OrthodoxChristianity.net
October 01, 2014, 08:39:51 AM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Reminder: No political discussions in the public fora.  If you do not have access to the private Politics Forum, please send a PM to Fr. George.
 
   Home   Help Calendar Contact Treasury Tags Login Register  
Pages: « 1 2 3 »  All   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Liturgical rites and the Pope  (Read 3513 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
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: 37,831



« Reply #45 on: April 02, 2012, 10:42:20 AM »

It's funny how he says that, when there is a Greek Orthodox Patriarchate of Antioch, and a Syriac Orthodox Patriarchate of Antioch, both in, ahem, St. Peter's first see. If we're counting. You see how that happens?  Roll Eyes
It happens when the scars of schism have not fully healed.  The Vatican claims all its patriarchs of Antioch are in full communion with it and each other.

There is also a Greek Orthodox Church of Alexandria, and a Coptic Orthodox Church of Alexandria (or just Coptic Orthodox Church as it's usually called). Same thing, though. Gee, we could go a lot of rounds if you wanted to.
No thanks, but you go on ahead


I forgot, the game is "It's okay when Orthodox do it, and not okay when Roman Catholics do it."
Oh?  You can produce a post among my 20,000+ where I said it was okay for the Orthodox to have two bishops, let alone patriarchs, in one city/see?
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: 6,128



« Reply #46 on: April 02, 2012, 11:14:31 AM »

All catholic bishops are omni-ritual

Not the Catholic ones.

Each bishop would need to ask permission to celebrate a rite and ritual outside of his own jurisdiction.  But do we know the canons that would regulate that?  I do not.  If there are no canons to that effect then the permission would be a courtesy.  

Where is Father Deacon Lance when we need him?

There aren't any canons that cover this situation as regards bishops.  Some bishops have charge of both Eastern and Latin Catholics and use a Rite other than their own out of necessity.  I would assume permission is assumed in these cases.  I also know of two bishops who were bi-ritual out of personal devotion: Archbishop Richard Cardinal Cushing and Archbishop Fulton Sheen.  I believe they both asked permission from the Melkite Patriarch.  As for omni-ritual, I don't think bishops celebrate different Rites on a whim and would be expected to have at least a basic knowledge and familiarity with the Rite plan to celebrate, as they are often busy I don't think many would have the time or inclination to learn a different one.

Hm, I always thought that all thr Bishops has the RIGHT to do so, but for the reasons you said, chose not to do so.

Also, if my memory serves me, all bishops are, by defauly, birituals because of the fact that all Latin Bishops are ALSO eastern bishops, because the Russian Catholic's have no dedicated Bishops of their own, and as such the Latin Bishops are alsso their bishops

Citation please? (Unless you meant to say "some Latin Bishops".)
with pleasure
http://www.cnewa.us/default.aspx?ID=77&IndexView&pagetypeID=9&sitecode=US&pageno=1
Quote
All of them fall under the jurisdiction of the local Latin bishops.
and with that, the extention is(which i cannot quickly cite, just through my learnings and practice of my life as a RC) that the latin bishops ARE the russian bishops. for example, if one was to transfer sui iuris churches, the russian catholic would ask their bishop, Cardinal Weurl for example, to transfer to the latin rite. They would also as Cardnial Weurl for permission to accpt them into the latin church

Alright, but I think your previous post should be amended to say "some Latin bishops" rather than all.
except, due to the lack of hierarchy of the Russian Greek Catholic Church, even in Russia, it is all latin bishops, even though the majority of them have no RGCs under them. the mjaoirty of them never worry about this, because there is no NEED to, but doesnt change the fact that they are.

and ill search through canon law when i get home, im in class now

Okay, I can see your argument about each LC bishops having under him whatever RGCs (if any) live in his diocese. But as far as biritualness (birituality?), I wonder if this is a situation where each LC bishop is only authorized to provide the Byzantine Rite liturgy for those RGCs. It's like something Neil told me:

Quote from: Irish Melkite
I don't think that everyone is on the same page. I understood Peter to be asking if anyone is aware of an EC (or OC) parish which routinely serves its congregants according to the Latin Rite ...

Both Collin and Litvin are speaking of Latin Rite Masses being served on occasion in an Eastern/Oriental Catholic temple ... Nothing new or different there. It happens, not common, but it happens.

An example ... In Framingham, MA, a Syro-Malabar priest pastors St Thomas the First-Called Apostle Syro-Malabar Mission. It meets in a church that formerly served a Latin parish, but has been canonically suppressed due to parish mergers. Under an agreement between the Cardinal-Archbishop of Boston and the Syro-Malabar Eparch, the priest (who has bi-ritual Latin faculties) serves Mass weekly and otherwise affords pastoral care (imcluding the Sacraments) for the parishioners of the former Latin parish.

...

Quote
In view of that I'm curious: have any of you been to, or at least heard of, an EC parish that actually uses the Roman Rite, or another western rite? Not a hybrid, I mean, but truly a western rite?

This is a praxis that ceased to be when our parishes were no longer served by untrained Latin priests for lack of our own clergy. It could only be justified presently if a parish had no priest and a Latin priest without faculties were asked to afford pastoral care to it in the interim until one could be assigned.

An attempt to do so by a priest of a sui iuris Church would, at the very least, violate the Particular Law of his Church and the priest would find quickly himself in the same situation as the 'renegade' Ukrainians.

(That's from a thread on byzcath, about the possibility of an EC parish celebrating a western liturgy. By "in the same situation as the 'renegade' Ukrainians" I believe Neil was referring to excommunication.)
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
mike
Stratopedarches
**************
Offline Offline

Posts: 21,467


WWW
« Reply #47 on: April 02, 2012, 11:17:26 AM »

The Nazis also took care of the Western Rite Diocese of Poland, formed when Bishop Alexis of Grodno received the Polish Catholic Nation Church in 1926 (one parish of which survived the war).  

*Vicariate.
Logged

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

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #48 on: April 02, 2012, 11:18:55 AM »

Yes, interesting how the Ambrosians, Italo-Greeks and Italo-Albanians don't have their own bishop of Rome.  The Vatican has installed a Maronite, Melkite, Syriac and Latin in Antioch, St. Peter's first see.

There is no Latin patriarch of Antioch.  The Maronites erected their patriarchate all on their own. Portions of the Greek and Syrian Orthodox of Antioch united with Rome all on their own.  You let me know when the Western Rite Orthodox have their own diocese and bishop.

Absolutely!!  There is no Western Catholic Church that is also Orthodox...and never will be as far down the lane as I can see.   Personally I think it is a fatal flaw in terms of truly being able to build a western tradition in Orthodoxy but it does not seem to be of much concern to those of the WRO.

And also a "Doxy" is not a Church.  The other day I saw some WRO scholar mention that

Orthodoxy is Christ

I thought that was passing strange precisely because a "Doxy" is not a Church.

M.
Logged

Deacon Lance
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Jurisdiction: Archeparchy of Pittsburgh
Posts: 2,928


Liturgy at Mt. St. Macrina Pilgrimage


« Reply #49 on: April 02, 2012, 04:34:19 PM »

I know people who knew Bishop Elko well and say that what was done to him, and is being done to his memory is a terrible terrible injustice.

M.

I think he reaped as he sowed.
Logged

My cromulent posts embiggen this forum.
Deacon Lance
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Jurisdiction: Archeparchy of Pittsburgh
Posts: 2,928


Liturgy at Mt. St. Macrina Pilgrimage


« Reply #50 on: April 02, 2012, 04:41:45 PM »

Also, if my memory serves me, all bishops are, by defauly, birituals because of the fact that all Latin Bishops are ALSO eastern bishops, because the Russian Catholic's have no dedicated Bishops of their own, and as such the Latin Bishops are alsso their bishops

That is a strecthing it a bit.  It is one thing for Latin bishop who actually has charge of an Eastern parish to be bi-ritual but even most of them don't and defer to an Eastern bishop for ordinations and such.  I would guess most Orthodox who become Catholic attend a Latin parish even thought they technically remain Byzantine Rite and most of the priests and bishops involved don't give it a second thought.
Logged

My cromulent posts embiggen this forum.
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #51 on: April 02, 2012, 04:51:12 PM »

I know people who knew Bishop Elko well and say that what was done to him, and is being done to his memory is a terrible terrible injustice.

M.

I think he reaped as he sowed.

Did you know him?

Have you read his book?

Do you know any of the history of the seminary?

Do you know how that history relates to some of the less savory parts of our current difficulties?...and to the fact that the curia supported behaviors unbecoming and punished those who fought back?...and that the ensuing threats of lawsuits have resulted in parish closings that served up another small but telling return of our people to Orthodoxy?

Or have you swallowed the party line?

PS: You need not respond to this if you do not want to do so, Father Deacon.  It is not you with whom I am upset.  Whatever your experiences of your Church are they are different from my own and I cannot fault that and do not...

M.
« Last Edit: April 02, 2012, 04:58:35 PM by elijahmaria » Logged

Shanghaiski
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 7,970


Holy Trinity Church of Gergeti, Georgia


« Reply #52 on: April 02, 2012, 04:56:44 PM »

It's funny how he says that, when there is a Greek Orthodox Patriarchate of Antioch, and a Syriac Orthodox Patriarchate of Antioch, both in, ahem, St. Peter's first see. If we're counting. You see how that happens?  Roll Eyes There is also a Greek Orthodox Church of Alexandria, and a Coptic Orthodox Church of Alexandria (or just Coptic Orthodox Church as it's usually called). Same thing, though. Gee, we could go a lot of rounds if you wanted to.

I forgot, the game is "It's okay when Orthodox do it, and not okay when Roman Catholics do it."

All these patriarchs just proves how awesome Antioch is!
Logged

Quote from: GabrieltheCelt
If you spend long enough on this forum, you'll come away with all sorts of weird, untrue ideas of Orthodox Christianity.
Quote from: orthonorm
I would suggest most persons in general avoid any question beginning with why.
primuspilus
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian Orthodox Archdiocese of North America - Western Rite Orthodox
Posts: 6,426


Inserting personal quote here.


WWW
« Reply #53 on: April 02, 2012, 05:01:13 PM »

It's funny how he says that, when there is a Greek Orthodox Patriarchate of Antioch, and a Syriac Orthodox Patriarchate of Antioch, both in, ahem, St. Peter's first see. If we're counting. You see how that happens?  Roll Eyes There is also a Greek Orthodox Church of Alexandria, and a Coptic Orthodox Church of Alexandria (or just Coptic Orthodox Church as it's usually called). Same thing, though. Gee, we could go a lot of rounds if you wanted to.

I forgot, the game is "It's okay when Orthodox do it, and not okay when Roman Catholics do it."

All these patriarchs just proves how awesome Antioch is!
QFT baby Smiley

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: 37,831



« Reply #54 on: April 02, 2012, 05:13:19 PM »

Yes, interesting how the Ambrosians, Italo-Greeks and Italo-Albanians don't have their own bishop of Rome.  The Vatican has installed a Maronite, Melkite, Syriac and Latin in Antioch, St. Peter's first see.

There is no Latin patriarch of Antioch.  The Maronites erected their patriarchate all on their own. Portions of the Greek and Syrian Orthodox of Antioch united with Rome all on their own.  You let me know when the Western Rite Orthodox have their own diocese and bishop.

Absolutely!!  There is no Western Catholic Church that is also Orthodox...and never will be as far down the lane as I can see.

http://www.orthodox.pl/
http://www.pravoslavnacirkev.cz/

Personally I think it is a fatal flaw in terms of truly being able to build a western tradition in Orthodoxy but it does not seem to be of much concern to those of the WRO.
Why would it concern them?  The UGCC acts as if it were the Church of Ukraine, the various patriarchates of Antioch as if they were the patriarchate of Antioch, etc.

And also a "Doxy" is not a Church.  The other day I saw some WRO scholar mention that
well if you want to follow the ill considered opinions of nameless idiots, that is your perrogative...

Orthodoxy is Christ
That He is.

I thought that was passing strange precisely because a "Doxy" is not a Church.
Christ is manifested in Orthodoxy, living in the Orthodox Church which manifests herself in the Orthodox Churches.
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
Deacon Lance
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Jurisdiction: Archeparchy of Pittsburgh
Posts: 2,928


Liturgy at Mt. St. Macrina Pilgrimage


« Reply #55 on: April 02, 2012, 05:13:33 PM »

Ah, how could I have forgotten... Maybe some would prefer "the Vatican had installed."
 

Yes how could you?  I have corrected you on this error before.  The Latin Patriarchates of Constantinople, Alexandria and Antioch were abolished but you continually persist as if they still exist.

Not quite.
You need to update your research.  The Maronites elected St John Maron their patriarch without any reference to Rome, although Pope St Sergius I confirmed his election.  If the incumbents hadn't become titulars residing in Constantinople perhaps the Maronites would not have felt forced to act.   As to his supposed dubious existence, Justinian II didn't doubt it when he sent his army after him only to have its tail kicked by the Maronite warriors.

1898...Why do you ask?
So in other words there is currently no Western Rite Orthodox diocese or bishop proper only vicariates and the bi-ritual Bishop Jerome, got it.
Logged

My cromulent posts embiggen this forum.
Deacon Lance
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Jurisdiction: Archeparchy of Pittsburgh
Posts: 2,928


Liturgy at Mt. St. Macrina Pilgrimage


« Reply #56 on: April 02, 2012, 05:19:08 PM »


Did you know him? Personally no.  He was once pastor of my parish.

Have you read his book? Yes.

Do you know any of the history of the seminary? Yes.

Or have you swallowed the party line? I wasn't invited to the party.
« Last Edit: April 02, 2012, 05:20:58 PM by Deacon Lance » Logged

My cromulent posts embiggen this forum.
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #57 on: April 02, 2012, 07:11:53 PM »


Did you know him? Personally no.  He was once pastor of my parish.

Have you read his book? Yes.

Do you know any of the history of the seminary? Yes.

Or have you swallowed the party line? I wasn't invited to the party.



lol...enough...I can't yield but I do think it is time to fold.   Thanks for the dance!

M.
Logged

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

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,128



« Reply #58 on: April 02, 2012, 08:08:13 PM »

Absolutely!!  There is no Western Catholic Church that is also Orthodox...and never will be as far down the lane as I can see.

Yeah, I too don't expect the LCC to become Orthodox any time soon.
Logged

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

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #59 on: April 02, 2012, 08:18:56 PM »

Absolutely!!  There is no Western Catholic Church that is also Orthodox...and never will be as far down the lane as I can see.

Yeah, I too don't expect the LCC to become Orthodox any time soon.

Right-o!!

When the western rite in Eastern Orthodoxy is finally named as a Church, I am sure someone will let us know.
Logged

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

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,128



« Reply #60 on: April 02, 2012, 09:56:52 PM »

Absolutely!!  There is no Western Catholic Church that is also Orthodox...and never will be as far down the lane as I can see.

Yeah, I too don't expect the LCC to become Orthodox any time soon.

Right-o!!

When the western rite in Eastern Orthodoxy is finally named as a Church, I am sure someone will let us know.

I don't see what that has to do with it. Catholicism has several ECs churches but only one WC church, i.e. the LCC. Do you mean that the WRO might be seen as a replacement for the LCC?
Logged

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

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian Orthodox Archdiocese of North America - Western Rite Orthodox
Posts: 6,426


Inserting personal quote here.


WWW
« Reply #61 on: April 03, 2012, 10:57:58 AM »

Absolutely!!  There is no Western Catholic Church that is also Orthodox...and never will be as far down the lane as I can see.

Yeah, I too don't expect the LCC to become Orthodox any time soon.

Right-o!!

When the western rite in Eastern Orthodoxy is finally named as a Church, I am sure someone will let us know.
It is named as a Church. The Orthodox Church.

There can be no other name. The Western Rite priests have the same bishops as everyone else, follow the same rules, and the same jurisdictions (IIRC, the Eastern Catholics can not say the same). There can be no difference. Calling it like it was another Church will never happen.

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
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #62 on: April 03, 2012, 11:32:27 AM »

Absolutely!!  There is no Western Catholic Church that is also Orthodox...and never will be as far down the lane as I can see.

Yeah, I too don't expect the LCC to become Orthodox any time soon.

Right-o!!

When the western rite in Eastern Orthodoxy is finally named as a Church, I am sure someone will let us know.
It is named as a Church. The Orthodox Church.

There can be no other name. The Western Rite priests have the same bishops as everyone else, follow the same rules, and the same jurisdictions (IIRC, the Eastern Catholics can not say the same). There can be no difference. Calling it like it was another Church will never happen.

PP

Oh...pardon.  I thought that there were particular Churches in Orthodoxy, each with their own primate.  I didn't realize it was all one without distinction.

In the west you are correct, there are particular Churches.
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: 37,831



« Reply #63 on: April 03, 2012, 02:24:12 PM »

Ah, how could I have forgotten... Maybe some would prefer "the Vatican had installed."
 
Yes how could you?  I have corrected you on this error before.  The Latin Patriarchates of Constantinople, Alexandria and Antioch were abolished but you continually persist as if they still exist.
I don't recall about being "corrected" on this "error" by you or anyone else before.

From the CIC, the "real" canon law of the Vatican:
Quote
Can. 368 Particular churches, in which and from which the one and only Catholic Church exists, are first of all dioceses, to which, unless it is otherwise evident, are likened a territorial prelature and territorial abbacy, an apostolic vicariate and an apostolic prefecture, and an apostolic administration erected in a stable manner.
Can. 373 It is only for the supreme authority to erect particular churches; those legitimately erected possess juridic personality by the law itself.
Can. 431 §3. It is only for the supreme authority of the Church to establish, suppress, or alter ecclesiastical provinces after having heard the bishops involved.
Can. 438 The titles of patriarch and primate entail no power of governance in the Latin Church apart from a prerogative of honor unless in some matters the contrary is clear from apostolic privilege or approved custom.

From the Codex Canonum Ecclesiarum Orientalium, the paper canons that the Vatican granted its "sui juris churches":
Quote
Canon 27
A group of Christian faithful united by a hierarchy according to the norm of law which the supreme authority of the Church expressly or tacitly recognizes as sui iuris is called in this Code a Church sui iuris.
Canon 43
The bishop of the Church of Rome, in whom resides the office (munus) given in special way by the Lord to Peter, first of the Apostles and to be transmitted to his successors, is head of the college of bishops, the Vicar of Christ and Pastor of the entire Church on earth; therefore, in virtue of his office (munus) he enjoys supreme, full, immediate and universal ordinary power in the Church which he can always freely exercise.
Canon 45
1. The Roman Pontiff, by virtue of his office (munus), not only has power over the entire Church but also possesses a primacy of ordinary power over all the eparchies and groupings of them by which the proper, ordinary and immediate power which bishops possess in the eparchy entrusted to their care is both strengthened and safeguarded. 2. The Roman Pontiff, in fulfilling the office (munus) of the supreme pastor of the Church is always united in communion with the other bishops and with the entire Church; however, he has the right, according to the needs of the Church, to determine the manner, either personal or collegial, of exercising this function. 3. There is neither appeal nor recourse against a sentence or decree of the Roman Pontiff.
Canon 46
1. In exercising his office (munus) the Roman Pontiff is assisted by the bishops who aid him in various ways and among these is the synod of bishops; moreover the cardinals, the Roman curia, pontifical legates and other persons and various institutes assist him according to the needs of the times; all these persons and institutes carry out the task committed to them in his name and by his authority for the good of all the Churches, according to the norm of law established by the Roman Pontiff himself. 2. The participation of patriarchs and other hierarchs who preside over Churches sui iuris in the synod of bishops is regulated by special norms established by the Roman Pontiff.
Canon 48
In this Code the term "Apostolic See" or "Holy See" applies not only to the Roman Pontiff but also, unless it is otherwise prescribed by the law or the nature of the matter indicates otherwise, dicasteries and other institutes of the Roman curia. [i.e. also the Congregation of Oriental Churches]
Canon 49
The college of bishops, whose head is the Roman Pontiff and whose members are the bishops by virtue of sacramental ordination and
hierarchical communion with the head and members of the college, and in which the apostolic body continually endures, together
with its head, and never without its head, is also the subject of supreme and full power over the universal Church.
TITLE 4
The Patriarchal Churches
Canon 55
According to the most ancient tradition of the Church, already recognized by the first ecumenical councils, the patriarchal institution has existed in the Church; for this reason a special honor is to be accorded to the patriarchs of the Eastern Churches, each of whom presides over his patriarchal Church as father and head.
Canon 56
A patriarch is a bishop who enjoys power over all bishops including metropolitans and other Christian faithful of the Church over which he presides according to the norm of law approved by the supreme authority of the Church.
Canon 57 - §1. The erection, restoration, modification and suppression of patriarchal Churches is reserved to the supreme authority of the Church.
 §2. Only the supreme authority of the Church can modify the legitimately recognized or conceded title of each patriarchal Church.
 §3. If it is possible, a patriarchal Church must have a permanent see for the residence of the patriarch in a principal city inside its own territory from which the patriarch takes his title; this see cannot be transferred except for a most grave reason and with the consent of the synod of bishops of the patriarchal Church and the assent of the Roman Pontiff.
Canon 59
1. Patriarchs of Eastern Churches, even if some are of later times, are all equal by reason of patriarchal dignity with due regard for the precedence of honor among them. 2. The order of precedence among the ancient patriarchal sees of the Eastern Churches is that in the first place comes the see of Constantinople, after that Alexandria, then Antioch and Jerusalem. 3. Among the other patriarchs of the Eastern Churches, precedence is ordered according to the antiquity of the patriarchal see. 4. Among the patriarchs of the Eastern Churches who each are of the same title but who preside over different patriarchal Churches, he has precedence who was first promoted to the patriarchal dignity.
Who is the Vatican's "patriarch of Constantinople" now?   Who is its "patriarchate of Jerusalem" now?

Not quite.
You need to update your research.
 
Swallowing myths does not update anything.

The Maronites elected St John Maron their patriarch without any reference to Rome,
Of course not. The heretical Pope Honorius had been deposed and anathematized by the Sixth Ecumenical Council (681).

although Pope St Sergius I confirmed his election.
 
So you are saying that Pope Sergius confirmed the Monothelites in their heresy like Pope Honorius?  Odd that he would confirm that, and not the Pentheke/Quinsext Council (despite his own Eastern origins in Syria), a fault that Pope Hadrian I of Old Rome remedied in conjunction with the Seventh Ecumenical Council.

Of course, we know that confirmation of John Maron did not happen, as this pallium nonsense of the CCEO hadn't been dreamed up yet, and Old Rome's meddling in the Patriarchate of Antioch (barred by Apostolic Canon 34, Nicea c. 6, Ephesus 8, etc.), had ended up disastrously for it in the Meletian schism in Antioch three centuries earlier.  A patriarchate yoked to a heretical patriarch being a different matter-hence Pope St. Martin's letter to Met. John of Philadelphia to supersede the heretical Pat. Macedonius.  From 681 onwards, Antioch had an Orthodox Patriarch maintaining Catholic communion, consecrated by Ecumenical Council.  Of course, heretics would take no notice.  (the Orthodox, of course, do, at the first session of the Seventh Ecumenical Council the papal legates from Old Rome bringing up the precedence of Pope Benedict II trying to get the deposed Macarius of Antioch to recant, the Sixth Council having exiled him to Old Rome).  That ended in 1098, when the marauding Crusaders expelled the Patriarch of Antioch and set up their own usurper-who received his pallium as legitimation from Old Rome, preventing the return of the patriarchate at Antioch until Pat. Theodosius (1269-1276) returned, after the Muslims threw out the Crusaders.  Better the Turkish turban than the Roman miter.

If the incumbents hadn't become titulars residing in Constantinople perhaps the Maronites would not have felt forced to act.
 
The Monthelites had their titular patriarch, Macarius, residing in New Rome, where he was a presbyter, when he retained the patriarchate for the Monothelites in 656.  He was deposed by the Sixth Ecumenical Council (which, dealing with Macarius' citations to defend his views, led to the anathematization of Pope Honorius of Old Rome) of Constantinople III (681), which elected, on the petition of the Antiochians present,  Pat. Theophanes as his successor. The Patriarchs had not, by then, taken up residence in Constantinople for as long a stretch of time like your supreme pontiffs of Old Rome did in Avignon. Over a century before "Pat." John Maron's alleged assumption in 685 of the leadership of the Maronites/Mardaites (if the two are the same), Pat. Gregory, a monk of the Romans in Jerusalem transferred to Sinai, was selected as Patriarch of Antioch in 571 when Pat. Anastasios I was deposed and exiled.  Pat. Gregory had a stormy relationship with the Count of the East based in Antioch, but mediated between the Emperor Maurice and the mutinous troops on the Persian frontier on the edges of Antioch's Patriarchate.  On his death in 593, his predecessor Pat. Anastasios I, a monk of Sinai, returned (his friend, Pope Gregory of Rome requesting that if he (Anastasios) was not allowed to return to Antioch, he be sent to settle in Rome), and his successor Pat. Anastasios II was martyred in the marketplace of Antioch in 610. During the reign of his successor, Pat. Gregory II, the Persians took Antioch in 614, Pat. Gregory died and was succeeded (where, I admit I don't know offhand) by Pat. Anastasius III in 620, at the end of whose reign the Monothelite Emperor Heraclius retook Antioch.  His colleague (both taking office in New Rome in 610) and regent in the capital, the heresiarch EP Sergius the Monothelite consecrated Pat. Macedonius for Antioch in 628 in New Rome, just in time for the Persian evacuation from Antioch the same year, and Pope St. Martin and Maximus the Confessor condemned him for heresy and uncanonical consecration (New Rome, no more than Old Rome, had the right to appoint patriarchs to Antioch), and he returned the favor to both saints, leading to their martyrdoms.  Although Pat. Macedonius was absent, in 630-4, Heraclius himself was in Antioch, setting up base for fighting off the Persians and reintegrating the empire while speading Monotheletism and sowing the seeds of division, in 630 debating with the anti-Chalcedonian Patriarch of Antioch.  The Monothelite titular Patriarchs of Antioch, co-religionists of Heraclius and the Maronites, Macedonius, George and Macarius, resided in New Rome until the Sixth Council at Constantinople solved the problem, with Pat. Theophanes, who seems to have returned Orthodoxy to Antioch personally.  He was succeeded briefly by Pat. Sebastian in 785-7 (i.e. when "Pat." John Maron was allegedly consecrated), who in turn was succeeded in 690 by Pat. George II, who as a hieromonk in Sebaste was sent by the Pat. of Jerusalem as his legate to the Sixth Ecumenical Council and as patriarch of Antioch returned to Constantinople to finish its work in the Pentheke/Quinisext Council.  Pat. Alexander II, succeeding him in Antioch in 695, was martyred in 702 in Syria by the Umayyads, who prevented the election of a successor until 742, when the Antiochians elected the caliph's favorite monk, Pat. Stephen IV.  He was succeeded by a priest of Edessa, Pat. Theophylact, in 748.  His successor (767) Pat. Theodore in 783 could not attend (due to the overthrowal of the Umayyads and the establishment of the (then) radical 'Abbasid caliphate) the Seventh Ecumenical Council at Nicea (II) in the Empire, and sent instead a hieromonk John as his legate, who succeeded him in 797.

Don't know why the Maronites would feel "forced to act": the Middle Eastern sources only record their coreligionists, the Monothelite patriarchs, as being elected, residing and being buried in New Rome and "not going to" "not entering" etc. Antioch.  Only the Monothelite priests of Constantinople, from the appointment of Pat. Macedonius in 628 by the heresiarch EP Sergius of Constantinople to the deposition of Pat. Macarius in 681, were ordained and resided at New Rome. That is only 53 years, less that the Avignon papacy, and only a little longer than the vacancy cause by Muslim oppression in Antioch 702-742 .  Antioch, for the century before 685, only had these absent Monothelites, corelgionists of the Maronites, as titular patriarchs.  For the century thereafter the Orthodox Patriarchs, restored by the Ecumenical Council of Constantinople III, residing in Antioch and in the diptychs of the Catholic Church, remained, interrupted ,until the arrival of the Crusaders, the vacancy occuring only by the persecutions of the Muslims forcing a vacancy in the See of St. Peter.  Of course, the presence of an Orthodox Patriarch in Catholic communion residing in Antioch might make the Monothelites elect their own patriarch, to preserve their heresy.

As to his supposed dubious existence, Justinian II didn't doubt it when he sent his army after him only to have its tail kicked by the Maronite warriors.
Leaving aside the problems of identifying the Mardaites (Justinian's friends) as the Maronites (St. Maximos the Confessor's enemies), the existence of "his" army doesn't prove "his" existence, much less proving "his" existence as a legitimate patriarch, let alone of Antioch.  We have contemporary records of Justinian II and his army, and the Mardaites in the treaty of 688 between him and the Caliph Abd al-Malik.  No mention of a "Patriarch John Maron."

1898...Why do you ask?
So in other words there is currently no Western Rite Orthodox diocese or bishop proper only vicariates and the bi-ritual Bishop Jerome, got it.
And still the WRO are no worse off than the Vatican's eastern rites.
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
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: 37,831



« Reply #64 on: April 03, 2012, 02:50:58 PM »

Absolutely!!  There is no Western Catholic Church that is also Orthodox...and never will be as far down the lane as I can see.

Yeah, I too don't expect the LCC to become Orthodox any time soon.
We won't wait.

http://www.ortodossia.it/CONFERENZA%20EPISCOPALE.htm
http://episcopia-italiei.it/index.php?lang=it
http://www.ortodossia.it/
http://www.mitropolija-zagrebacka.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=2&Itemid=3&lang=sr-cir

http://www.ortodossia.info/sito/print.php?type=F&thread=47
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
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: 37,831



« Reply #65 on: April 03, 2012, 02:56:31 PM »

Absolutely!!  There is no Western Catholic Church that is also Orthodox...and never will be as far down the lane as I can see.

Yeah, I too don't expect the LCC to become Orthodox any time soon.

Right-o!!

When the western rite in Eastern Orthodoxy is finally named as a Church, I am sure someone will let us know.
It is named as a Church. The Orthodox Church.

There can be no other name. The Western Rite priests have the same bishops as everyone else, follow the same rules, and the same jurisdictions (IIRC, the Eastern Catholics can not say the same). There can be no difference. Calling it like it was another Church will never happen.

PP

Oh...pardon.  I thought that there were particular Churches in Orthodoxy, each with their own primate.
No, there are autocephalous Churches which, unlike those in submission to the Codex Canonum Ecclesiarum Orientalium and its "particular churches" silliness, owe their existence to no one outside themselves.

I didn't realize it was all one without distinction.
Go to your "sui juris church" patriarchate of Jerusalem, and you will see the distinction. Or maybe you won't.

In the west you are correct, there are particular Churches.
only at the pleasure of the head of your Latin church.
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: 6,426


Inserting personal quote here.


WWW
« Reply #66 on: April 03, 2012, 03:32:34 PM »

Quote
Oh...pardon.  I thought that there were particular Churches in Orthodoxy, each with their own primate.  I didn't realize it was all one without distinction
Yes, but they all have the same bishops, and under the same dictates. Can the Eastern Catholics say the same?

Quote
In the west you are correct, there are particular Churches
Until the Pope decides that there shouldn't be.

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
podkarpatska
Merarches
***********
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: ACROD
Posts: 8,474


Pokrov


WWW
« Reply #67 on: April 03, 2012, 03:43:40 PM »

Who is the Vatican's "patriarch of Constantinople" now?   Who is its "patriarchate of Jerusalem" now?

At the risk of butting in with a dose of fresh air - I think that if you asked these two questions in writing to  His Holiness, Benedict, the current Pope of Rome, and if he were kind enough to reply, he would advise you that the among the current eastern Patriarchs are the Patriarch of Constantinople who is, by the Grace of God, His Holiness Bartholomew I and that the current eastern  Patriarch of Jerusalem is, by the Grace of God, His Holiness Theophilus.

If you and the Pope  were (probably in some alternate universe) BFF's, he would probably go on to remind that the current circumstances preclude the fullness of mutual recognition as his Church (Rome) and their Churches (the Orthodox) presently regard the other as being in schism. Wink

Anyway, I have tried to stay far, far away from the whole WRO discussion as I have very little interest in the subject. But as someone whose life was framed in many ways by the unintended and intended consequences of the Unia, I am not sure that WRO is the proper route at the present time for western Christians to turn to as they seek a return to Orthodoxy.

For the rest of the next ten days or so, all of us will observing Holy Week and preparing for the Feast of Feasts - Pascha. How about a truce?
« Last Edit: April 03, 2012, 03:44:12 PM by podkarpatska » Logged
mike
Stratopedarches
**************
Offline Offline

Posts: 21,467


WWW
« Reply #68 on: April 03, 2012, 03:47:08 PM »

that the current eastern  Patriarch of Jerusalem is, by the Grace of God, His Holiness Theophilus.

When has he deposed Patriarch Gregory III?
Logged

Byzantinism
no longer posting here
Cavaradossi
法網恢恢,疏而不漏
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Chalcedonian Automaton Serial No. 5Aj4bx9
Jurisdiction: Chalcedonian Automaton Factory 5
Posts: 1,606



« Reply #69 on: April 03, 2012, 03:53:38 PM »

Absolutely!!  There is no Western Catholic Church that is also Orthodox...and never will be as far down the lane as I can see.

Yeah, I too don't expect the LCC to become Orthodox any time soon.

Right-o!!

When the western rite in Eastern Orthodoxy is finally named as a Church, I am sure someone will let us know.

I'm so confused by the argument in this thread. Why exactly is this a bad thing? Does the Western Rite really need to be a separate church?
Logged

Be comforted, and have faith, O Israel, for your God is infinitely simple and one, composed of no parts.
primuspilus
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian Orthodox Archdiocese of North America - Western Rite Orthodox
Posts: 6,426


Inserting personal quote here.


WWW
« Reply #70 on: April 03, 2012, 04:06:48 PM »

Quote
I'm so confused by the argument in this thread. Why exactly is this a bad thing? Does the Western Rite really need to be a separate church?
Its not a bad thing. I also dont think we need to be a separate church. I think a separate Church would be extremely divisive. I'll go further to state that if the WR did become a separate Church (which wont happen since the WR isnt geographical, but cultural and historical) I would switch to the ER lickety-split.

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
Deacon Lance
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Jurisdiction: Archeparchy of Pittsburgh
Posts: 2,928


Liturgy at Mt. St. Macrina Pilgrimage


« Reply #71 on: April 03, 2012, 05:12:00 PM »

And still the WRO are no worse off than the Vatican's eastern rites.

Yes, just ask the Orthodox Church of France.
Logged

My cromulent posts embiggen this forum.
mike
Stratopedarches
**************
Offline Offline

Posts: 21,467


WWW
« Reply #72 on: April 03, 2012, 05:19:32 PM »

And still the WRO are no worse off than the Vatican's eastern rites.

Yes, just ask the Orthodox Church of France.

Are married bishops part of Western tradition?
Logged

Byzantinism
no longer posting here
Deacon Lance
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Jurisdiction: Archeparchy of Pittsburgh
Posts: 2,928


Liturgy at Mt. St. Macrina Pilgrimage


« Reply #73 on: April 03, 2012, 05:49:33 PM »

So you are saying that Pope Sergius confirmed the Monothelites in their heresy like Pope Honorius?

No, as the Maronites were no more Monothelites then the Syrians were Monophysites.  Some may have been Miathelites.  And Pope St Sergius I is an Orthodox saint, his feast is Sept 8.
Logged

My cromulent posts embiggen this forum.
Deacon Lance
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Jurisdiction: Archeparchy of Pittsburgh
Posts: 2,928


Liturgy at Mt. St. Macrina Pilgrimage


« Reply #74 on: April 03, 2012, 05:54:00 PM »

And still the WRO are no worse off than the Vatican's eastern rites.

Yes, just ask the Orthodox Church of France.

Are married bishops part of Western tradition?

No and neither is abandoning a Church due to misdeeds of one bishop.
Logged

My cromulent posts embiggen this forum.
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,128



« Reply #75 on: April 03, 2012, 07:30:12 PM »

Absolutely!!  There is no Western Catholic Church that is also Orthodox...and never will be as far down the lane as I can see.

Yeah, I too don't expect the LCC to become Orthodox any time soon.

Right-o!!

When the western rite in Eastern Orthodoxy is finally named as a Church, I am sure someone will let us know.

I'm so confused by the argument in this thread. Why exactly is this a bad thing? Does the Western Rite really need to be a separate church?

I'd be hard pressed to say that it needs to be a separate church. However, there would be some advantages -- in much the same way that there would be some advantages to the Anglican Ordinariates becoming sui iuris. (Neither of those things are likely to happen, of course.)
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: 37,831



« Reply #76 on: April 03, 2012, 09:50:37 PM »

Who is the Vatican's "patriarch of Constantinople" now?   Who is its "patriarchate of Jerusalem" now?

At the risk of butting in with a dose of fresh air - I think that if you asked these two questions in writing to  His Holiness, Benedict, the current Pope of Rome, and if he were kind enough to reply, he would advise you that the among the current eastern Patriarchs are the Patriarch of Constantinople who is, by the Grace of God, His Holiness Bartholomew I and that the current eastern  Patriarch of Jerusalem is, by the Grace of God, His Holiness Theophilus.
If the "Supreme Pontiff" Benedict XVI, formerly Card. Josef Ratzinger did, I would tell him "Wer A sagt, muss auch B sagen"-a German proverb "Whoever says A, must also say B," in English "In for a penny, in for a pound."  If HH recognizes HAH EP Bartholomew I as Patriarch of Constantinople, and HH Theophilos III as Patriarch of Jerusalem, he can recognize Pope Theodoros II as Patriachate (leaving aside the issue of the Vatican forbidding the Apostolic and traditional title of this see:"Pope", the original) of Alexandria, instead of the two claimants the Vatican supports, and Patriarch Ignatius IV as Patriarch of Antioch and All the East (Antioch gets to keep its traditional title in the Vatican scheme of things), instead of the three claimants the Vatican supports.  While His Holiness is at it, he can recognize Patriarch Kiril as Patriarch of All Rus' and Met. Volodymyr as Metropolitan of Kiev and heir of Met. St. Michael of Kiev, and tell his Major Archbishop (and his Latin colleague, "the bishop of Kyiv-Zhytomyr") to pack up and go back to Lviv.

No, I'm not buying you irenic benefit of the doubt. The Vatican didn't begin at Vatican II, and so it has left no doubt on which to hang any benefit.

If you and the Pope  were (probably in some alternate universe) BFF's,
not all that alternative.  My friendship isn't predicated on agreement.  His Bavarian accent might be an obstacle, but I can overcome it.

I was a fan of the mug, although my choice was Card. Arinze, I wasn't unhappy about the choice of the last conclave.

he would probably go on to remind that the current circumstances preclude the fullness of mutual recognition as his Church (Rome) and their Churches (the Orthodox) presently regard the other as being in schism. Wink
at which point that I would remind him of whom I recognize as the bishop of Rome

Wink
and remind him, all or nothing. There is no reason why the Vatican could not recognize the true patriarchs of Constantinople and Jerusalem and not be able to do so in Alexandria and Antioch.  Except that present circumstances makes it possible for it try to make a grab and supplant the true occupant in the latter sees, particularly in Antioch.

Anyways, those who have submitted to the Codex Canonum Ecclesiarum Orientalium can't turn around and cite the Vatican II abolition of the Latin patriarchates of Constantinople, Alexandria and Antioch as if it means something.  Particularly as the Patriarchate of Jerusalem remains abolished as far as the Vatican is concerned, and it maintains its "Vicariate Apostolic" in Constantinople and Alexandria,

Anyway, I have tried to stay far, far away from the whole WRO discussion as I have very little interest in the subject. But as someone whose life was framed in many ways by the unintended and intended consequences of the Unia, I am not sure that WRO is the proper route at the present time for western Christians to turn to as they seek a return to Orthodoxy.
The WRO bears no resemblance whatsoever to the Unia, but requiring them to go EO surely bears resemblance to Latinization.  Staying in heresy is not an option.  The Personal Ordinariate for Anglicans, does provide an imitation of the WRO, although I get the impression that the Anglican Use Personal Ordinariate isn't intended to last, even in pretense, a means rather than an end.

For the rest of the next ten days or so, all of us will observing Holy Week and preparing for the Feast of Feasts - Pascha. How about a truce?
I think some of here might already be in their Holy Week.  I'm not adverse.
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
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: 37,831



« Reply #77 on: April 03, 2012, 10:06:14 PM »

Absolutely!!  There is no Western Catholic Church that is also Orthodox...and never will be as far down the lane as I can see.

Yeah, I too don't expect the LCC to become Orthodox any time soon.

Right-o!!

When the western rite in Eastern Orthodoxy is finally named as a Church, I am sure someone will let us know.

I'm so confused by the argument in this thread. Why exactly is this a bad thing? Does the Western Rite really need to be a separate church?

I'd be hard pressed to say that it needs to be a separate church. However, there would be some advantages -- in much the same way that there would be some advantages to the Anglican Ordinariates becoming sui iuris. (Neither of those things are likely to happen, of course.)
As I pointed out, in Czechoslovakia it already happened for the WRO, later developments notwithstanding.

It would have happened again in Scandinavia with the Nordic Catholic Church, if not for the myopia of the local Greek hierarch, who doesn't even favor Scandinavians becoming EO.  Too bad they did not approach Moscow (whose jurisdiction stretches into northern Norway).
« Last Edit: April 03, 2012, 10:06:58 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
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,128



« Reply #78 on: April 03, 2012, 10:16:29 PM »

It would have happened again in Scandinavia with the Nordic Catholic Church, if not for the myopia of the local Greek hierarch, who doesn't even favor Scandinavians becoming EO.

Can't say whether it would have or not, but in any case I guess your loss is others' gain.
Logged

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

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,128



« Reply #79 on: April 03, 2012, 10:21:49 PM »

At the risk of butting in with a dose of fresh air - I think that if you asked these two questions in writing to  His Holiness, Benedict, the current Pope of Rome, and if he were kind enough to reply, he would advise you that the among the current eastern Patriarchs are the Patriarch of Constantinople who is, by the Grace of God, His Holiness Bartholomew I and that the current eastern  Patriarch of Jerusalem is, by the Grace of God, His Holiness Theophilus.
If HH recognizes HAH EP Bartholomew I as Patriarch of Constantinople, and HH Theophilos III as Patriarch of Jerusalem, he can recognize Pope Theodoros II as Patriachate (leaving aside the issue of the Vatican forbidding the Apostolic and traditional title of this see:"Pope", the original) of Alexandria, instead of the two claimants the Vatican supports, and Patriarch Ignatius IV as Patriarch of Antioch and All the East (Antioch gets to keep its traditional title in the Vatican scheme of things), instead of the three claimants the Vatican supports.
I'm not exactly quick to compliment you Orthodox, but do I have to admit I'm quite impressed at how much you both know about what Pope Benedict would do.  :speechless:
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
Cavaradossi
法網恢恢,疏而不漏
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Chalcedonian Automaton Serial No. 5Aj4bx9
Jurisdiction: Chalcedonian Automaton Factory 5
Posts: 1,606



« Reply #80 on: April 03, 2012, 10:22:59 PM »

It would have happened again in Scandinavia with the Nordic Catholic Church, if not for the myopia of the local Greek hierarch, who doesn't even favor Scandinavians becoming EO.

Can't say whether it would have or not, but in any case I guess your loss is others' gain.

Likely a gain for atheism.
Logged

Be comforted, and have faith, O Israel, for your God is infinitely simple and one, composed of no parts.
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: 37,831



« Reply #81 on: April 03, 2012, 10:25:36 PM »

And still the WRO are no worse off than the Vatican's eastern rites.

Yes, just ask the Orthodox Church of France.

Are married bishops part of Western tradition?

No and neither is abandoning a Church due to misdeeds of one bishop.
When said Church follows his disobedience, it becomes a schismatic church.

Your Vatican thinks so

another "church" of France.
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
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: 37,831



« Reply #82 on: April 03, 2012, 10:26:32 PM »

It would have happened again in Scandinavia with the Nordic Catholic Church, if not for the myopia of the local Greek hierarch, who doesn't even favor Scandinavians becoming EO.

Can't say whether it would have or not, but in any case I guess your loss is others' gain.

Likely a gain for atheism.
Fortunately not entirely: the PNC took them under their wing.
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
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: 37,831



« Reply #83 on: April 03, 2012, 10:29:03 PM »

At the risk of butting in with a dose of fresh air - I think that if you asked these two questions in writing to  His Holiness, Benedict, the current Pope of Rome, and if he were kind enough to reply, he would advise you that the among the current eastern Patriarchs are the Patriarch of Constantinople who is, by the Grace of God, His Holiness Bartholomew I and that the current eastern  Patriarch of Jerusalem is, by the Grace of God, His Holiness Theophilus.
If HH recognizes HAH EP Bartholomew I as Patriarch of Constantinople, and HH Theophilos III as Patriarch of Jerusalem, he can recognize Pope Theodoros II as Patriachate (leaving aside the issue of the Vatican forbidding the Apostolic and traditional title of this see:"Pope", the original) of Alexandria, instead of the two claimants the Vatican supports, and Patriarch Ignatius IV as Patriarch of Antioch and All the East (Antioch gets to keep its traditional title in the Vatican scheme of things), instead of the three claimants the Vatican supports.
I'm not exactly quick to compliment you Orthodox, but do I have to admit I'm quite impressed at how much you both know about what Pope Benedict would do.  :speechless:
I don't claim any such thing. Supreme pontiffs come and go, but the Vatican remains.  I just base my projection on its present and future behavior on what it has done in the past, no matter how much I might like and admire the present occupant at its helm.

And hold him to consistency.
« Last Edit: April 03, 2012, 10:29:37 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
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: 37,831



« Reply #84 on: April 03, 2012, 11:05:41 PM »

So you are saying that Pope Sergius confirmed the Monothelites in their heresy like Pope Honorius?

No, as the Maronites were no more Monothelites then the Syrians were Monophysites.

The Maronites were very much Monothelites:all the contemporary sources, Orthodox (both Chalcedonian and non-Chalcedonian), Ultramontanist, Muslim and Maronite are quite agreed on that.  They didn't really get weaned off of it until the pseudo-council of Florence, and even then, not completely until the council of 1736.

And some of the Syrians were Monophysites.  Pat. Severus made a concerted effort that they would not last, and after a few centuries they passed into history, such as the followers of Julian of Halicarnassus and John the Grammarian. (St. John of Damascus quotes profusely from John Philoponus the Grammarian in his record and refutation of the Monophysites).  That Orthodoxy prevailed among them doesn't change that, as the survival of Orthodoxy does not mean the Monothelites never occurred among us.

Some may have been Miathelites.
Many Syrians were.  Mardaites may have been.  What that would have to do with the Maronites, no one can say with certainty.

And Pope St Sergius I is an Orthodox saint, his feast is Sept 8.
I'm aware of that possiblity (although I don't find him on any Orthtodox calendar), which is one reason I am predisposed to not swallow the myth of "Pat." John Maron.  Though he was mistaken about the Pentheke Council, so it would not be his only mistake.
« Last Edit: April 03, 2012, 11:12:55 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
podkarpatska
Merarches
***********
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: ACROD
Posts: 8,474


Pokrov


WWW
« Reply #85 on: April 03, 2012, 11:37:45 PM »

At the risk of butting in with a dose of fresh air - I think that if you asked these two questions in writing to  His Holiness, Benedict, the current Pope of Rome, and if he were kind enough to reply, he would advise you that the among the current eastern Patriarchs are the Patriarch of Constantinople who is, by the Grace of God, His Holiness Bartholomew I and that the current eastern  Patriarch of Jerusalem is, by the Grace of God, His Holiness Theophilus.
If HH recognizes HAH EP Bartholomew I as Patriarch of Constantinople, and HH Theophilos III as Patriarch of Jerusalem, he can recognize Pope Theodoros II as Patriachate (leaving aside the issue of the Vatican forbidding the Apostolic and traditional title of this see:"Pope", the original) of Alexandria, instead of the two claimants the Vatican supports, and Patriarch Ignatius IV as Patriarch of Antioch and All the East (Antioch gets to keep its traditional title in the Vatican scheme of things), instead of the three claimants the Vatican supports.
I'm not exactly quick to compliment you Orthodox, but do I have to admit I'm quite impressed at how much you both know about what Pope Benedict would do.  :speechless:

Sorry, I puckishly succumbed to the temptation to throw red meat on the floor of the lion cage with my comments and they certainly provoked the reaction that I suspected would follow. It added nothing to the OP or the discussion and for that I truly apologize. The part about the truce is honest though.....
Logged
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,128



« Reply #86 on: April 04, 2012, 09:00:45 AM »

It would have happened again in Scandinavia with the Nordic Catholic Church, if not for the myopia of the local Greek hierarch, who doesn't even favor Scandinavians becoming EO.

Can't say whether it would have or not, but in any case I guess your loss is others' gain.

Likely a gain for atheism.
Fortunately not entirely: the PNC took them under their wing.

In terms of low opinions of non-Orthodox, you've really outdone yourselves. I see little similarity between the PNCC and atheism. (You probably don't care, but for the sake of others reading this it's worth noting that the Vatican recognizes the sacraments of the PNCC, and hence of the Nordic Catholic Church.)
Logged

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

Faith: Jerkodox
Posts: 6,800



« Reply #87 on: April 04, 2012, 09:17:23 AM »

It would have happened again in Scandinavia with the Nordic Catholic Church, if not for the myopia of the local Greek hierarch, who doesn't even favor Scandinavians becoming EO.  Too bad they did not approach Moscow (whose jurisdiction stretches into northern Norway).


You really think that it would have turned out as a new unified local church? Despite the myriad of EO churches in Scandinavia?
Logged

J Michael
Older than dirt; dumber than a box of rocks; colossally ignorant; a little crazy ;-)
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 10,147


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


« Reply #88 on: April 04, 2012, 02:08:02 PM »

At the risk of butting in with a dose of fresh air - I think that if you asked these two questions in writing to  His Holiness, Benedict, the current Pope of Rome, and if he were kind enough to reply, he would advise you that the among the current eastern Patriarchs are the Patriarch of Constantinople who is, by the Grace of God, His Holiness Bartholomew I and that the current eastern  Patriarch of Jerusalem is, by the Grace of God, His Holiness Theophilus.
If HH recognizes HAH EP Bartholomew I as Patriarch of Constantinople, and HH Theophilos III as Patriarch of Jerusalem, he can recognize Pope Theodoros II as Patriachate (leaving aside the issue of the Vatican forbidding the Apostolic and traditional title of this see:"Pope", the original) of Alexandria, instead of the two claimants the Vatican supports, and Patriarch Ignatius IV as Patriarch of Antioch and All the East (Antioch gets to keep its traditional title in the Vatican scheme of things), instead of the three claimants the Vatican supports.
I'm not exactly quick to compliment you Orthodox, but do I have to admit I'm quite impressed at how much you both know about what Pope Benedict would do.  :speechless:

Sorry, I puckishly succumbed to the temptation to throw red meat on the floor of the lion cage with my comments and they certainly provoked the reaction that I suspected would follow. It added nothing to the OP or the discussion and for that I truly apologize. The part about the truce is honest though.....

Now *that* was a (rare) dose of fresh air here, and I respect and applaud you for it!
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 (?)
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: 37,831



« Reply #89 on: April 04, 2012, 02:46:26 PM »

It would have happened again in Scandinavia with the Nordic Catholic Church, if not for the myopia of the local Greek hierarch, who doesn't even favor Scandinavians becoming EO.

Can't say whether it would have or not, but in any case I guess your loss is others' gain.

Likely a gain for atheism.
Fortunately not entirely: the PNC took them under their wing.

In terms of low opinions of non-Orthodox, you've really outdone yourselves. I see little similarity between the PNCC and atheism.
Neither do I.

You are reading something into the post.  Not that that is something new.

(You probably don't care, but for the sake of others reading this it's worth noting that the Vatican recognizes the sacraments of the PNCC, and hence of the Nordic Catholic Church.)
You're right, I don't care, but you are wrong, it is not worth noting that the Vatican recognizes the PNCC's sacraments, as it is of no relevance nor importance at all.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
Tags:
Pages: « 1 2 3 »  All   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.18 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.2 seconds with 72 queries.