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.
If he is the Bishop of Rome shouldn't we be addressing him as Pope? I think the two titles go together.
Yes, its now a suffragan of Bucharest
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.