welcoming to the Anglicans' Archbishop of Canterbury.

Btw, encyclical, exhortation, whatever, it's been responded to.
http://orthodoxinfo.com/ecumenism/encyc_1895.aspx
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
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #39 on: July 05, 2011, 03:03:15 PM »

Oh? Do you have a citation of said Orthodox refering to your supreme pontiff as such and as such receiving him?

I could most likely find some citations on-line of Internet Orthodox moaning and beefing about the fact that Pope Benedict XVI has been honored in ways that are most unsatisfactory to people who think as you demonstrate that you think here.
Logged

JamesRottnek
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Anglican
Jurisdiction: Episcopal Diocese of Arizona
Posts: 5,103


I am Bibleman; putting 'the' back in the Ukraine


« Reply #40 on: July 05, 2011, 03:41:17 PM »

Because the Pope is the supreme ruler of your communion.  The other Patriarchs aren't really Patriarchs in the sense that they are in the Orthodox Church, rather they are auxiliary bishops given wide latitude as are all bishops of your communion, aside from the Pope (with that latitude varying based on their position).
Didn't our communion used to be your communion too?

No.  When Rome was Orthodox, Rome was one Patriarchate of the Orthodox Communion.  This was the Communion that existed in 33 A.D., continued on to the time of the first generation of cradle Orthodox, such as St. Ignatius, included St. Justin Martyr, extended to St. John Chrysostom, was around when the Russians were baptized, existed in Constantinople in 1453, and is the same communion today.  All of the aforementioned are still a part of this Communion.  All of those who were part of the Western Church when there was communion, are still a part of the Orthodox Church Triumphant.  However, those that became heretics and schismatics broke themselves away from the communion and they created a new communion. 

In short, your communion was never Orthodox, because when Rome was Orthodox, it was a part of the Orthodox Communion.  Once Rome went into heresy and schism, that very moment, it created a new communion that was never Orthodox and never will be Orthodox.  Rome will have to rejoin the Orthodox Communion and submit herself to it if she is to be Orthodox once more.
No, I meant didn't you used to be Catholic? I could have sworn you were.

Oh, my apologies.  No, I've never been Catholic.  I grew up in an evangelical non-denominational church and have never actually stepped foot in a Roman Catholic church.  I considered, for a while, becoming Catholic, mainly before I found out about Orthodoxy (ironically enough, on the Catholic Answers forum).
Logged

I know a secret about a former Supreme Court Justice.  Can you guess what it is?

The greatest tragedy in the world is when a cigarette ends.

American Spirits - the eco-friendly cigarette.

Preston Robert Kinney (September 8th, 1997-August 14, 2011
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
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: 37,124



« Reply #41 on: July 05, 2011, 04:12:35 PM »

Oh? Do you have a citation of said Orthodox refering to your supreme pontiff as such and as such receiving him?

I could most likely find some citations on-line of Internet Orthodox moaning and beefing about the fact that Pope Benedict XVI has been honored in ways that are most unsatisfactory to people who think as you demonstrate that you think here.
IOW, no, you cannot cite Orthodox receiving your supreme pontiff as our supreme pontiff.
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
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #42 on: July 05, 2011, 05:07:42 PM »

Oh? Do you have a citation of said Orthodox refering to your supreme pontiff as such and as such receiving him?

I could most likely find some citations on-line of Internet Orthodox moaning and beefing about the fact that Pope Benedict XVI has been honored in ways that are most unsatisfactory to people who think as you demonstrate that you think here.
IOW, no, you cannot cite Orthodox receiving your supreme pontiff as our supreme pontiff.

Never said that.  Never suggested it.  Would not expect it.
Logged

Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #43 on: July 05, 2011, 05:18:19 PM »

Because the Pope is the supreme ruler of your communion.  The other Patriarchs aren't really Patriarchs in the sense that they are in the Orthodox Church, rather they are auxiliary bishops given wide latitude as are all bishops of your communion, aside from the Pope (with that latitude varying based on their position).

Didn't our communion used to be your communion too?


Let us enjoy communion again.

Past attempts at union (e.g. the Council of Florence and the Union of Brest) haven't been as successful as we would have liked. However, I like to think that the next union(s) will be different.

As we saw in another thread the Popes are not dealing honestly with the Orthodox.  They are going along with the current charade of "tell us how you'd like to see the power and position of the bishop of Rome"  but they are hiding from us what they see as the limits, what can be thrown away and what authority and power they want to retain after union is achieved. 

Will he agree, for example, that our Patriarchs are his equals and our Churches are equally autocephalous with Rome?  Or will he want to reduce the status of our Patriarchs to that of his current Eastern Catholic ones, and reduce  our Church to the same inferior autonomous ranking?

There's not a great amount of honesty and clarity coming from the Vatican.  That does not augur well for the dialogue.

I don't see your false accusation reflected in any of the formal statements and clarifications from the Vatican to support your claim here.

What I see is Orthodoxy returning to the table cycle after cycle and being exceptionally warm and welcoming to the supreme pontiff when he is invited to their liturgies and jurisdictions.


In that case why not dispel the accusation of bad faith against the Pope by relaying to us, briefly,  what powers and authority he intends to exercise if there is a union between our Churches.

Logged
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
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: 37,124



« Reply #44 on: July 05, 2011, 05:24:58 PM »

Oh? Do you have a citation of said Orthodox refering to your supreme pontiff as such and as such receiving him?

I could most likely find some citations on-line of Internet Orthodox moaning and beefing about the fact that Pope Benedict XVI has been honored in ways that are most unsatisfactory to people who think as you demonstrate that you think here.
IOW, no, you cannot cite Orthodox receiving your supreme pontiff as our supreme pontiff.

Never said that.  Never suggested it.  Would not expect it.
So you admit your expectations are ill founded.
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
Tags:
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 0.2 seconds with 72 queries.