OrthodoxChristianity.net
October 01, 2014, 04:46:12 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   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: the Patriarchate of Rome  (Read 1228 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
henrikhankhagnell
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Coptic Orthodox or Roman-Catholic in my heart but I have not convertet yet...
Posts: 203


WWW
« on: December 14, 2011, 10:11:01 AM »

Laudetur Jesus Christus!
Would you Orthodoxes say that the Patriarchate of Rome (or whatever it is called) is vacatant? Could we call you sedevacantists?
and are there any official writings on this topic?
Logged

searching for the church that is both catholic and orthodox...
mike
Stratopedarches
**************
Offline Offline

Posts: 21,467


WWW
« Reply #1 on: December 14, 2011, 11:19:52 AM »

Laudetur Jesus Christus!
Would you Orthodoxes say that the Patriarchate of Rome (or whatever it is called) is vacatant? Could we call you sedevacantists?

Yes.

Quote
and are there any official writings on this topic?

His place in diptychs is empty.
« Last Edit: December 15, 2011, 12:34:36 PM by Michał Kalina » Logged

Byzantinism
no longer posting here
primuspilus
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian Orthodox Archdiocese of North America - Western Rite Orthodox
Posts: 6,427


Inserting personal quote here.


WWW
« Reply #2 on: December 14, 2011, 11:40:32 AM »

Could Met. Zervos not technically have a claim to such a seat?

PP
Logged

"I confidently affirm that whoever calls himself Universal Bishop is the precursor of Antichrist"
Gregory the Great

"Never, never, never let anyone tell you that, in order to be Orthodox, you must also be eastern." St. John Maximovitch, The Wonderworker
mike
Stratopedarches
**************
Offline Offline

Posts: 21,467


WWW
« Reply #3 on: December 14, 2011, 11:45:18 AM »

Could Met. Zervos not technically have a claim to such a seat?

PP

Who is he?
Logged

Byzantinism
no longer posting here
primuspilus
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian Orthodox Archdiocese of North America - Western Rite Orthodox
Posts: 6,427


Inserting personal quote here.


WWW
« Reply #4 on: December 14, 2011, 11:52:26 AM »

Could Met. Zervos not technically have a claim to such a seat?

PP

Who is he?
The Metropolitan of Italy, Malta, and San Marino under the EP.

http://orthodoxwiki.org/Gennadios_(Zervos)_of_Italy_and_Malta

PP
« Last Edit: December 14, 2011, 11:52:48 AM by primuspilus » Logged

"I confidently affirm that whoever calls himself Universal Bishop is the precursor of Antichrist"
Gregory the Great

"Never, never, never let anyone tell you that, in order to be Orthodox, you must also be eastern." St. John Maximovitch, The Wonderworker
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: 37,859



« Reply #5 on: December 14, 2011, 01:53:58 PM »

Could Met. Zervos not technically have a claim to such a seat?

PP

Who is he?
The Metropolitan of Italy, Malta, and San Marino under the EP.

http://orthodoxwiki.org/Gennadios_(Zervos)_of_Italy_and_Malta

PP
He could, but hasn't.  Same for Bishop Siluan (Romanian Patriarchate) of Rome.

I brought up the prospects here:
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,30219.0.html
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
primuspilus
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian Orthodox Archdiocese of North America - Western Rite Orthodox
Posts: 6,427


Inserting personal quote here.


WWW
« Reply #6 on: December 14, 2011, 02:15:54 PM »

Could Met. Zervos not technically have a claim to such a seat?

PP

Who is he?
The Metropolitan of Italy, Malta, and San Marino under the EP.

http://orthodoxwiki.org/Gennadios_(Zervos)_of_Italy_and_Malta

PP
He could, but hasn't.  Same for Bishop Siluan (Romanian Patriarchate) of Rome.

I brought up the prospects here:
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,30219.0.html
I say put someone in the patriarchate of Rome. Make a statement that Orthodoxy wont hold a chair open for someone not wanting to return to it.

PP
Logged

"I confidently affirm that whoever calls himself Universal Bishop is the precursor of Antichrist"
Gregory the Great

"Never, never, never let anyone tell you that, in order to be Orthodox, you must also be eastern." St. John Maximovitch, The Wonderworker
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: 37,859



« Reply #7 on: December 14, 2011, 03:07:43 PM »

Could Met. Zervos not technically have a claim to such a seat?

PP

Who is he?
The Metropolitan of Italy, Malta, and San Marino under the EP.

http://orthodoxwiki.org/Gennadios_(Zervos)_of_Italy_and_Malta

PP
He could, but hasn't.  Same for Bishop Siluan (Romanian Patriarchate) of Rome.

I brought up the prospects here:
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,30219.0.html
I say put someone in the patriarchate of Rome. Make a statement that Orthodoxy wont hold a chair open for someone not wanting to return to it.

PP
I think we should wait until the Episcopal Assemblies jell as an institution in the various regions, as I do not think that the Patriarchate of the West should be reconstituted.

As for Italy, the EP and the Romanian Patriarchate have the top claims, followed by the Patriarchate of Serbia.  The Romanians have an edge, in that they far outnumber the others all together (about a million Romanian Orthodox, and then about a half a million Romanians in submission to the Vatican, whose primate the Italian bishops just told to not send married clergy to Italy) and would mesh better with the Italians.  I am not sure that Italy is ready for autocephaly, but it can be prepped in pretty quick order if the decision was taken to aim for that, which means getting our act together there.  I don't think we can, say, elevate Bp. Siluan of Rome and Italy as Patriarch and Pope until the Italianian metropolitinate (to which I would restrict Rome's jurisdiction, including Malta and San Marino) is reconstituted with its Holy Synod as autocephalous.
Logged

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

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



« Reply #8 on: December 14, 2011, 09:41:32 PM »

Could Met. Zervos not technically have a claim to such a seat?

PP

Who is he?
The Metropolitan of Italy, Malta, and San Marino under the EP.

http://orthodoxwiki.org/Gennadios_(Zervos)_of_Italy_and_Malta

PP
He could, but hasn't.  Same for Bishop Siluan (Romanian Patriarchate) of Rome.

I brought up the prospects here:
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,30219.0.html
I say put someone in the patriarchate of Rome. Make a statement that Orthodoxy wont hold a chair open for someone not wanting to return to it.

PP
Um, yeah, if you do that, then Patriarch Kirill and the Russians had better shut up about us sending bishops there to tend to our own faithful.

The Latin Church once tried to make its own Patriarchs over other ancient Sees - it was a sin. We've repented and have withdrawn. Constantinople did the same with the Church of Antioch when the Patriarch of Antioch and the Church's bishops returned to communion with the Apostolic See in the 18th Century.

If you dare to raise a false Patriarchate to replace the Apostolic See, may God have mercy on you all.
Logged

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

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #9 on: December 15, 2011, 12:00:59 AM »

Could Met. Zervos not technically have a claim to such a seat?

PP

Who is he?
The Metropolitan of Italy, Malta, and San Marino under the EP.

http://orthodoxwiki.org/Gennadios_(Zervos)_of_Italy_and_Malta

PP
He could, but hasn't.  Same for Bishop Siluan (Romanian Patriarchate) of Rome.

I brought up the prospects here:
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,30219.0.html
I say put someone in the patriarchate of Rome. Make a statement that Orthodoxy wont hold a chair open for someone not wanting to return to it.

PP
Um, yeah, if you do that, then Patriarch Kirill and the Russians had better shut up about us sending bishops there to tend to our own faithful.

The Latin Church once tried to make its own Patriarchs over other ancient Sees - it was a sin. We've repented and have withdrawn. Constantinople did the same with the Church of Antioch when the Patriarch of Antioch and the Church's bishops returned to communion with the Apostolic See in the 18th Century.

If you dare to raise a false Patriarchate to replace the Apostolic See, may God have mercy on you all.

Not to worry.  This only happens on Internet Forums.  It will not happen in reality for obvious reasons.  And if it does...ah well... Smiley
Logged

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

Faith: Catholic
Posts: 2,395


« Reply #10 on: December 15, 2011, 12:02:25 AM »

Could Met. Zervos not technically have a claim to such a seat?

PP

Who is he?
The Metropolitan of Italy, Malta, and San Marino under the EP.

http://orthodoxwiki.org/Gennadios_(Zervos)_of_Italy_and_Malta

PP
He could, but hasn't.  Same for Bishop Siluan (Romanian Patriarchate) of Rome.

I brought up the prospects here:
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,30219.0.html
I say put someone in the patriarchate of Rome. Make a statement that Orthodoxy wont hold a chair open for someone not wanting to return to it.

PP
Um, yeah, if you do that, then Patriarch Kirill and the Russians had better shut up about us sending bishops there to tend to our own faithful.

The Latin Church once tried to make its own Patriarchs over other ancient Sees - it was a sin. We've repented and have withdrawn. Constantinople did the same with the Church of Antioch when the Patriarch of Antioch and the Church's bishops returned to communion with the Apostolic See in the 18th Century.

If you dare to raise a false Patriarchate to replace the Apostolic See, may God have mercy on you all.
They've already raised a false Patriarchate in an attempt to replace the Apostolic See: Constantinople.
Logged
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 32,332


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #11 on: December 15, 2011, 12:14:27 AM »

Could Met. Zervos not technically have a claim to such a seat?

PP

Who is he?
The Metropolitan of Italy, Malta, and San Marino under the EP.

http://orthodoxwiki.org/Gennadios_(Zervos)_of_Italy_and_Malta

PP
He could, but hasn't.  Same for Bishop Siluan (Romanian Patriarchate) of Rome.

I brought up the prospects here:
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,30219.0.html
I say put someone in the patriarchate of Rome. Make a statement that Orthodoxy wont hold a chair open for someone not wanting to return to it.

PP
Um, yeah, if you do that, then Patriarch Kirill and the Russians had better shut up about us sending bishops there to tend to our own faithful.

The Latin Church once tried to make its own Patriarchs over other ancient Sees - it was a sin. We've repented and have withdrawn. Constantinople did the same with the Church of Antioch when the Patriarch of Antioch and the Church's bishops returned to communion with the Apostolic See in the 18th Century.

If you dare to raise a false Patriarchate to replace the Apostolic See, may God have mercy on you all.
They've already raised a false Patriarchate in an attempt to replace the Apostolic See: Constantinople.
Oh, so predictable. Roll Eyes You got anything of substance to add to this discussion?
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: 37,859



« Reply #12 on: December 15, 2011, 12:43:57 AM »

Could Met. Zervos not technically have a claim to such a seat?

PP

Who is he?
The Metropolitan of Italy, Malta, and San Marino under the EP.

http://orthodoxwiki.org/Gennadios_(Zervos)_of_Italy_and_Malta

PP
He could, but hasn't.  Same for Bishop Siluan (Romanian Patriarchate) of Rome.

I brought up the prospects here:
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,30219.0.html
I say put someone in the patriarchate of Rome. Make a statement that Orthodoxy wont hold a chair open for someone not wanting to return to it.

PP
Um, yeah, if you do that, then Patriarch Kirill and the Russians had better shut up about us sending bishops there to tend to our own faithful.
Or what?

Your "faithful" in Russia IIRC already have a better bishop to faithful ratio than you have in Italy.  And Moscow knows your ecclesial community didn't start after Vatican II.

As your supreme pontiff said when the Episcopalians tried to build a church for themselves in Rome "heresy has no rights."

The Latin Church once tried to make its own Patriarchs over other ancient Sees - it was a sin. We've repented and have withdrawn.
Oh?  Cuz you still have two of them in Alexandria (who can't-unlike all the corresponding "sui juris" primates-take the sees traditional title "pope"), three in Antioch, a Latin one and an Eastern one in Jerusalem, an upstart patriarch in Kiev and a "major-archbishop" in Romania.  That in addition to those that the Vatican rules directly.

Constantinople did the same with the Church of Antioch when the Patriarch of Antioch and the Church's bishops returned to communion with the Apostolic See in the 18th Century.
Antioch is an Apostolic see, like Alexandria and Jerusalem.  And in a different way, Constantinople. The patriarch of Antioch and some of his bishops left the communion of the diptychs of those Apostolic sees, and as such a replacement had to be sent.  Just like happened to Metropolitan Isidore the Apostate, just with more amicable results long term (in Antioch, that is).

If you dare to raise a false Patriarchate to replace the Apostolic See, may God have mercy on you all.
God in His mercy has already filled Rome and Italy with His bishops to replace the false Patriarchate and restore the Apostolic See of Rome
http://www.ortodossia.it/CONFERENZA%20EPISCOPALE.htm
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
peteprint
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Posts: 704



« Reply #13 on: December 15, 2011, 01:18:17 AM »

An Orthodox Patriarchate of Rome is overdue by over 1000 years.  As others have pointed out, The Papacy has created numerous "Patriarchs" in Eastern regions.  An Orthodox Patriarch of Rome would be a blessing to the Orthodox faithful in Western Europe.
« Last Edit: December 15, 2011, 01:18:50 AM by peteprint » Logged
Ortho_cat
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: AOCA-DWMA
Posts: 5,392



« Reply #14 on: December 15, 2011, 04:53:46 AM »

Who needs a patriarchate...so long as we have bishops there...Orthodoxy is present.
« Last Edit: December 15, 2011, 04:56:11 AM by Ortho_cat » Logged
Alpo
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Jerkodox
Posts: 6,801



« Reply #15 on: December 15, 2011, 08:02:13 AM »

Who needs a patriarchate

Apparently the Church since she has had a sort of habit of creating new Patriarchates from time to time.

But I agree that we don't need another church based on Nationalism i.e. the church of Italy. The church of Western Europe sounds however a little better idea.

Or maybe we could annex Estonia and Scandinavia to the Finnish church and turn Archbishop Leo of Finland into Patriarch of North. angel
« Last Edit: December 15, 2011, 08:03:23 AM by Alpo » Logged

Ortho_cat
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: AOCA-DWMA
Posts: 5,392



« Reply #16 on: December 15, 2011, 11:51:16 AM »

Technically we don't need Patriarch's though. Where there is a bishop who pronounces the true faith, there is the Catholic (Orthodox) church.
Logged
podkarpatska
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: ACROD
Posts: 8,477


Pokrov


WWW
« Reply #17 on: December 15, 2011, 11:56:30 AM »

Technically we don't need Patriarch's though. Where there is a bishop who pronounces the true faith, there is the Catholic (Orthodox) church.

Thank you for the reminder. I like to tell people about a fundamental difference in ecclessiology between East and West that one can clearly visualize between the Pope in concelebration with his Bishops and an Orthodox Patriarch in concelebration with his Bishops. The Pope is clearly distinguishable by virtue of how he is vested during the Mass. A Patriarch is vested in the same manner as is any other Orthodox Bishop. ( He may wear a different color cloak in entrance to the Church, but once vested for the Liturgy he is vested as is any Bishop.) While he may have more valuable panagia, he is just one Bishop among others. When I saw the EP concelebrate once in New York , this really struck me. You will see the same thing if you watch videos of other Orthodox Patriarchs on the net.
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: 37,859



« Reply #18 on: December 15, 2011, 12:27:09 PM »

Who needs a patriarchate

Apparently the Church since she has had a sort of habit of creating new Patriarchates from time to time.

But I agree that we don't need another church based on Nationalism i.e. the church of Italy. The church of Western Europe sounds however a little better idea.

Or maybe we could annex Estonia and Scandinavia to the Finnish church and turn Archbishop Leo of Finland into Patriarch of North. angel
The Vatican, with its false decretals, tried that once.
http://books.google.com/books?id=C5V7oyy69zgC&pg=PA89&dq=%22Patriarch+of+the+North%22+%22Adalbert+of+Bremen%22&hl=en#v=onepage&q=%22Patriarch%20of%20the%20North%22%20%22Adalbert%20of%20Bremen%22&f=false

In reference to that, there is the comment that "In such instances, however, the popes always hastened to form another archbishopric in the same country to guard against the establishment of a national patriarchate."
http://books.google.com/books?id=rCY_AAAAYAAJ&pg=PA216&dq=%22popes+always+hastened+to+form+another+archbishopric%22&hl=en#v=onepage&q=%22popes%20always%20hastened%20to%20form%20another%20archbishopric%22&f=false

I wouldn't mind, btw, to turn Scandinavia over to Arb. Leo and have him form an Episcopal Assembly (which seems not to have been done), or better yet, a Holy Synod. Estonia might be a problem though.
« Last Edit: December 15, 2011, 12:39:57 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
J Michael
Older than dirt; dumber than a box of rocks; colossally ignorant; a little crazy ;-)
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 10,148


Lord, have mercy! I live under a rock. Alleluia!


« Reply #19 on: December 15, 2011, 12:31:55 PM »

Technically we don't need Patriarch's though. Where there is a bishop who pronounces the true faith, there is the Catholic (Orthodox) church.

Thank you for the reminder. I like to tell people about a fundamental difference in ecclessiology between East and West that one can clearly visualize between the Pope in concelebration with his Bishops and an Orthodox Patriarch in concelebration with his Bishops. The Pope is clearly distinguishable by virtue of how he is vested during the Mass. A Patriarch is vested in the same manner as is any other Orthodox Bishop. ( He may wear a different color cloak in entrance to the Church, but once vested for the Liturgy he is vested as is any Bishop.) While he may have more valuable panagia, he is just one Bishop among others. When I saw the EP concelebrate once in New York , this really struck me. You will see the same thing if you watch videos of other Orthodox Patriarchs on the net.

Pardon my ignorance, but I always thought "Panagia" was one of the titles of the Theotokos.  Could you explain your usage here, please?  And, how could there be more than one "Panagia" and there be some more valuable than others? 

Ref.: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panagia

Thanks in advance for clarifying! Smiley
Logged

"May Thy Cross, O Lord, in which I seek refuge, be for me a bridge across the great river of fire.  May I pass along it to the habitation of life." ~St. Ephraim the Syrian

"Sometimes you're the windshield.  Sometimes you're the bug." ~ Mark Knopfler (?)
mike
Stratopedarches
**************
Offline Offline

Posts: 21,467


WWW
« Reply #20 on: December 15, 2011, 12:38:12 PM »

Panagia is also a neclece with an icon of Theotokos that bishops wear.
Logged

Byzantinism
no longer posting here
Wyatt
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Posts: 2,395


« Reply #21 on: December 15, 2011, 12:42:22 PM »

Could Met. Zervos not technically have a claim to such a seat?

PP

Who is he?
The Metropolitan of Italy, Malta, and San Marino under the EP.

http://orthodoxwiki.org/Gennadios_(Zervos)_of_Italy_and_Malta

PP
He could, but hasn't.  Same for Bishop Siluan (Romanian Patriarchate) of Rome.

I brought up the prospects here:
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,30219.0.html
I say put someone in the patriarchate of Rome. Make a statement that Orthodoxy wont hold a chair open for someone not wanting to return to it.

PP
Um, yeah, if you do that, then Patriarch Kirill and the Russians had better shut up about us sending bishops there to tend to our own faithful.

The Latin Church once tried to make its own Patriarchs over other ancient Sees - it was a sin. We've repented and have withdrawn. Constantinople did the same with the Church of Antioch when the Patriarch of Antioch and the Church's bishops returned to communion with the Apostolic See in the 18th Century.

If you dare to raise a false Patriarchate to replace the Apostolic See, may God have mercy on you all.
They've already raised a false Patriarchate in an attempt to replace the Apostolic See: Constantinople.
Oh, so predictable. Roll Eyes You got anything of substance to add to this discussion?
Yeah sure. In all honesty I don't know why your Church has not established an Eastern Orthodox Patriarch of Rome yet. Is it because your Church is hopeful that the schism will be over some day?
Logged
mike
Stratopedarches
**************
Offline Offline

Posts: 21,467


WWW
« Reply #22 on: December 15, 2011, 12:43:27 PM »

Yeah sure. In all honesty I don't know why your Church has not established an Eastern Orthodox Patriarch of Rome yet. Is it because your Church is hopeful that the schism will be over some day?

During the first 900+ years it didn't have the power and after that ecumenism was invented.
Logged

Byzantinism
no longer posting here
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: 37,859



« Reply #23 on: December 15, 2011, 12:51:17 PM »

Could Met. Zervos not technically have a claim to such a seat?

PP

Who is he?
The Metropolitan of Italy, Malta, and San Marino under the EP.

http://orthodoxwiki.org/Gennadios_(Zervos)_of_Italy_and_Malta

PP
He could, but hasn't.  Same for Bishop Siluan (Romanian Patriarchate) of Rome.

I brought up the prospects here:
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,30219.0.html
I say put someone in the patriarchate of Rome. Make a statement that Orthodoxy wont hold a chair open for someone not wanting to return to it.

PP
Um, yeah, if you do that, then Patriarch Kirill and the Russians had better shut up about us sending bishops there to tend to our own faithful.

The Latin Church once tried to make its own Patriarchs over other ancient Sees - it was a sin. We've repented and have withdrawn. Constantinople did the same with the Church of Antioch when the Patriarch of Antioch and the Church's bishops returned to communion with the Apostolic See in the 18th Century.

If you dare to raise a false Patriarchate to replace the Apostolic See, may God have mercy on you all.
They've already raised a false Patriarchate in an attempt to replace the Apostolic See: Constantinople.
Oh, so predictable. Roll Eyes You got anything of substance to add to this discussion?
Yeah sure. In all honesty I don't know why your Church has not established an Eastern Orthodox Patriarch of Rome yet. Is it because your Church is hopeful that the schism will be over some day?
There is always hope, but the Vatican has persisted in its schism to which it has progressively added heresy, so the Catholic Church is well overdue to restore canonical order in the former Patriarchate of the West where it hasn't already (the Balkans, Eastern and Central Europe).

Unlike with the non-Chalcedonians (which itself did not take permanent form in 451, as we share common patriarchs after that date), the schim of Rome was anti-climatic with a whimper.
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
podkarpatska
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: ACROD
Posts: 8,477


Pokrov


WWW
« Reply #24 on: December 15, 2011, 01:03:05 PM »

Technically we don't need Patriarch's though. Where there is a bishop who pronounces the true faith, there is the Catholic (Orthodox) church.

Thank you for the reminder. I like to tell people about a fundamental difference in ecclessiology between East and West that one can clearly visualize between the Pope in concelebration with his Bishops and an Orthodox Patriarch in concelebration with his Bishops. The Pope is clearly distinguishable by virtue of how he is vested during the Mass. A Patriarch is vested in the same manner as is any other Orthodox Bishop. ( He may wear a different color cloak in entrance to the Church, but once vested for the Liturgy he is vested as is any Bishop.) While he may have more valuable panagia, he is just one Bishop among others. When I saw the EP concelebrate once in New York , this really struck me. You will see the same thing if you watch videos of other Orthodox Patriarchs on the net.

Pardon my ignorance, but I always thought "Panagia" was one of the titles of the Theotokos.  Could you explain your usage here, please?  And, how could there be more than one "Panagia" and there be some more valuable than others?  

Ref.: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panagia

Thanks in advance for clarifying! Smiley

You are right in a sense, I used the term as 'shorthand' to describe one of the icons worn around the bishop's neck in a jeweled frame. From Orthodox wiki:  Together with his pectoral cross, the bishop also wears a small, circular icon of the Savior or of the Mother of God, called the Panagia (All-Holy), or Engolpion, over his heart. This is to remind him that he must always bear in his heart our Lord and his Holy Mother, and thus his own heart must be pure.  http://orthodoxwiki.org/Bishop#Hierarchical_vestments
« Last Edit: December 15, 2011, 01:04:14 PM by podkarpatska » Logged
witega
Is it enough now, to tell you you matter?
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

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


« Reply #25 on: December 15, 2011, 01:12:41 PM »

Who needs a patriarchate

Apparently the Church since she has had a sort of habit of creating new Patriarchates from time to time.

There is a difference between 'needs' and 'wants' or 'finds useful' or 'allows to happen', all of which would be more accurate characterizations of why and how 'the Church' creates new Patriarchates from time to time.

Ortho_cat has put his finger on why, though in a certain sense it might be technically correct to say that Orthodox are 'sedevacantists', it is actually quite misleading. True sedevacantists are thoroughly Roman, in that they share the same distorted ecclesiology which is at the root of most of the difference between Orthodoxy and the Papacy--to whit, that the "Patriarchate of the West" (that is any honors or privileges possessed by the Bishop of Rome beyond those of any other diocesan bishop) is a integral part of the Apostolic Deposit rather than a historically contingent development with important practical but no doctrinal implications.

The Apostolic portion of Church governance is the bishop ruling his local church, and meeting in council with other bishops to address those issues which affect more than the local church. Everything beyond that is a contingent development that is not necessary to the Faith. Some of those developments are broadly practical: the general organization of those local councils into permanent bodies along geo-political lines and the selection of one see to hold the chairmanship ('presiding') of those bodies. Some simply recognized the contemporary 'facts on the ground' (and then in a conservative organization, those recognitions ossified and remain long after their initial impetus has gone away): Rome, Alexandria and Antioch were the three most important cities in the Roman Empire, with the most people (both Christian and not), and therefore the most resources so they were from early on given greater deference and responsibility; Jerusalem, the city of our Lord's Passion and Ressurection, of the one Church founded by all of the Apostles, of the first martyrs was practically wiped out in 70AD and took a long time to recover, so when it finally did it was slotted in behind the first 3; Constantinople was set up as 'New Rome' so it was given the 'perogatives of honor after Rome'; the Russian Church grew larger than the ancient patriarchates and was backed by an Imperial power, so was made a Patriarchy itself.

So to answer the OP--no, the Patriarchate of the West is not 'vacant'. The institution of the Patriarchate of the West fell into heresy and schism and remains so to this day. Now, when it did so, it left the actual position of Orthodox Bishop of Rome (as well as many other Western cities vacant). The Orthodox did not elect a new Bishop of Rome (or London or Paris or Milan) for largely practical reasons--the Pope had the power to prevent any such bishop from getting anywhere near the actual see, and, more importantly, practically the entirety of the West had followed him into schism so there weren't any Orthodox for such a replacement to shepherd. More recently, as Orthodox have begun to live in Western Europe again (through immigration and conversion), Orthodox bishops have started being appointed to those vacant sees to shepherd them. As ialmisry points out, there is now an Orthodox bishop whosediocese includes the city and faithful of Rome, so there is an Orthodox Bishop of Rome (though that is not his official title, whether because his actual cathedra is elsewhere or in an attempt to be diplomatic or a combination of the two I don't know enough to say). Like all Orthodox bishops, he is a successor of Peter (and Paul and all the Apostles). And in a sense he is a successor to the sainted Orthodox popes of the first millennium as he shares their faith and their communion and cares for the Orthodox in the same region. But he is not the "Patriarch of the West" because the Orthodox Patriarchate of the West ceased to exist a thousand years ago. Should the Orthodox Church in Western Europe ever again grow to the level of being recognized as a Patriarchate, its unlikely the Patriarch would be in Rome--after all, the two major reasons Rome held pre-eminence there in the first millenium (capital of the Empire and an impressive record of fidelity to the Faith in the first 5 or 6 centuries) are long gone.
Logged

Ariel Starling - New album

For it were better to suffer everything, rather than divide the Church of God. Even martyrdom for the sake of preventing division would not be less glorious than for refusing to worship idols. - St. Dionysius the Great
Tags:
Pages: 1   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 0.137 seconds with 53 queries.