OrthodoxChristianity.net
November 24, 2014, 09:55:07 PM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Reminder: No political discussions in the public fora.  If you do not have access to the private Politics Forum, please send a PM to Fr. George.
 
   Home   Help Calendar Contact Treasury Tags Login Register  
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 »  All   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Why do the Orthodox need Catholics?  (Read 12863 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #135 on: June 24, 2011, 11:02:34 PM »


The issue is or was till the Doctor took over:  Is Orthodoxy only engaged in the current bilateral dialogue with Catholics so that they can proselytize the Catholic Church.



In some sense, yes.  For the Orthodox the prequisite for union is that the faith of the other Church coincides with the Orthodox faith.

Therefore dialogue is about coming to a mutual understanding of one another's faith and the search by the Orthodox to see how they may be drawn closer.
Logged
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #136 on: June 24, 2011, 11:16:10 PM »


I have said and I believe that Orthodoxy is NOT engaging in the current rounds of dialogue in order to proselytize and that they are actually discussing the issue of primatial primacy and petrine primacy in good faith, in order to seek a path to the ending of the schism

IF Orthodoxy is NOT engaging in good faith then I think it is time to come clean and walk away from the table ....


The Russian delegates to the International Meetings have stated unequivocally and with 100% clarity that there is not and never will be a global primacy in the Church.  We have not been leading the Catholics astray.

There are many statements on this from our bishops and theologians in the Forum's archives.

Try a search with   primacy hilarion

Because of your repeated insistence on this "bad faith" issue I am starting to think you have a mental block about the Orthodox statements which perturb you.

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

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #137 on: June 24, 2011, 11:23:39 PM »


IF Orthodoxy is NOT engaging in good faith then I think it is time to come clean and walk away from the table ....


What about your Pope coming clean?  Has he made a statement that after union he will have the status of a Patriarch, with no more authority than Moscow or Georgia?

Or has he made a statement that he will have superior authority to other Patriarchs?

I've never seen any come-clean statement from him.  Where's his good faith in the dialogue?
Logged
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #138 on: June 25, 2011, 05:34:13 PM »


Yes, its now a suffragan of Bucharest

If he is the Bishop of Rome shouldn't we be addressing him as Pope?  I think the two titles go together.
Logged
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,963



« Reply #139 on: June 25, 2011, 07:59:05 PM »


Yes, its now a suffragan of Bucharest

If he is the Bishop of Rome shouldn't we be addressing him as Pope?  I think the two titles go together.
The Romanian Orthodox Episcopate of Italy, like the EP's Metropolitinate of Italy, are two healthy Orthodox bodies of the Catholic Church giving an organ transplant to Italy, not a regeneration of the corpses of the Patriarchate of the West and the Papacy of Rome.

We're picking up the pieces of this:

Humpty Dumpty isn't together again yet.

I just posted something in the Private Fora on this, Father. Do you have access?
« Last Edit: June 25, 2011, 08:05:02 PM by ialmisry » Logged

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

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #140 on: June 25, 2011, 08:12:04 PM »


Yes, its now a suffragan of Bucharest

If he is the Bishop of Rome shouldn't we be addressing him as Pope?  I think the two titles go together.
The Romanian Orthodox Episcopate of Italy, like the EP's Metropolitinate of Italy, are two healthy Orthodox bodies of the Catholic Church giving an organ transplant to Italy, not a regeneration of the corpses of the Patriarchate of the West and the Papacy of Rome.

So, although he is Bishop of Rome he is not the successor of the last Orthodox Pope of Rome?

Maybe he does not have the title "Bishop of Rome"?
Logged
Wyatt
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Posts: 2,395


« Reply #141 on: June 25, 2011, 08:15:48 PM »

Ialmisry sure does love maps.
Logged
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #142 on: June 25, 2011, 08:17:29 PM »


I just posted something in the Private Fora on this, Father. Do you have access?


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

Faith: Catholic
Posts: 2,395


« Reply #143 on: June 25, 2011, 08:19:58 PM »


I just posted something in the Private Fora on this, Father. Do you have access?



You should message one of the mods for access to it. It's a jolly good time in there.  Grin
Logged
podkarpatska
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: ACROD
Posts: 8,783


Pokrov


WWW
« Reply #144 on: June 25, 2011, 09:25:40 PM »

Do you guys and gals ever, ever get tired of being on a merry-go-round? Same old barbs, same old arguments, never concede a point, never give the slightest indication that anyone is willing to consider that anything said or written by anyone from another point of view may offer something constructive to the discussion?

It is increasingly clear to me that no one here is particularly interested in learning anything or considering a point of view other than one which is already possessed  - it's like being back in first year law dorms thirty five years ago where everyone thought they knew it all.

Everyone speaks of spirituality, but it seems that triumphalism reigns online regardless of your church or jurisdiction within the Church. I'm taking a break until after the Apostle's Fast and I will see if I feel any different afterwards.

« Last Edit: June 25, 2011, 09:26:14 PM by podkarpatska » Logged
biro
Excelsior
Site Supporter
Warned
Toumarches
*****
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox
Posts: 14,391


fleem
WWW
« Reply #145 on: June 25, 2011, 11:03:44 PM »

Ialmisry sure does love maps.

Oh, yeah  Shocked
Logged

Charlie Rose: "If you could change one thing about the world, what would it be?"

Fran Lebowitz: "Everything. There is not one thing with which I am satisified."

spcasuncoast.org
Wyatt
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Posts: 2,395


« Reply #146 on: June 26, 2011, 01:30:50 AM »

Do you guys and gals ever, ever get tired of being on a merry-go-round? Same old barbs, same old arguments, never concede a point, never give the slightest indication that anyone is willing to consider that anything said or written by anyone from another point of view may offer something constructive to the discussion?

It is increasingly clear to me that no one here is particularly interested in learning anything or considering a point of view other than one which is already possessed  - it's like being back in first year law dorms thirty five years ago where everyone thought they knew it all.

Everyone speaks of spirituality, but it seems that triumphalism reigns online regardless of your church or jurisdiction within the Church. I'm taking a break until after the Apostle's Fast and I will see if I feel any different afterwards.


I think what you have described here is just the atmosphere of forums across the board. People go around and around and debate for the sake of debating but nothing ever really gets solved. This has been my experience with any forum I have ever been a member of. On any given forum, there is usually a member or a group of members that like to argue just because.
« Last Edit: June 26, 2011, 01:31:24 AM by Wyatt » Logged
stanley123
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Roman Catholic
Posts: 3,809


« Reply #147 on: June 26, 2011, 02:30:29 AM »

Do you guys and gals ever, ever get tired of being on a merry-go-round? Same old barbs, same old arguments, never concede a point, never give the slightest indication that anyone is willing to consider that anything said or written by anyone from another point of view may offer something constructive to the discussion?

It is increasingly clear to me that no one here is particularly interested in learning anything or considering a point of view other than one which is already possessed  - it's like being back in first year law dorms thirty five years ago where everyone thought they knew it all.

Everyone speaks of spirituality, but it seems that triumphalism reigns online regardless of your church or jurisdiction within the Church. I'm taking a break until after the Apostle's Fast and I will see if I feel any different afterwards.


I think what you have described here is just the atmosphere of forums across the board. People go around and around and debate for the sake of debating but nothing ever really gets solved. This has been my experience with any forum I have ever been a member of. On any given forum, there is usually a member or a group of members that like to argue just because.
Although, from time to time, I find that I actually learn something that I did not know before.
Logged
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,963



« Reply #148 on: June 26, 2011, 09:47:39 PM »


Yes, its now a suffragan of Bucharest

If he is the Bishop of Rome shouldn't we be addressing him as Pope?  I think the two titles go together.
The Romanian Orthodox Episcopate of Italy, like the EP's Metropolitinate of Italy, are two healthy Orthodox bodies of the Catholic Church giving an organ transplant to Italy, not a regeneration of the corpses of the Patriarchate of the West and the Papacy of Rome.

So, although he is Bishop of Rome he is not the successor of the last Orthodox Pope of Rome?

Maybe he does not have the title "Bishop of Rome"?
For sake of argument, Father, let's say that a bishop being enthroned in Rome makes him the Pope of Rome and Patriarch of the West, and apply that principle elsewhere:Every act of the Russian Church 1811-1917 would be voidable, as the Holy Governing Synod of the Russian Church included the Exarch of Georgia who was de officio the autocephalous head of another Church.

Then again, there would be trouble with all the acts of the Russian church from 1448-1589/1593, and St. Jonah would be a schismatic, as the new Orthodox EP would have resumed jurisdiction over the Russias in 1454.

Archbishop Stefan of Ohrid would be autocephalous, with the Macedonian Church.  And all 15 primates would have to have him (along with Pope Siluan) in their diptychs.  And he would be joined by either Met. Amfilohije or Met. Mihailo as the autocephalous primate of Montenegro. 

The Romanian Patriarchate would have to give up Met. Laurentiu of Sibiu and Transylvania, and Met. Pimen of Suceava and Rădăuţi, both of whom would be autocephalous.  In fact Bishop Siluan would be under Met. Pimen, as his see is the canonical basis of Romania having any jurisdiction in Italy.  He would also have jurisdiction over Western Ukraine, the Czech Lands, and southern Poland.

Patriarch Ireniej would also be Patriarch of Hungary and Slovakia, as Metropolitan of Karlovci. As it is, Pat. Daniel's has canonical problems with his Western Dioceses:


And we would not have to have the great and holy synod fix the diptychs, as either Pope Siluan or EP Bartholomew (who also has a good canonical argument as good as Romania's, for jurisdiction over Italy) would be firmly in place there.  There would be no case for Moscow moving up.

Or maybe Kiev: since it was the Metropolitan of Kiev resident at Moscow who was made autocephalous, either Met. Volodymyr would be Patriarch, or Patriarch Kiril would have to translate back to Kiev.

Circumstances change, however, and the Church takes that into account.  I don't even recall if the Pope of Rome is called as such in the canons.  In fact, aside from its autocephaly and jurisdiction over Italy, and its function as a court of appeal, I don't recall any papacy of Rome codified in the canons.  The papacy as an institution seems only to exist in the traditions and practice of the Church, and not vested in an office (as the Vatican claims), and as such, can be changed as the Church needs or sees fit.  Since 1593 Rome was removed as a patriarchate in the Catholic Church. There is no requirement that it be received back as one.  In fact, given that 7 autocephalous Churches now occupy parts of its former jurisdiction, it won't be.
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
Father H
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian--God's One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: UOCofUSA-Ecumenical Patriarchate
Posts: 2,611



« Reply #149 on: June 26, 2011, 10:14:51 PM »

The Spirit has descended!

The Orthodox=the Catholics.

I really wish our people would get this.   When the Fathers and the Ecumenical Councils speak of "Catholic Church" and "Catholics" they are speaking about us!   Why are any of us hesitant to speak of ourselves in the terminology that the Holy Fathers gave us? 
Logged
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #150 on: June 26, 2011, 10:15:22 PM »


Yes, its now a suffragan of Bucharest

If he is the Bishop of Rome shouldn't we be addressing him as Pope?  I think the two titles go together.
The Romanian Orthodox Episcopate of Italy, like the EP's Metropolitinate of Italy, are two healthy Orthodox bodies of the Catholic Church giving an organ transplant to Italy, not a regeneration of the corpses of the Patriarchate of the West and the Papacy of Rome.

So, although he is Bishop of Rome he is not the successor of the last Orthodox Pope of Rome?

Maybe he does not have the title "Bishop of Rome"?
For sake of argument, Father, let's say that a bishop being enthroned in Rome makes him the Pope of Rome and Patriarch of the West, and apply that principle elsewhere:Every act of the Russian Church 1811-1917 would be voidable, as the Holy Governing Synod of the Russian Church included the Exarch of Georgia who was de officio the autocephalous head of another Church.

Then again, there would be trouble with all the acts of the Russian church from 1448-1589/1593, and St. Jonah would be a schismatic, as the new Orthodox EP would have resumed jurisdiction over the Russias in 1454.

Archbishop Stefan of Ohrid would be autocephalous, with the Macedonian Church.  And all 15 primates would have to have him (along with Pope Siluan) in their diptychs.  And he would be joined by either Met. Amfilohije or Met. Mihailo as the autocephalous primate of Montenegro. 

The Romanian Patriarchate would have to give up Met. Laurentiu of Sibiu and Transylvania, and Met. Pimen of Suceava and Rădăuţi, both of whom would be autocephalous.  In fact Bishop Siluan would be under Met. Pimen, as his see is the canonical basis of Romania having any jurisdiction in Italy.  He would also have jurisdiction over Western Ukraine, the Czech Lands, and southern Poland.

Patriarch Ireniej would also be Patriarch of Hungary and Slovakia, as Metropolitan of Karlovci. As it is, Pat. Daniel's has canonical problems with his Western Dioceses:


And we would not have to have the great and holy synod fix the diptychs, as either Pope Siluan or EP Bartholomew (who also has a good canonical argument as good as Romania's, for jurisdiction over Italy) would be firmly in place there.  There would be no case for Moscow moving up.

Or maybe Kiev: since it was the Metropolitan of Kiev resident at Moscow who was made autocephalous, either Met. Volodymyr would be Patriarch, or Patriarch Kiril would have to translate back to Kiev.

Circumstances change, however, and the Church takes that into account.  I don't even recall if the Pope of Rome is called as such in the canons.  In fact, aside from its autocephaly and jurisdiction over Italy, and its function as a court of appeal, I don't recall any papacy of Rome codified in the canons.  The papacy as an institution seems only to exist in the traditions and practice of the Church, and not vested in an office (as the Vatican claims), and as such, can be changed as the Church needs or sees fit.  Since 1593 Rome was removed as a patriarchate in the Catholic Church. There is no requirement that it be received back as one.  In fact, given that 7 autocephalous Churches now occupy parts of its former jurisdiction, it won't be.

I get it now.  The bishop of Rome and the Pope of Rome are two different men.  But I think this is some modern big-O idiocy.

Is Bishop Siluan installed as Bishop of Rome or not?  If he is not then this is a cheval mort.  laugh
Logged
Father H
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian--God's One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: UOCofUSA-Ecumenical Patriarchate
Posts: 2,611



« Reply #151 on: June 26, 2011, 10:22:13 PM »


Yes, its now a suffragan of Bucharest

If he is the Bishop of Rome shouldn't we be addressing him as Pope?  I think the two titles go together.
The Romanian Orthodox Episcopate of Italy, like the EP's Metropolitinate of Italy, are two healthy Orthodox bodies of the Catholic Church giving an organ transplant to Italy, not a regeneration of the corpses of the Patriarchate of the West and the Papacy of Rome.

So, although he is Bishop of Rome he is not the successor of the last Orthodox Pope of Rome?

Maybe he does not have the title "Bishop of Rome"?
For sake of argument, Father, let's say that a bishop being enthroned in Rome makes him the Pope of Rome and Patriarch of the West, and apply that principle elsewhere:Every act of the Russian Church 1811-1917 would be voidable, as the Holy Governing Synod of the Russian Church included the Exarch of Georgia who was de officio the autocephalous head of another Church.

Then again, there would be trouble with all the acts of the Russian church from 1448-1589/1593, and St. Jonah would be a schismatic, as the new Orthodox EP would have resumed jurisdiction over the Russias in 1454.

Archbishop Stefan of Ohrid would be autocephalous, with the Macedonian Church.  And all 15 primates would have to have him (along with Pope Siluan) in their diptychs.  And he would be joined by either Met. Amfilohije or Met. Mihailo as the autocephalous primate of Montenegro. 

The Romanian Patriarchate would have to give up Met. Laurentiu of Sibiu and Transylvania, and Met. Pimen of Suceava and Rădăuţi, both of whom would be autocephalous.  In fact Bishop Siluan would be under Met. Pimen, as his see is the canonical basis of Romania having any jurisdiction in Italy.  He would also have jurisdiction over Western Ukraine, the Czech Lands, and southern Poland.

Patriarch Ireniej would also be Patriarch of Hungary and Slovakia, as Metropolitan of Karlovci. As it is, Pat. Daniel's has canonical problems with his Western Dioceses:


And we would not have to have the great and holy synod fix the diptychs, as either Pope Siluan or EP Bartholomew (who also has a good canonical argument as good as Romania's, for jurisdiction over Italy) would be firmly in place there.  There would be no case for Moscow moving up.

Or maybe Kiev: since it was the Metropolitan of Kiev resident at Moscow who was made autocephalous, either Met. Volodymyr would be Patriarch, or Patriarch Kiril would have to translate back to Kiev.

Circumstances change, however, and the Church takes that into account.  I don't even recall if the Pope of Rome is called as such in the canons.  In fact, aside from its autocephaly and jurisdiction over Italy, and its function as a court of appeal, I don't recall any papacy of Rome codified in the canons.  The papacy as an institution seems only to exist in the traditions and practice of the Church, and not vested in an office (as the Vatican claims), and as such, can be changed as the Church needs or sees fit.  Since 1593 Rome was removed as a patriarchate in the Catholic Church. There is no requirement that it be received back as one.  In fact, given that 7 autocephalous Churches now occupy parts of its former jurisdiction, it won't be.

FYI:  Canon 1 of the Council of Constantinople of 879:

1. This holy and ecumenical Council has decreed that so far as concerns any clerics, or laymen, or bishops from Italy that are staying in Asia, or Europe, or Africa, under bond, or deposition, or anathema imposed by the most holy Pope John, all such persons are to be held in the same condition of penalization also by the most holy Patriarch of Constantinople Photius. That is to say, either deposed, or anathematized, or excommunicated. All those persons, on the other hand, whom Photius our most holy Patriarch has condemned or may condemn to excommunication, or deposition, or anathematization, in any diocese whatsoever, whether clerics or laymen or any of the persons who are of prelatical or priestly rank, are to be treated likewise by most holy Pope John, and his holy Church of God of the Romans, and be held in the same category of penalization. Nothing, however, shall affect the priorities due to the most holy throne of the Church of the Romans, nor shall anything redound to the detriment of her president, as touching the sum-total of innovations, either now or at any time hereafter.

Logged
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,963



« Reply #152 on: June 26, 2011, 11:14:00 PM »


Yes, its now a suffragan of Bucharest

If he is the Bishop of Rome shouldn't we be addressing him as Pope?  I think the two titles go together.
The Romanian Orthodox Episcopate of Italy, like the EP's Metropolitinate of Italy, are two healthy Orthodox bodies of the Catholic Church giving an organ transplant to Italy, not a regeneration of the corpses of the Patriarchate of the West and the Papacy of Rome.

So, although he is Bishop of Rome he is not the successor of the last Orthodox Pope of Rome?

Maybe he does not have the title "Bishop of Rome"?
For sake of argument, Father, let's say that a bishop being enthroned in Rome makes him the Pope of Rome and Patriarch of the West, and apply that principle elsewhere:Every act of the Russian Church 1811-1917 would be voidable, as the Holy Governing Synod of the Russian Church included the Exarch of Georgia who was de officio the autocephalous head of another Church.

Then again, there would be trouble with all the acts of the Russian church from 1448-1589/1593, and St. Jonah would be a schismatic, as the new Orthodox EP would have resumed jurisdiction over the Russias in 1454.

Archbishop Stefan of Ohrid would be autocephalous, with the Macedonian Church.  And all 15 primates would have to have him (along with Pope Siluan) in their diptychs.  And he would be joined by either Met. Amfilohije or Met. Mihailo as the autocephalous primate of Montenegro. 

The Romanian Patriarchate would have to give up Met. Laurentiu of Sibiu and Transylvania, and Met. Pimen of Suceava and Rădăuţi, both of whom would be autocephalous.  In fact Bishop Siluan would be under Met. Pimen, as his see is the canonical basis of Romania having any jurisdiction in Italy.  He would also have jurisdiction over Western Ukraine, the Czech Lands, and southern Poland.

Patriarch Ireniej would also be Patriarch of Hungary and Slovakia, as Metropolitan of Karlovci. As it is, Pat. Daniel's has canonical problems with his Western Dioceses:


And we would not have to have the great and holy synod fix the diptychs, as either Pope Siluan or EP Bartholomew (who also has a good canonical argument as good as Romania's, for jurisdiction over Italy) would be firmly in place there.  There would be no case for Moscow moving up.

Or maybe Kiev: since it was the Metropolitan of Kiev resident at Moscow who was made autocephalous, either Met. Volodymyr would be Patriarch, or Patriarch Kiril would have to translate back to Kiev.

Circumstances change, however, and the Church takes that into account.  I don't even recall if the Pope of Rome is called as such in the canons.  In fact, aside from its autocephaly and jurisdiction over Italy, and its function as a court of appeal, I don't recall any papacy of Rome codified in the canons.  The papacy as an institution seems only to exist in the traditions and practice of the Church, and not vested in an office (as the Vatican claims), and as such, can be changed as the Church needs or sees fit.  Since 1593 Rome was removed as a patriarchate in the Catholic Church. There is no requirement that it be received back as one.  In fact, given that 7 autocephalous Churches now occupy parts of its former jurisdiction, it won't be.

I get it now.  The bishop of Rome and the Pope of Rome are two different men.
 
No, Father.  The former office has been rived and the latter office, at least for the Orthodox, is defunct.

But I think this is some modern big-O idiocy.
It would have to be modern: until the Papal States fell in 1870, it would be impossible to have an Orthodox bishop in Rome. That is, btw, the source of the dispute on whether the EP or Romania would have jurisdiction in Italy: the Patriarch of Karlovci had the only Orthodox jurisdiction in what is now Italy, but I'm not sure what happened between 1866 (when part of the territories he had jurisdiction were annexed to Italy) and 1870 (when Italy annexed Rome).  Then there is what happened between 1870 and 1873 (when the Patriarch of Karlovci's jurisdiction in Italy was translated to the Metropolitanate of Bukowina/Bucovina).

Is Bishop Siluan installed as Bishop of Rome or not? 
Ever since 2009 (he was enthroned the previous year at Luca. When the statut for the Episcopate was approved in 2009, it mandated his see at Rome, a cathedral was set up and his grace was translated to it at Rome).
http://episcopia-italiei.it/media/hotarare_statut.pdf
http://episcopia-italiei.it/media/statut_eori.pdf
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 #153 on: June 26, 2011, 11:22:04 PM »


No, Father.  The former office has been rived and the latter office, at least for the Orthodox, is defunct.


OK, I am impressed!  I had to look up "rive."   laugh
Logged
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,963



« Reply #154 on: June 26, 2011, 11:25:03 PM »


Yes, its now a suffragan of Bucharest

If he is the Bishop of Rome shouldn't we be addressing him as Pope?  I think the two titles go together.
The Romanian Orthodox Episcopate of Italy, like the EP's Metropolitinate of Italy, are two healthy Orthodox bodies of the Catholic Church giving an organ transplant to Italy, not a regeneration of the corpses of the Patriarchate of the West and the Papacy of Rome.

So, although he is Bishop of Rome he is not the successor of the last Orthodox Pope of Rome?

Maybe he does not have the title "Bishop of Rome"?
For sake of argument, Father, let's say that a bishop being enthroned in Rome makes him the Pope of Rome and Patriarch of the West, and apply that principle elsewhere:Every act of the Russian Church 1811-1917 would be voidable, as the Holy Governing Synod of the Russian Church included the Exarch of Georgia who was de officio the autocephalous head of another Church.

Then again, there would be trouble with all the acts of the Russian church from 1448-1589/1593, and St. Jonah would be a schismatic, as the new Orthodox EP would have resumed jurisdiction over the Russias in 1454.

Archbishop Stefan of Ohrid would be autocephalous, with the Macedonian Church.  And all 15 primates would have to have him (along with Pope Siluan) in their diptychs.  And he would be joined by either Met. Amfilohije or Met. Mihailo as the autocephalous primate of Montenegro. 

The Romanian Patriarchate would have to give up Met. Laurentiu of Sibiu and Transylvania, and Met. Pimen of Suceava and Rădăuţi, both of whom would be autocephalous.  In fact Bishop Siluan would be under Met. Pimen, as his see is the canonical basis of Romania having any jurisdiction in Italy.  He would also have jurisdiction over Western Ukraine, the Czech Lands, and southern Poland.

Patriarch Ireniej would also be Patriarch of Hungary and Slovakia, as Metropolitan of Karlovci. As it is, Pat. Daniel's has canonical problems with his Western Dioceses:


And we would not have to have the great and holy synod fix the diptychs, as either Pope Siluan or EP Bartholomew (who also has a good canonical argument as good as Romania's, for jurisdiction over Italy) would be firmly in place there.  There would be no case for Moscow moving up.

Or maybe Kiev: since it was the Metropolitan of Kiev resident at Moscow who was made autocephalous, either Met. Volodymyr would be Patriarch, or Patriarch Kiril would have to translate back to Kiev.

Circumstances change, however, and the Church takes that into account.  I don't even recall if the Pope of Rome is called as such in the canons.  In fact, aside from its autocephaly and jurisdiction over Italy, and its function as a court of appeal, I don't recall any papacy of Rome codified in the canons.  The papacy as an institution seems only to exist in the traditions and practice of the Church, and not vested in an office (as the Vatican claims), and as such, can be changed as the Church needs or sees fit.  Since 1593 Rome was removed as a patriarchate in the Catholic Church. There is no requirement that it be received back as one.  In fact, given that 7 autocephalous Churches now occupy parts of its former jurisdiction, it won't be.

FYI:  Canon 1 of the Council of Constantinople of 879:

1. This holy and ecumenical Council has decreed that so far as concerns any clerics, or laymen, or bishops from Italy that are staying in Asia, or Europe, or Africa, under bond, or deposition, or anathema imposed by the most holy Pope John, all such persons are to be held in the same condition of penalization also by the most holy Patriarch of Constantinople Photius. That is to say, either deposed, or anathematized, or excommunicated. All those persons, on the other hand, whom Photius our most holy Patriarch has condemned or may condemn to excommunication, or deposition, or anathematization, in any diocese whatsoever, whether clerics or laymen or any of the persons who are of prelatical or priestly rank, are to be treated likewise by most holy Pope John, and his holy Church of God of the Romans, and be held in the same category of penalization. Nothing, however, shall affect the priorities due to the most holy throne of the Church of the Romans, nor shall anything redound to the detriment of her president, as touching the sum-total of innovations, either now or at any time hereafter.


Father, do you have the text of the original: it not being in the Pedalion, and IIRC the Syntagma (I don't have my copy readily to check). Btw, where did you get the translation?

since, however, the Vatican abandoned this council and embraced its antithesis, proclaiming it as its Eighth Ecumenical Council, including its anathematization of St. Photios and his deposition, amongst other problems, it would be another example of how the papacy of Rome self destructed and hence now is defunct, if not disestablished.

Btw, Bishop Siluan AFAIK doesn't have a claim to the supreme pontiff title:since the Emperor gave that pagan title and office to the Pope of Rome, not the Church, it has no connection to the see of Rome as far as the Church is concerned.
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: 6,170



« Reply #155 on: June 26, 2011, 11:54:07 PM »

The Spirit has descended!

The Orthodox=the Catholics.

I really wish our people would get this.   When the Fathers and the Ecumenical Councils speak of "Catholic Church" and "Catholics" they are speaking about us!   Why are any of us hesitant to speak of ourselves in the terminology that the Holy Fathers gave us? 

To be fair, I think a big part of it is a simple desire to avoid confusing people.
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
Wyatt
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Posts: 2,395


« Reply #156 on: June 26, 2011, 11:56:16 PM »

The Spirit has descended!

The Orthodox=the Catholics.

I really wish our people would get this.   When the Fathers and the Ecumenical Councils speak of "Catholic Church" and "Catholics" they are speaking about us!   Why are any of us hesitant to speak of ourselves in the terminology that the Holy Fathers gave us? 

To be fair, I think a big part of it is a simple desire to avoid confusing people.
I think it is interesting that, even though I am sure that the majority of Roman Catholics here on the forum consider their faith to be orthodox, you do not see a great push from us to refer to our Church as the Orthodox Church or refer to ourselves as Orthodox Christians.
Logged
stanley123
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Roman Catholic
Posts: 3,809


« Reply #157 on: June 27, 2011, 12:01:47 AM »

The Spirit has descended!

The Orthodox=the Catholics.

I really wish our people would get this.   When the Fathers and the Ecumenical Councils speak of "Catholic Church" and "Catholics" they are speaking about us!   Why are any of us hesitant to speak of ourselves in the terminology that the Holy Fathers gave us? 
I don't know. I think it is wonderful that Eastern Orthodox Christians want to be known as Catholics.
Logged
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,170



« Reply #158 on: June 27, 2011, 08:42:22 AM »

The Spirit has descended!

The Orthodox=the Catholics.

I really wish our people would get this.   When the Fathers and the Ecumenical Councils speak of "Catholic Church" and "Catholics" they are speaking about us!   Why are any of us hesitant to speak of ourselves in the terminology that the Holy Fathers gave us? 

To be fair, I think a big part of it is a simple desire to avoid confusing people.
I think it is interesting that, even though I am sure that the majority of Roman Catholics here on the forum consider their faith to be orthodox, you do not see a great push from us to refer to our Church as the Orthodox Church or refer to ourselves as Orthodox Christians.

True. I guess there's no need, since the creed says "One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church", not "One Holy Orthodox and Apostolic Church".
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,963



« Reply #159 on: June 27, 2011, 09:03:14 AM »

The Spirit has descended!

The Orthodox=the Catholics.

I really wish our people would get this.   When the Fathers and the Ecumenical Councils speak of "Catholic Church" and "Catholics" they are speaking about us!   Why are any of us hesitant to speak of ourselves in the terminology that the Holy Fathers gave us? 

To be fair, I think a big part of it is a simple desire to avoid confusing people.
Or to confuse them, as to the identity of which Church Patriarch St. Ignatius, the Creed and the Fathers of the rest of the Councils meant.
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
Orthodoc
Supporter & Defender Of Orthodoxy
Archon
********
Offline Offline

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

Those who ignore history tend to repeat it.


« Reply #160 on: June 27, 2011, 09:06:59 AM »

The Spirit has descended!

The Orthodox=the Catholics.

I really wish our people would get this.   When the Fathers and the Ecumenical Councils speak of "Catholic Church" and "Catholics" they are speaking about us!   Why are any of us hesitant to speak of ourselves in the terminology that the Holy Fathers gave us? 
I don't know. I think it is wonderful that Eastern Orthodox Christians want to be known as Catholics.

So do I.  Not only because the word is rightfully ours, but because it counteracts the papal Catholics from misleading it's people by teaching that we broke away from the Catholic Church mentioned in the Creed.  Remember there is only one piece of pie from the ORIGINAL pie that stands alone outside the pan,  and it isn't the Orthodox.  FatherHLL I'm with you.  I'm amazed that some of our own people cannot understand the importance of this issue.  They seem as brain washed as some papal Catholics when it comes to this.  I don't deny Rome it's right to the word Catholic.  I do deny it's claims to have exclusive rights to the ident to mislead people where Church history is concerned.

Orthodoc
Logged

Oh Lord, Save thy people and bless thine inheritance.
Grant victory to the Orthodox Christians over their adversaries.
And by virtue of thy Cross preserve thy habitation.
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,963



« Reply #161 on: June 27, 2011, 09:08:12 AM »

The Spirit has descended!

The Orthodox=the Catholics.

I really wish our people would get this.   When the Fathers and the Ecumenical Councils speak of "Catholic Church" and "Catholics" they are speaking about us!   Why are any of us hesitant to speak of ourselves in the terminology that the Holy Fathers gave us? 

To be fair, I think a big part of it is a simple desire to avoid confusing people.
I think it is interesting that, even though I am sure that the majority of Roman Catholics here on the forum consider their faith to be orthodox, you do not see a great push from us to refer to our Church as the Orthodox Church or refer to ourselves as Orthodox Christians.
The Fathers speak of the Orthodox Faith of the Catholic Church, i.e. us. We are only following their usage.
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 #162 on: June 27, 2011, 09:47:44 AM »

The Spirit has descended!

The Orthodox=the Catholics.

I really wish our people would get this.   When the Fathers and the Ecumenical Councils speak of "Catholic Church" and "Catholics" they are speaking about us!   Why are any of us hesitant to speak of ourselves in the terminology that the Holy Fathers gave us? 
I don't know. I think it is wonderful that Eastern Orthodox Christians want to be known as Catholics.

So do I.  Not only because the word is rightfully ours, but because it counteracts the papal Catholics from misleading it's people by teaching that we broke away from the Catholic Church mentioned in the Creed.  Remember there is only one piece of pie from the ORIGINAL pie that stands alone outside the pan,  and it isn't the Orthodox.  FatherHLL I'm with you.  I'm amazed that some of our own people cannot understand the importance of this issue.  They seem as brain washed as some papal Catholics when it comes to this.  I don't deny Rome it's right to the word Catholic.  I do deny it's claims to have exclusive rights to the ident to mislead people where Church history is concerned.

Orthodoc

Expressed in this way the Catholic Church would agree with you.
Logged

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

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #163 on: June 27, 2011, 09:53:41 AM »


IF Orthodoxy is NOT engaging in good faith then I think it is time to come clean and walk away from the table ....



What about your Pope coming clean?  Has he made a statement that after union he will have the status of a Patriarch, with no more authority than Moscow or Georgia?

Or has he made a statement that he will have superior authority to other Patriarchs?

I've never seen any come-clean statement from him.  Where's his good faith in the dialogue?

The silence from our Catholic members is answer enough.  The Pope is not dealing fairly with the Orthodox on what position and authority he wants to hold in a reunited East and West.   Hmmm... 
Logged
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,170



« Reply #164 on: June 27, 2011, 10:21:47 AM »


IF Orthodoxy is NOT engaging in good faith then I think it is time to come clean and walk away from the table ....



What about your Pope coming clean?  Has he made a statement that after union he will have the status of a Patriarch, with no more authority than Moscow or Georgia?

Or has he made a statement that he will have superior authority to other Patriarchs?

I've never seen any come-clean statement from him.  Where's his good faith in the dialogue?

The silence from our Catholic members is answer enough.

Not necessarily. Personally, I view that question as part of a back-and-forth between you and elijahmaria.
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #165 on: June 27, 2011, 10:29:35 AM »


IF Orthodoxy is NOT engaging in good faith then I think it is time to come clean and walk away from the table ....



What about your Pope coming clean?  Has he made a statement that after union he will have the status of a Patriarch, with no more authority than Moscow or Georgia?

Or has he made a statement that he will have superior authority to other Patriarchs?

I've never seen any come-clean statement from him.  Where's his good faith in the dialogue?

The silence from our Catholic members is answer enough.  The Pope is not dealing fairly with the Orthodox on what position and authority he wants to hold in a reunited East and West.   Hmmm... 

Mother is quite ill.  I am not posting much.  I am also not posting much because the biases are too dense in the currently active posts and I don't have time to spend clipping through the brambles.

In this case, I do believe that Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger and also Pope Benedict has been greeted and lauded by the Slavic Orthodox world, at least, and by the EP, as an exemplary representative of the papal Church.  So if there were a problem, I have NO doubt that we'd be hearing it loud and clear.

Also with respect to one of the other triumphal posts in line here over the last few days...IF the Catholic Church were not recognized by the bishops and patriarchs of Orthodoxy as a Church at all...we'd be hearing that as well...from something other than...what did Father Ambrose call it?...oh yes....the "lunatic fringe."

 
Logged

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

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #166 on: June 27, 2011, 10:30:38 AM »


IF Orthodoxy is NOT engaging in good faith then I think it is time to come clean and walk away from the table ....



What about your Pope coming clean?  Has he made a statement that after union he will have the status of a Patriarch, with no more authority than Moscow or Georgia?

Or has he made a statement that he will have superior authority to other Patriarchs?

I've never seen any come-clean statement from him.  Where's his good faith in the dialogue?

The silence from our Catholic members is answer enough.

Not necessarily. Personally, I view that question as part of a back-and-forth between you and elijahmaria.

You and Mary were playing tag on the bad faith accusation.   You speculated that a reading of "The Rock" article could lead to cries of bad faith against the Orthodox.
Logged
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #167 on: June 27, 2011, 10:36:54 AM »


IF Orthodoxy is NOT engaging in good faith then I think it is time to come clean and walk away from the table ....



What about your Pope coming clean?  Has he made a statement that after union he will have the status of a Patriarch, with no more authority than Moscow or Georgia?

Or has he made a statement that he will have superior authority to other Patriarchs?

I've never seen any come-clean statement from him.  Where's his good faith in the dialogue?

The silence from our Catholic members is answer enough.

Not necessarily. Personally, I view that question as part of a back-and-forth between you and elijahmaria.

You and Mary were playing tag on the bad faith accusation.   You speculated that a reading of "The Rock" article could lead to cries of bad faith against the Orthodox.

I was not arguing that the Orthodox are dialoguing in bad faith.

I am more clearly saying that IF you and others are correct in saying that the ONLY reason that the Orthodox dialogue with the Catholic Church is in order to proselytize, THEN the Orthodox are dialoguing in bad faith.

However I don't think you and others are correct in your estimations of the dialogue and its purpose.
« Last Edit: June 27, 2011, 10:37:27 AM by elijahmaria » Logged

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

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #168 on: June 27, 2011, 10:39:54 AM »

In this case, I do believe that Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger and also Pope Benedict has been greeted and lauded by the Slavic Orthodox world, at least, and by the EP, as an exemplary representative of the papal Church.  So if there were a problem, I have NO doubt that we'd be hearing it loud and clear.

Also with respect to one of the other triumphal posts in line here over the last few days...IF the Catholic Church were not recognized by the bishops and patriarchs of Orthodoxy as a Church at all...we'd be hearing that as well...from something other than...what did Father Ambrose call it?...oh yes....the "lunatic fringe."


The thing is that I have never known any bishop, when asked if the Pope and the Catholic bishops are genuine and authentic and valid bishops to answer yes.   How many bishops will answer Yes? How many will answer No?  How many will avoid the question and change the subject?

Any Orthodox members have experience with this?  My impression is that our bishops treat the question of the episcopal Orders of the Pope with the same politeness that the Pope treats the Archbishop of Canterbury. 
Logged
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #169 on: June 27, 2011, 10:43:28 AM »


I am more clearly saying that IF you and others are correct in saying that the ONLY reason that the Orthodox dialogue with the Catholic Church is in order to proselytize, THEN the Orthodox are dialoguing in bad faith.


And  I am saying that if the Pope won't come clean and state what status and authority he wants to have in a reunified West and East then he is not dealing with us honestly.  And he isn't.
Logged
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #170 on: June 27, 2011, 10:45:15 AM »

In this case, I do believe that Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger and also Pope Benedict has been greeted and lauded by the Slavic Orthodox world, at least, and by the EP, as an exemplary representative of the papal Church.  So if there were a problem, I have NO doubt that we'd be hearing it loud and clear.

Also with respect to one of the other triumphal posts in line here over the last few days...IF the Catholic Church were not recognized by the bishops and patriarchs of Orthodoxy as a Church at all...we'd be hearing that as well...from something other than...what did Father Ambrose call it?...oh yes....the "lunatic fringe."


The thing is that I have never known any bishop, when asked if the Pope and the Catholic bishops are genuine and authentic and valid bishops to answer yes.   How many bishops will answer Yes? How many will answer No?  How many will avoid the question and change the subject?

Any Orthodox members have experience with this?  My impression is that our bishops treat the question of the episcopal Orders of the Pope with the same politeness that the Pope treats the Archbishop of Canterbury. 

The same thing happens with Catholic priests and bishops and questions concerning Orthodoxy.  They politely point to the statements coming from the highest levels.

There's no doubt in my mind that there are Catholic bishops who are repulsed by Orthodoxy.

But I wasn't talking about things at that level.

Heck...there are Orthodox bishops who are repulsed by other Orthodox bishops.

Resumption of Communion can never be predicated on fallen and venal humanity.
Logged

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

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #171 on: June 27, 2011, 10:52:34 AM »


However I don't think you and others are correct in your estimations of the dialogue and its purpose.


Then you are wrong.  I invite you to go back to message 83
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,37062.msg590493.html#msg590493

There you will find the clear statement of 2000 of the postion of the Russian Orthodox Church as to its view of the dialogue and its purpose.

Note that in fact what the Russian Church is doing is re-presenting verbatim the position of the Church of Constantinople.
Logged
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #172 on: June 27, 2011, 10:57:02 AM »

In this case, I do believe that Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger and also Pope Benedict has been greeted and lauded by the Slavic Orthodox world, at least, and by the EP, as an exemplary representative of the papal Church.  So if there were a problem, I have NO doubt that we'd be hearing it loud and clear.

Also with respect to one of the other triumphal posts in line here over the last few days...IF the Catholic Church were not recognized by the bishops and patriarchs of Orthodoxy as a Church at all...we'd be hearing that as well...from something other than...what did Father Ambrose call it?...oh yes....the "lunatic fringe."


The thing is that I have never known any bishop, when asked if the Pope and the Catholic bishops are genuine and authentic and valid bishops to answer yes.   How many bishops will answer Yes? How many will answer No?  How many will avoid the question and change the subject?

Any Orthodox members have experience with this?  My impression is that our bishops treat the question of the episcopal Orders of the Pope with the same politeness that the Pope treats the Archbishop of Canterbury. 

The same thing happens with Catholic priests and bishops and questions concerning Orthodoxy.  They politely point to the statements coming from the highest levels.

There's no doubt in my mind that there are Catholic bishops who are repulsed by Orthodoxy.

But I wasn't talking about things at that level.

Heck...there are Orthodox bishops who are repulsed by other Orthodox bishops.

Resumption of Communion can never be predicated on fallen and venal humanity.

Nor can it be predicated on the refusal of every Orthodox Patriarch to acknowledge the validity of the Pope's episcopal Orders.  Mary, they simply won't do it.  They remember only two well the fate of their predecessors after Florence.  The faithful will not tolerate it.
Logged
Father H
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian--God's One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: UOCofUSA-Ecumenical Patriarchate
Posts: 2,611



« Reply #173 on: June 27, 2011, 11:29:28 AM »


Yes, its now a suffragan of Bucharest

If he is the Bishop of Rome shouldn't we be addressing him as Pope?  I think the two titles go together.
The Romanian Orthodox Episcopate of Italy, like the EP's Metropolitinate of Italy, are two healthy Orthodox bodies of the Catholic Church giving an organ transplant to Italy, not a regeneration of the corpses of the Patriarchate of the West and the Papacy of Rome.

So, although he is Bishop of Rome he is not the successor of the last Orthodox Pope of Rome?

Maybe he does not have the title "Bishop of Rome"?
For sake of argument, Father, let's say that a bishop being enthroned in Rome makes him the Pope of Rome and Patriarch of the West, and apply that principle elsewhere:Every act of the Russian Church 1811-1917 would be voidable, as the Holy Governing Synod of the Russian Church included the Exarch of Georgia who was de officio the autocephalous head of another Church.

Then again, there would be trouble with all the acts of the Russian church from 1448-1589/1593, and St. Jonah would be a schismatic, as the new Orthodox EP would have resumed jurisdiction over the Russias in 1454.

Archbishop Stefan of Ohrid would be autocephalous, with the Macedonian Church.  And all 15 primates would have to have him (along with Pope Siluan) in their diptychs.  And he would be joined by either Met. Amfilohije or Met. Mihailo as the autocephalous primate of Montenegro. 

The Romanian Patriarchate would have to give up Met. Laurentiu of Sibiu and Transylvania, and Met. Pimen of Suceava and Rădăuţi, both of whom would be autocephalous.  In fact Bishop Siluan would be under Met. Pimen, as his see is the canonical basis of Romania having any jurisdiction in Italy.  He would also have jurisdiction over Western Ukraine, the Czech Lands, and southern Poland.

Patriarch Ireniej would also be Patriarch of Hungary and Slovakia, as Metropolitan of Karlovci. As it is, Pat. Daniel's has canonical problems with his Western Dioceses:


And we would not have to have the great and holy synod fix the diptychs, as either Pope Siluan or EP Bartholomew (who also has a good canonical argument as good as Romania's, for jurisdiction over Italy) would be firmly in place there.  There would be no case for Moscow moving up.

Or maybe Kiev: since it was the Metropolitan of Kiev resident at Moscow who was made autocephalous, either Met. Volodymyr would be Patriarch, or Patriarch Kiril would have to translate back to Kiev.

Circumstances change, however, and the Church takes that into account.  I don't even recall if the Pope of Rome is called as such in the canons.  In fact, aside from its autocephaly and jurisdiction over Italy, and its function as a court of appeal, I don't recall any papacy of Rome codified in the canons.  The papacy as an institution seems only to exist in the traditions and practice of the Church, and not vested in an office (as the Vatican claims), and as such, can be changed as the Church needs or sees fit.  Since 1593 Rome was removed as a patriarchate in the Catholic Church. There is no requirement that it be received back as one.  In fact, given that 7 autocephalous Churches now occupy parts of its former jurisdiction, it won't be.

FYI:  Canon 1 of the Council of Constantinople of 879:

1. This holy and ecumenical Council has decreed that so far as concerns any clerics, or laymen, or bishops from Italy that are staying in Asia, or Europe, or Africa, under bond, or deposition, or anathema imposed by the most holy Pope John, all such persons are to be held in the same condition of penalization also by the most holy Patriarch of Constantinople Photius. That is to say, either deposed, or anathematized, or excommunicated. All those persons, on the other hand, whom Photius our most holy Patriarch has condemned or may condemn to excommunication, or deposition, or anathematization, in any diocese whatsoever, whether clerics or laymen or any of the persons who are of prelatical or priestly rank, are to be treated likewise by most holy Pope John, and his holy Church of God of the Romans, and be held in the same category of penalization. Nothing, however, shall affect the priorities due to the most holy throne of the Church of the Romans, nor shall anything redound to the detriment of her president, as touching the sum-total of innovations, either now or at any time hereafter.


Father, do you have the text of the original: it not being in the Pedalion, and IIRC the Syntagma (I don't have my copy readily to check). Btw, where did you get the translation?

since, however, the Vatican abandoned this council and embraced its antithesis, proclaiming it as its Eighth Ecumenical Council, including its anathematization of St. Photios and his deposition, amongst other problems, it would be another example of how the papacy of Rome self destructed and hence now is defunct, if not disestablished.

Btw, Bishop Siluan AFAIK doesn't have a claim to the supreme pontiff title:since the Emperor gave that pagan title and office to the Pope of Rome, not the Church, it has no connection to the see of Rome as far as the Church is concerned.

Isa, yes, sorry for not giving a reference.  Actually it is in the Pedalion, and the translation here is from p. 477 of the English version.   It is interesting that the canon only speaks of the pope and patriarch currently in office, presumably because they are both confirmed as being, at the time of the issuing of the canon, orthodox holders of the thrones, but leaves opened the possibility of that not being the case in the future (as not referring generally to Old or New Rome, but to +John and +Photios in particular).   And of course the point is very true that "supreme pontiff" to any bishop including Rome is a title unknown in an ecclesiastical sense.
Logged
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #174 on: June 27, 2011, 11:33:43 AM »

In this case, I do believe that Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger and also Pope Benedict has been greeted and lauded by the Slavic Orthodox world, at least, and by the EP, as an exemplary representative of the papal Church.  So if there were a problem, I have NO doubt that we'd be hearing it loud and clear.

Also with respect to one of the other triumphal posts in line here over the last few days...IF the Catholic Church were not recognized by the bishops and patriarchs of Orthodoxy as a Church at all...we'd be hearing that as well...from something other than...what did Father Ambrose call it?...oh yes....the "lunatic fringe."


The thing is that I have never known any bishop, when asked if the Pope and the Catholic bishops are genuine and authentic and valid bishops to answer yes.   How many bishops will answer Yes? How many will answer No?  How many will avoid the question and change the subject?

Any Orthodox members have experience with this?  My impression is that our bishops treat the question of the episcopal Orders of the Pope with the same politeness that the Pope treats the Archbishop of Canterbury. 

The same thing happens with Catholic priests and bishops and questions concerning Orthodoxy.  They politely point to the statements coming from the highest levels.

There's no doubt in my mind that there are Catholic bishops who are repulsed by Orthodoxy.

But I wasn't talking about things at that level.

Heck...there are Orthodox bishops who are repulsed by other Orthodox bishops.

Resumption of Communion can never be predicated on fallen and venal humanity.

Nor can it be predicated on the refusal of every Orthodox Patriarch to acknowledge the validity of the Pope's episcopal Orders.  Mary, they simply won't do it.  They remember only two well the fate of their predecessors after Florence.  The faithful will not tolerate it.

Then y'all better write and let'em know the jig is up!!
Logged

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

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #175 on: June 27, 2011, 11:51:45 AM »

In this case, I do believe that Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger and also Pope Benedict has been greeted and lauded by the Slavic Orthodox world, at least, and by the EP, as an exemplary representative of the papal Church.  So if there were a problem, I have NO doubt that we'd be hearing it loud and clear.

Also with respect to one of the other triumphal posts in line here over the last few days...IF the Catholic Church were not recognized by the bishops and patriarchs of Orthodoxy as a Church at all...we'd be hearing that as well...from something other than...what did Father Ambrose call it?...oh yes....the "lunatic fringe."


The thing is that I have never known any bishop, when asked if the Pope and the Catholic bishops are genuine and authentic and valid bishops to answer yes.   How many bishops will answer Yes? How many will answer No?  How many will avoid the question and change the subject?

Any Orthodox members have experience with this?  My impression is that our bishops treat the question of the episcopal Orders of the Pope with the same politeness that the Pope treats the Archbishop of Canterbury. 

The same thing happens with Catholic priests and bishops and questions concerning Orthodoxy.  They politely point to the statements coming from the highest levels.

There's no doubt in my mind that there are Catholic bishops who are repulsed by Orthodoxy.

But I wasn't talking about things at that level.

Heck...there are Orthodox bishops who are repulsed by other Orthodox bishops.

Resumption of Communion can never be predicated on fallen and venal humanity.

Nor can it be predicated on the refusal of every Orthodox Patriarch to acknowledge the validity of the Pope's episcopal Orders.  Mary, they simply won't do it.  They remember only two well the fate of their predecessors after Florence.  The faithful will not tolerate it.

Then y'all better write and let'em know the jig is up!!

Dear Mary,

The Patriarchs do not have to be told.  They already know.

Peruse the Statements which have been issued by the "Parliament" of monks of Mount Athos over the decades of the dialogue.  Not one Patriarch has sallied forth to say:  "Ignore the monks!  They are wrong.  Of course the Pope is a valid bishop."  Nor has any theologian stood against the monks.  They can't because in effect they would be denying the "Cyprianite" theology on sacraments outside the Church and in heresy which has been, by and large, the bedrock of Eastern teaching since the year dot.   To go against it would provoke schism and revolution in the Church.
Logged
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,170



« Reply #176 on: June 27, 2011, 12:00:52 PM »

Any Orthodox members have experience with this?  My impression is that our bishops treat the question of the episcopal Orders of the Pope with the same politeness that the Pope treats the Archbishop of Canterbury. 

I would say "similar" rather than "the same".

Or perhaps we should say that the Orthodox bishops treat the question of the episcopal Orders of the Pope with the same politeness that the Pope treated the Archbishop of Canterbury a few decades ago (before things started getting crazy in the Anglican Communion).
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,170



« Reply #177 on: June 27, 2011, 12:02:47 PM »


IF Orthodoxy is NOT engaging in good faith then I think it is time to come clean and walk away from the table ....



What about your Pope coming clean?  Has he made a statement that after union he will have the status of a Patriarch, with no more authority than Moscow or Georgia?

Or has he made a statement that he will have superior authority to other Patriarchs?

I've never seen any come-clean statement from him.  Where's his good faith in the dialogue?

The silence from our Catholic members is answer enough.

Not necessarily. Personally, I view that question as part of a back-and-forth between you and elijahmaria.

You and Mary were playing tag on the bad faith accusation.   You speculated that a reading of "The Rock" article could lead to cries of bad faith against the Orthodox.

True, I did; but I can't predict what "This Rock" would say in answer to your question.
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,963



« Reply #178 on: June 27, 2011, 12:05:10 PM »

In this case, I do believe that Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger and also Pope Benedict has been greeted and lauded by the Slavic Orthodox world, at least, and by the EP, as an exemplary representative of the papal Church.  So if there were a problem, I have NO doubt that we'd be hearing it loud and clear.

Also with respect to one of the other triumphal posts in line here over the last few days...IF the Catholic Church were not recognized by the bishops and patriarchs of Orthodoxy as a Church at all...we'd be hearing that as well...from something other than...what did Father Ambrose call it?...oh yes....the "lunatic fringe."


The thing is that I have never known any bishop, when asked if the Pope and the Catholic bishops are genuine and authentic and valid bishops to answer yes.   How many bishops will answer Yes? How many will answer No?  How many will avoid the question and change the subject?

Any Orthodox members have experience with this?  My impression is that our bishops treat the question of the episcopal Orders of the Pope with the same politeness that the Pope treats the Archbishop of Canterbury. 
Indeed.  Only in conversion, with someone embracing Orthodoxy and entering the Cathlic Church, does any necessity arise to take a closer look between the Archbishop of Canterburty of the supreme pontiff of the Vatican.  Its sovereign Pope Benedict XVI hasn't fully renounced the filioque yet, or otherwise signaled that he is embracing Orthodoxy and entering the Catholic Church, so the status of his ecclesiastical community at present is a moot question.
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 #179 on: June 27, 2011, 12:09:56 PM »

In this case, I do believe that Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger and also Pope Benedict has been greeted and lauded by the Slavic Orthodox world, at least, and by the EP, as an exemplary representative of the papal Church.  So if there were a problem, I have NO doubt that we'd be hearing it loud and clear.

Also with respect to one of the other triumphal posts in line here over the last few days...IF the Catholic Church were not recognized by the bishops and patriarchs of Orthodoxy as a Church at all...we'd be hearing that as well...from something other than...what did Father Ambrose call it?...oh yes....the "lunatic fringe."


The thing is that I have never known any bishop, when asked if the Pope and the Catholic bishops are genuine and authentic and valid bishops to answer yes.   How many bishops will answer Yes? How many will answer No?  How many will avoid the question and change the subject?

Any Orthodox members have experience with this?  My impression is that our bishops treat the question of the episcopal Orders of the Pope with the same politeness that the Pope treats the Archbishop of Canterbury. 

The same thing happens with Catholic priests and bishops and questions concerning Orthodoxy.  They politely point to the statements coming from the highest levels.

There's no doubt in my mind that there are Catholic bishops who are repulsed by Orthodoxy.

But I wasn't talking about things at that level.

Heck...there are Orthodox bishops who are repulsed by other Orthodox bishops.

Resumption of Communion can never be predicated on fallen and venal humanity.

Nor can it be predicated on the refusal of every Orthodox Patriarch to acknowledge the validity of the Pope's episcopal Orders.  Mary, they simply won't do it.  They remember only two well the fate of their predecessors after Florence.  The faithful will not tolerate it.

Then y'all better write and let'em know the jig is up!!

Dear Mary,

The Patriarchs do not have to be told.  They already know.

Peruse the Statements which have been issued by the "Parliament" of monks of Mount Athos over the decades of the dialogue.  Not one Patriarch has sallied forth to say:  "Ignore the monks!  They are wrong.  Of course the Pope is a valid bishop."  Nor has any theologian stood against the monks.  They can't because in effect they would be denying the "Cyprianite" theology on sacraments outside the Church and in heresy which has been, by and large, the bedrock of Eastern teaching since the year dot.   To go against it would provoke schism and revolution in the Church.

Then, in good faith, the patriarchs need to stop the dialogue cold, and start the process of advertising to have the Papists become Orthodox. 

That needs to be done forthrightly.  At the moment it is too fuzzy and nobody is getting the message clearly.
Logged

Tags: cheval mort 
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 »  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 0.202 seconds with 72 queries.