Topic: Autocephaly or Autonomy in the Roman communion?

[deusveritasest]

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?

[Mardukm]

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

[Papist]

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

[Mardukm]

^ 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

[deusveritasest]

- 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?

[Mardukm]

- 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

[deusveritasest]

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?

[Mardukm]

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

[Mardukm]

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

[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.

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.

[deusveritasest]

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?

[Mardukm]

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.

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.

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

[deusveritasest]

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?

[Mardukm]

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

[deusveritasest]

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).

[Mardukm]

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.

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.

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

[deusveritasest]

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?

[ialmisry]

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.

[Peter J]

^ 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.

[JamesRottnek]

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).

[akimori makoto]

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.

[Paisius]

^ 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?

[ialmisry]

^ 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?

[Irish Hermit]

^ 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.

[Wyatt]

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?

[Irish Hermit]

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

[JamesRottnek]

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.

[WetCatechumen]

^ 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.

[Irish Hermit]

^ 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.

[ialmisry]

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.

[WetCatechumen]

^ 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.

[Irish Hermit]

^ 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? 

[elijahmaria]

^ 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=

[Peter J]

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.

[Irish Hermit]

^ 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..

[Irish Hermit]

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.

[elijahmaria]

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.

[Wyatt]

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.

[ialmisry]

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

[elijahmaria]

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.

[JamesRottnek]

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).

[ialmisry]

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.

[elijahmaria]

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.

[Irish Hermit]

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.

[ialmisry]

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.