OrthodoxChristianity.net
October 21, 2014, 09:52:31 PM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Reminder: No political discussions in the public fora.  If you do not have access to the private Politics Forum, please send a PM to Fr. George.
 
   Home   Help Calendar Contact Treasury Tags Login Register  
Pages: 1 2 All   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Is the Apostolic See of Rome vacant?  (Read 4641 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Caelestinus
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: orthodox
Jurisdiction: ROCOR
Posts: 88


« on: August 27, 2012, 12:30:29 PM »

If you do not regard the liturgical practises of the Western (rc) Church(es) and their special teachings as binding and if you life within their canonical territorry, but do not submit to the latter (pope, local bishop), than it would be concludent to declare the Apostolic See as well as all other sees to be vacant, not?


If you regard them as not vacant, why are you not entering into their episcope or - if you are convinced that their orthodoxy is not given - declare them as vacant and build up orthodox local churches and elect a latter, which is in communion with the rest of the catholic-orthodox church?


Wouldn't that be a task for a panorthodox (general) synod?

« Last Edit: August 27, 2012, 12:31:04 PM by Caelestinus » 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: 37,960



« Reply #1 on: August 27, 2012, 12:57:31 PM »

If you do not regard the liturgical practises of the Western (rc) Church(es) and their special teachings as binding and if you life within their canonical territorry, but do not submit to the latter (pope, local bishop), than it would be concludent to declare the Apostolic See as well as all other sees to be vacant, not?


If you regard them as not vacant, why are you not entering into their episcope or - if you are convinced that their orthodoxy is not given - declare them as vacant and build up orthodox local churches and elect a latter, which is in communion with the rest of the catholic-orthodox church?


Wouldn't that be a task for a panorthodox (general) synod?


The Apostolic See?  Habemus papam.

and the see of Old Rome isn't vacant at present
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
mike
Stratopedarches
**************
Offline Offline

Posts: 21,467


WWW
« Reply #2 on: August 27, 2012, 01:02:00 PM »

and the see of Old Rome isn't vacant at present


Is vacant. He is not a Bishop of Rome.

Heretics and schismatics do not have canonical teritories.
« Last Edit: August 27, 2012, 01:03:02 PM by Michał Kalina » Logged

Byzantinism
no longer posting here
Cyrillic
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 9,509


Cyrillico est imperare orbi universo


« Reply #3 on: August 27, 2012, 01:10:18 PM »

Isn't he bishop in Rome rather than of Rome?
Logged

"And the Devil did grin, for his darling sin
is pride that apes humility."
-Samuel Coleridge
mike
Stratopedarches
**************
Offline Offline

Posts: 21,467


WWW
« Reply #4 on: August 27, 2012, 01:17:21 PM »

Isn't he bishop in Rome rather than of Rome?

Exactly.
Logged

Byzantinism
no longer posting here
Severian
God save Egypt, Syria, Lebanon & Iraq
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Coptic/Egyptian Orthodoxy
Posts: 5,041


Saint Severus of Antioch - the Eloquent Mouth

Partisangirl
WWW
« Reply #5 on: August 27, 2012, 01:24:27 PM »

The Apostolic See?  Habemus papam.




Wink
« Last Edit: August 27, 2012, 01:26:51 PM by Severian » Logged

"These things I have spoken unto you, that in me ye might have peace. In the world ye shall have tribulation: but be of good cheer; I have overcome the world." -Jesus Christ (Cf. St. John 16:33)
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: 37,960



« Reply #6 on: August 27, 2012, 02:20:37 PM »

The Apostolic See?  Habemus papam.




Wink
Of blessed memory, but his chair is vacant.
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
Severian
God save Egypt, Syria, Lebanon & Iraq
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Coptic/Egyptian Orthodoxy
Posts: 5,041


Saint Severus of Antioch - the Eloquent Mouth

Partisangirl
WWW
« Reply #7 on: August 27, 2012, 02:22:59 PM »

Of blessed memory, but his chair is vacant.
Right.
Logged

"These things I have spoken unto you, that in me ye might have peace. In the world ye shall have tribulation: but be of good cheer; I have overcome the world." -Jesus Christ (Cf. St. John 16:33)
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: 37,960



« Reply #8 on: August 27, 2012, 02:28:56 PM »

and the see of Old Rome isn't vacant at present


Is vacant. He is not a Bishop of Rome.
The statutes of the Orthodox Patriarchate of Romania, in whose jurisdiction the bishoprick of Italy falls, disagrees.

Heretics and schismatics do not have canonical teritories.
That's true enough.
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
Gorazd
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: The Ecumenical Patriarchate of Istanbul and Chambésy
Posts: 1,955



« Reply #9 on: August 27, 2012, 02:32:38 PM »

Why would the See of Rome be vacant? It is just out of communion with the True Church.
Logged
Alpo
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Jerkodox
Posts: 6,853



« Reply #10 on: August 27, 2012, 02:35:10 PM »

Why would the See of Rome be vacant? It is just out of communion with the True Church.

There are bishops outside of the Church?
Logged

Gorazd
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: The Ecumenical Patriarchate of Istanbul and Chambésy
Posts: 1,955



« Reply #11 on: August 27, 2012, 02:38:18 PM »

Why would the See of Rome be vacant? It is just out of communion with the True Church.

There are bishops outside of the Church?
Do not the canons speak baout heretic and schismatic bishops?
Logged
Alpo
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Jerkodox
Posts: 6,853



« Reply #12 on: August 27, 2012, 02:46:22 PM »

Why would the See of Rome be vacant? It is just out of communion with the True Church.

There are bishops outside of the Church?
Do not the canons speak baout heretic and schismatic bishops?

I'm fairly ignorant about canons and happy about that. However an idea of bishop of the Church who is outside of the Church does sound a little weird.
Logged

mike
Stratopedarches
**************
Offline Offline

Posts: 21,467


WWW
« Reply #13 on: August 27, 2012, 02:54:49 PM »

and the see of Old Rome isn't vacant at present


Is vacant. He is not a Bishop of Rome.
The statutes of the Orthodox Patriarchate of Romania, in whose jurisdiction the bishoprick of Italy falls, disagrees.

With you?

"Preasfinţitul Siluan, Episcop al Episcopiei Ortodoxe Române a Italiei"
http://www.mitropolia.eu/ro/site/52/

His Grace Silvanus, Romanian Orthodox Bishop of Italy
« Last Edit: August 27, 2012, 02:55:05 PM by Michał Kalina » Logged

Byzantinism
no longer posting here
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 #14 on: August 27, 2012, 04:42:05 PM »

Why would the See of Rome be vacant? It is just out of communion with the True Church.

There are bishops outside of the Church?
Do not the canons speak baout heretic and schismatic bishops?

The only reference I can think of uses the phrase 'so-called bishops'. And throughout the conciliar period, it was standard practice to ordain an Orthodox bishop to any see where the incumbent was heretical/schismatic (which is how we end up with both EO and OO Patriarchs of Alexandria and Antioch, both considered the legitimate successor of St. Mark and St. Peter, respectively by their respective communions).

When the incumbent for the See of Rome fell into schism it was only the practical matter (that all the people went with him and there was no Orthodox congregation to support an Orthodox bishop). The same was true in reverse in that Rome didn't consecrate a replacement for the EP--until they conquered Constantinople and and then were able to consecrated a holder of the see from their point of view.

So yes, the See of Rome is either vacant (as it has been for the last millennium) or filled by Bishop Silouan depending on how takes the the careful political phrasing of the latter's title.
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
choy
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,316


« Reply #15 on: August 27, 2012, 05:05:53 PM »

So does this mean the Orthodox are the original sedevacantists?  Grin Grin Grin
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 #16 on: August 27, 2012, 05:17:08 PM »

So does this mean the Orthodox are the original sedevacantists?  Grin Grin Grin

If you'll forgive me quoting myself:
Quote
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.

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
Christopher McAvoy
Never forget the Franciscan Friars of the Immaculate & all persecuted christians!
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: orthodóxis, atque cathólice et apostólice fídei
Jurisdiction: Latin Catholic from the 12th c.
Posts: 443



WWW
« Reply #17 on: September 04, 2012, 12:43:35 AM »

Allow me to congratulate you, Celestinus, for asking the very best question this subset "Western rite forum" has ever had asked within it.

Your questions and presence here are a blessing for us.


Logged

"and for all who are Orthodox, and who hold the Catholic and Apostolic Faith, remember, O Lord, thy servants" - yet the post-conciliar RC hierarchy is tolerant of everyone and everything... except Catholic Tradition, for modernists are as salt with no taste, to be “thrown out and trampled under foot
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: 37,960



« Reply #18 on: September 04, 2012, 01:02:46 AM »

and the see of Old Rome isn't vacant at present


Is vacant. He is not a Bishop of Rome.
The statutes of the Orthodox Patriarchate of Romania, in whose jurisdiction the bishoprick of Italy falls, disagrees.

With you?

"Preasfinţitul Siluan, Episcop al Episcopiei Ortodoxe Române a Italiei"
http://www.mitropolia.eu/ro/site/52/

His Grace Silvanus, Romanian Orthodox Bishop of Italy
Somewhere here I posted the relevant texts: the Constutition of the Romanian Orthodox Patriarchate stipulates that bishops take their title from their see, and the Statute of the Romanian Orthodox Bishoprick of Italy specifies that his see is Rome.

His see had been at Lucca.  Somehow I doubt anyone would have a problem with calling him the bishop of Lucca, although the Vatican has its bishop there too, subject directly to the Vatican.
« Last Edit: September 04, 2012, 01:04:16 AM 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
Christopher McAvoy
Never forget the Franciscan Friars of the Immaculate & all persecuted christians!
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: orthodóxis, atque cathólice et apostólice fídei
Jurisdiction: Latin Catholic from the 12th c.
Posts: 443



WWW
« Reply #19 on: September 05, 2012, 12:09:57 AM »

Quote
In the governance of the Church, says Fortescue, the Orthodox still cling to the old ideal of the Pentarchy. Yet they believe that one of it's prime members, the Patriarch of Rome, has fallen into grave heresy and must repent in order for the Pentarchy to be restored. He says that if the pope were to renounce what the Orthodox regard to be his errors, the pope would again be recognized as the first among bishops. For traditionally the Eastern Churches acknowledged "the Pope as the first Patriarch and chief bishop in Christendom, and also as Patriarch having lawful jurisdiction over all the West"

Fortescue maintains that in this scenario the primacy enjoyed by the pope would be merely a primacy of honour. This means that he would have no real jurisdiction over the other patriarchs. While the pope would be able to exercise his power throughout the West, he would have absolutely no authority in the Christian East (except within the rare instances of when he is petitioned to uphold the truth in the face of heresy within a local eastern patriarchates jurisdicton). Until than says Fortescue, as long as the pope continues to persist in his claims, the Orthodox view him as nothing more than "the head of a heretical Church, no more to be taken account than the Armenian, Coptic, or Jacobite (Syriac) Patriarchs"

Since the Orthodox believe their communion alone to be the one true Church, Fortescue cannot help questioning why they have not simply restored the Pentarchy by appointing an Orthodox Patriarch of Rome. Here again he identifies another example of what he regards as Orthodox inconsistency. If the Orthodox took their own claims seriously, he argues, they should have long ago established a rival patriarch of the Orthodox faith in Rome, just as they have done in Alexandria, Syria, and Jerusalem. Yet they have not done so, and in reality "they practically acknowledge the Pope as head of the Western Church and legitimate first Patriarch, and they really only complain of his universal claim." Thus in this matter as in others, Fortescue believes that "it is always hopeless to look for consistency in Orthodox theology"

Fortescues (and most non-Orthodox sede-vacantists) approach to papal primacy is heavily coloured by Vatican I, which stressed that the pope "posseses a preminence of ordinary power over every other church, and that this jurisdictional power of the Roman pontiff is both episcopal and immediate." Nonetheless, Fortescue admits that the governance of the Church was not always as centralized as it has come to be:

Atlhough he zealously defends the papacy, in his private correspondence Fortesce expresses some misgivings about Rome's centralizing tendencies. In a personal letter to Herbert Thurston, Fortescue provides a rare glimpse into his concerns regarding papal power, especially as it was exercised by Pope Piux X during the crusade against Modernism:  

"You know, we have stuck out for our position all our lives--unity, authority, etc. Peter the Rock and so on. I have, too, and believe it, I am always preaching that sort of thing. And yet it is not now getting to a reductio ad absurdum?
Centralisation grows and goes madder every century. Even at Trent they hardly foresaw this kind of thing. Does it really mean that one cannot be a member of the Church of Christ without being, as we are, absolutely at the mercy of an Italian Lunatic?
.... We must pull through even this beastliness somehow. After all, it is still the Church of the Fathers that we stand by and spend our lives defending. However, as bad as things are, nothing else is possible. I think that when I look at Rome, I see powerful arguments against us, but when I look at the Church of England or Matthew or anyone else, I see still more powerful arguments for us. But of course, saving a total collapse, things are as bad as they can be. Give us back the Xth century Johns and Stephen, or a Borgia! They were less disastrous than this deplorable person.

In spite of his private concerns, Fortescue remained a stalwart defender of the papal prerogatives throughout his life. It is his contention that the papacy is the primay element lacking in the E. Orthodox Church, and that it alone can enable the Eastern Churches to triumph over the challenges they face.
 

quoting from "Adrian Fortescue and the Eastern Christian Churches" by Dr. Anthony Dragani (an old friend of mine.)

However, Forescues view that "it is always hopeless to look for consistency in Orthodox theology" is not one that I would share. One could as easily say , as I did when I was in communion with Rome that "it is hopeless to look for consistency in present day (latin) Catholic theology".  There is not perfection found  anywhere  ...we settle with what we think is the closest available.
« Last Edit: September 05, 2012, 12:28:51 AM by Christopher McAvoy » Logged

"and for all who are Orthodox, and who hold the Catholic and Apostolic Faith, remember, O Lord, thy servants" - yet the post-conciliar RC hierarchy is tolerant of everyone and everything... except Catholic Tradition, for modernists are as salt with no taste, to be “thrown out and trampled under foot
Christopher McAvoy
Never forget the Franciscan Friars of the Immaculate & all persecuted christians!
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: orthodóxis, atque cathólice et apostólice fídei
Jurisdiction: Latin Catholic from the 12th c.
Posts: 443



WWW
« Reply #20 on: September 05, 2012, 12:12:01 AM »

The image I take for my avatar is a "traditio legis" for the feasts of SS. Peter & Paul from 12th c. austrian MS.

Quote
Quote
Architecturally, both structures paraphrased Byzantine imperial architecture in Constantinople more or less explicitly to stress the imperial rank of the Lateran and the Pope as established by the Constantinian Donation. The now lost apse mosaic of the "aula leonina" alluded to the Roman church and its role in the world by referring in a titulus to Matthew 28: 19-20:

Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Song and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything that I have commanded you. And remember, I am with you always, to the end of the age.

In depiction, Peter stepped forward from the ranks of the eleven apostles who were receiving the mission from the resurrected Christ (Fig. 126). The apparent aim was to stress the primacy of the Roman See within the Church; Hans Belting has demonstrated that the mosaic's particular emphasis on Peter was based on a depection of the traditio legis shown on Leo I's fifth-century sarcophagus.

The ecclesiological content of the mosaic was brought into a contemporary political context through an image on the right side of the apsidal arch of the "aula" known, together with the rest of the mosaic, through an eighteenth-century copy. In presenting the double investitute of Charlemagne and Pope Leo III by St. Peter respectively through banner and pallium, the image emphasized the Frankish king's duty to protect the Church, whose supreme head was the pope, represented in the mosaic in the act of receiving Peter's pallium.

The ecclesiological subject of the Mission to the Apostles in the "aula" was further elaborated in the ten niches along the sides of the "sala del concilio," which were "painted with various representations of the apostles preaching to the nations". The group of apostles in the niches was completed by Peter and Paul in the apse, which in the apsidal arch the heavenly Church was represented by the imagery of the Twenty-Four Elders and the Four Beasts of the Apocalypse and other saints and martyrs adoring the clipeus of Christs face on the keystone (Fig. 43). The two apostles in the apse were singled out to express the idea of the "concordia apostolorum" and the universality of the Roman church. Below the apse, the enthroned pope, whose heavenly counterpart was displayed on the apsidal arch, was authorized as the leader of the terrestrial Church.

The program of Paschal's objects is not entirely in keeping with the associations to both the imperial and ecclesiastical power of the pope found in the Leonine monuments. But the Sancta Sanctorum objects do coincide with Leo III's mosaics in their ecclesiological message: firstly, both the mosaics and the Paschalian objects single out Peter and Paul to express the idea of the "concordia apostolorum." Secondly, both make ample use of the theme of Christs Mission to the apostles, and emphasize the apostle Peter, by referring to Christ's Charge to Peter (Mt. 16: 19.)

The correspondence between the Leonine and Paschalian programs in stressing the power of the Roman church in relation to the rest of the Christian world thus firmly situates the statements of the Sancta Sanctorum objects within the ecclesiological-politcal context of the Lateran palace of the eighth and ninth centuries.

taken from: Image and Relic: Mediating the Sacred in Early Medieval Rome by Eric Thune

These quotes form my line of thinking on the subject toward the original post. I can't say I have anything to say personally, it is a daunting concept to understand.

I would not say the Orthodox Church is sedevacantist. I think it's position goes quite beyond it into a different line altogether. Quite a subtle difference, but important one.

Sedevacantists generally have no unity. Orthodoxy has unity..
« Last Edit: September 05, 2012, 12:15:20 AM by Christopher McAvoy » Logged

"and for all who are Orthodox, and who hold the Catholic and Apostolic Faith, remember, O Lord, thy servants" - yet the post-conciliar RC hierarchy is tolerant of everyone and everything... except Catholic Tradition, for modernists are as salt with no taste, to be “thrown out and trampled under foot
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: 37,960



« Reply #21 on: September 05, 2012, 12:37:56 AM »

Quote
In the governance of the Church, says Fortescue, the Orthodox still cling to the old ideal of the Pentarchy. Yet they believe that one of it's prime members, the Patriarch of Rome, has fallen into grave heresy and must repent in order for the Pentarchy to be restored. He says that if the pope were to renounce what the Orthodox regard to be his errors, the pope would again be recognized as the first among bishops. For traditionally the Eastern Churches acknowledged "the Pope as the first Patriarch and chief bishop in Christendom, and also as Patriarch having lawful jurisdiction over all the West"

Fortescue maintains that in this scenario the primacy enjoyed by the pope would be merely a primacy of honour. This means that he would have no real jurisdiction over the other patriarchs. While the pope would be able to exercise his power throughout the West, he would have absolutely no authority in the Christian East (except within the rare instances of when he is petitioned to uphold the truth in the face of heresy within a local eastern patriarchates jurisdicton). Until than says Fortescue, as long as the pope continues to persist in his claims, the Orthodox view him as nothing more than "the head of a heretical Church, no more to be taken account than the Armenian, Coptic, or Jacobite (Syriac) Patriarchs"

Since the Orthodox believe their communion alone to be the one true Church, Fortescue cannot help questioning why they have not simply restored the Pentarchy by appointing an Orthodox Patriarch of Rome. Here again he identifies another example of what he regards as Orthodox inconsistency. If the Orthodox took their own claims seriously, he argues, they should have long ago established a rival patriarch of the Orthodox faith in Rome, just as they have done in Alexandria, Syria, and Jerusalem. Yet they have not done so, and in reality "they practically acknowledge the Pope as head of the Western Church and legitimate first Patriarch, and they really only complain of his universal claim." Thus in this matter as in others, Fortescue believes that "it is always hopeless to look for consistency in Orthodox theology"

Fortescues (and most non-Orthodox sede-vacantists) approach to papal primacy is heavily coloured by Vatican I, which stressed that the pope "posseses a preminence of ordinary power over every other church, and that this jurisdictional power of the Roman pontiff is both episcopal and immediate." Nonetheless, Fortescue admits that the governance of the Church was not always as centralized as it has come to be:

Atlhough he zealously defends the papacy, in his private correspondence Fortesce expresses some misgivings about Rome's centralizing tendencies. In a personal letter to Herbert Thurston, Fortescue provides a rare glimpse into his concerns regarding papal power, especially as it was exercised by Pope Piux X during the crusade against Modernism:  

"You know, we have stuck out for our position all our lives--unity, authority, etc. Peter the Rock and so on. I have, too, and believe it, I am always preaching that sort of thing. And yet it is not now getting to a reductio ad absurdum?
Centralisation grows and goes madder every century. Even at Trent they hardly foresaw this kind of thing. Does it really mean that one cannot be a member of the Church of Christ without being, as we are, absolutely at the mercy of an Italian Lunatic?
.... We must pull through even this beastliness somehow. After all, it is still the Church of the Fathers that we stand by and spend our lives defending. However, as bad as things are, nothing else is possible. I think that when I look at Rome, I see powerful arguments against us, but when I look at the Church of England or Matthew or anyone else, I see still more powerful arguments for us. But of course, saving a total collapse, things are as bad as they can be. Give us back the Xth century Johns and Stephen, or a Borgia! They were less disastrous than this deplorable person.

In spite of his private concerns, Fortescue remained a stalwart defender of the papal prerogatives throughout his life. It is his contention that the papacy is the primay element lacking in the E. Orthodox Church, and that it alone can enable the Eastern Churches to triumph over the challenges they face.
 

quoting from "Adrian Fortescue and the Eastern Christian Churches" by Dr. Anthony Dragani (an old friend of mine.)

However, Forescues view that "it is always hopeless to look for consistency in Orthodox theology" is not one that I would share. One could as easily say , as I did when I was in communion with Rome that "it is hopeless to look for consistency in present day (latin) Catholic theology".  There is not perfection found  anywhere  ...we settle with what we think is the closest available.
Fortescue chorttled about the office of patriarch dying out among the Orthodox, to be replaced by the Holy Governing Synod, and the Churches would keep splinter, becoming ever smaller.  A few years after he so pronounced, he was proven so wrong.
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
Basil 320
Site Supporter
Archon
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America, Holy Metropolis of Pittsburgh
Posts: 3,070



« Reply #22 on: September 05, 2012, 01:25:46 AM »

If you do not regard the liturgical practises of the Western (rc) Church(es) and their special teachings as binding and if you life within their canonical territorry, but do not submit to the latter (pope, local bishop), than it would be concludent to declare the Apostolic See as well as all other sees to be vacant, not?


If you regard them as not vacant, why are you not entering into their episcope or - if you are convinced that their orthodoxy is not given - declare them as vacant and build up orthodox local churches and elect a latter, which is in communion with the rest of the catholic-orthodox church?


Wouldn't that be a task for a panorthodox (general) synod?



If the Eastern Orthodox Church would consider what you are suggesting, it certainly couldn't be decided by any one individual or hierarch, other than the Holy Hierarchs of the Holy Orthodox Churches, because the Church of Rome would first have to be officially declared to be in heresy.  I imagine an Extraordinary Synod of representatives of the Holy Orthodox Churches could be called by the Ecumenical Patriarch, rather than necessarily convening an Ecumenical Synod (Council).

What you are suggesting is not the least bit realistic at this time.  There is a so called "Dialogue of Love," a formal dialogue between representatives of the Holy Orthodox Churches and the Church of Rome.  The Church of Constantinople, the "First Throne" commemorated by the primates of the Holy Orthodox Churches, and the Church of Rome, exchange fraternal visits by sending delegations to each others sees on the occasion of their patronal feasts, in the case of Constantinople, at the Phanar, in the Patriarchal Church of St. George the Trophy Bearer, in the case of Rome, at the Vatican's St. Peter Basilica, on the Feast Day of St. Andrew the First Called Apostle for the Church of Constantinople, and on the Feast Day of Sts. Peter and Paul the Apostles, for the Church of Rome.  The primates or first hierarchs of the Holy Orthodox Churches likewise visit Rome, and also, Popes have visited with the primates at their cathedrals; the Church of Russia has been engaged in dialogue with the Church of Rome in connection with the Pope's request to visit Russia.  Not-with-standing the controversy surrounding it within the Orthodox Church, the "Anathema" against the Church of Rome, and the "Bull of Excommunication" against "Michael* and all who follow him," were lifted in 1966 (or so) during simultaneous ceremonies at the Phanar and at the Vatican. 

The topic of "ecumenical relations" is on the agenda of the forthcoming Holy and Great Synod (Council) of the Orthodox Church.  I can't recall if any of the Pre-Conciliar Commissions have published any of the pre-conciliar work on this topic as yet.



*The Ecumenical Patriarch in July, 1054.
Logged

"...Strengthen the Orthodox Community..."
Justin Kolodziej
Party per fess argent and gules; in chief a Latin cross bottony sable between two lozenges azure; in base a wheel, or.
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Converting
Jurisdiction: GOC-Kallinikos....one day
Posts: 293



« Reply #23 on: October 10, 2012, 11:07:19 AM »

Here is an even more interesting question: Who is the Patriarch of the West right now?
Logged

Where even the last two or three are gathered in His name, He is there in their midst.
Cyrillic
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 9,509


Cyrillico est imperare orbi universo


« Reply #24 on: October 10, 2012, 11:09:34 AM »

Here is an even more interesting question: Who is the Patriarch of the West right now?

Why should there be one? Rome and Western Europe is now in partibus infidelium.
« Last Edit: October 10, 2012, 11:10:57 AM by Cyrillic » Logged

"And the Devil did grin, for his darling sin
is pride that apes humility."
-Samuel Coleridge
primuspilus
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian Orthodox Archdiocese of North America - Western Rite Orthodox
Posts: 6,478


Inserting personal quote here.


WWW
« Reply #25 on: October 10, 2012, 12:14:23 PM »



Is not His Eminence Bishop Gennadios the Bishop of Italy? Would it not fall to him?

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

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 7,973


Holy Trinity Church of Gergeti, Georgia


« Reply #26 on: October 10, 2012, 12:21:28 PM »

Here is an even more interesting question: Who is the Patriarch of the West right now?

Pope Benedict actually dropped that title, which was an Orthodox one, in some hair-brained scheme to make friends with the Orthodox. Did he not read our letters? That's not a title we have a problem with. He drops it, and we are left wondering at his meaning which, obviously, is greater emphasis on universal jurisdiction. Clevery ploy, that.
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.
Alpo
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Jerkodox
Posts: 6,853



« Reply #27 on: October 10, 2012, 12:33:00 PM »



Is not His Eminence Bishop Gennadios the Bishop of Italy? Would it not fall to him?

PP

You could try calling MP and EP about their new superior and that they should refresh their diptychs. I wonder how many days or weeks the laughter would last.
Logged

OrthoNoob
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 1,015



« Reply #28 on: October 10, 2012, 12:35:33 PM »

I doubt if "Bishop of Italy" is quite the same thing as "Bishop of Rome."
Logged

http://avengingredhand.wordpress.com -- My blog

'These words I, Leo, have set down for love and as a safeguard of the Orthodox Faith'
Fabio Leite
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 3,179



WWW
« Reply #29 on: October 10, 2012, 02:12:40 PM »

It is vacant.

But to have a proper bishop of Rome would entail the following two political difficulties:

1) to have a *Roman* orthodox church (referring here to the city), that is, a self-governed Orthodox community of the Orthodox living in Rome both cradle and converts, immigrants and Italians; I don't know when or if the Pan-Orthodox Council will happen and if it will solve the jurisdictional issue, but the recent division of the world into episcopal assemblies signal at, at least, a possibility. After all, there is a specific episcopal assembly for Italy and Malta, which suggests they acknowledge the need for unity of all the Orthodox in Italy;

2) If we get to have some sort of unity of all the Orthodox in Italy, then we have a very big political problem. The primate of a united Orthodox Italian Church would have to be considered the de facto Orthodox Roman Pope. The consequences of that would be to be in open confrontation with the heterodox frankish pope and an absolute zero freezing if not death of all ecumenical dialogues and initiatives with the heterodox Rome. This would mean too, that we are disconsidering any chance of return of heterodox Rome to the Church and basically giving up on them.

So, even if (1) is achieved, would we be up for (2)?
Logged

Many Energies, Three Persons, Two Natures, One God.
age234
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antioch
Posts: 555


« Reply #30 on: October 10, 2012, 03:16:27 PM »

It is vacant.

But to have a proper bishop of Rome would entail the following two political difficulties:

1) to have a *Roman* orthodox church (referring here to the city), that is, a self-governed Orthodox community of the Orthodox living in Rome both cradle and converts, immigrants and Italians; I don't know when or if the Pan-Orthodox Council will happen and if it will solve the jurisdictional issue, but the recent division of the world into episcopal assemblies signal at, at least, a possibility. After all, there is a specific episcopal assembly for Italy and Malta, which suggests they acknowledge the need for unity of all the Orthodox in Italy;

2) If we get to have some sort of unity of all the Orthodox in Italy, then we have a very big political problem. The primate of a united Orthodox Italian Church would have to be considered the de facto Orthodox Roman Pope. The consequences of that would be to be in open confrontation with the heterodox frankish pope and an absolute zero freezing if not death of all ecumenical dialogues and initiatives with the heterodox Rome. This would mean too, that we are disconsidering any chance of return of heterodox Rome to the Church and basically giving up on them.

So, even if (1) is achieved, would we be up for (2)?

What have we done about the former sees of other churches that fell away? We have an Orthodox Pope of Alexandria and that has not hurt our dialogue with the Copts.

A question I would ask is: why would we not have an Orthodox Patriarch of the West when we do have Orthodox Patriarchs and bishops in other sees that have gone into schism? Why is Rome so special that we're waiting on them, when we haven't waited for others? Why play games instead of calling a spade a spade?
« Last Edit: October 10, 2012, 03:20:18 PM by age234 » Logged
Cyrillic
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 9,509


Cyrillico est imperare orbi universo


« Reply #31 on: October 10, 2012, 03:21:36 PM »

Because historically there were still Chalcedonians in Alexandria after 451 but not much Eastern Orthodox in Rome after 1054.
Logged

"And the Devil did grin, for his darling sin
is pride that apes humility."
-Samuel Coleridge
age234
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antioch
Posts: 555


« Reply #32 on: October 10, 2012, 03:24:50 PM »

Because historically there were still Chalcedonians in Alexandria after 451 but not much Eastern Orthodox in Rome after 1054.

That's fair. I'm not a fan of playing games the other way either: titular bishops presiding over empty sees.

If there are Orthodox in Rome, there should be a Bishop of Rome. If not, there should not be. For me it's that simple. Hopefully the EA system will evolve into a more normal system of governance eventually.
« Last Edit: October 10, 2012, 03:25:39 PM by age234 » Logged
Fabio Leite
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 3,179



WWW
« Reply #33 on: October 10, 2012, 03:30:53 PM »

Because historically there were still Chalcedonians in Alexandria after 451 but not much Eastern Orthodox in Rome after 1054.

That's fair. I'm not a fan of playing games the other way either: titular bishops presiding over empty sees.

If there are Orthodox in Rome, there should be a Bishop of Rome. If not, there should not be. For me it's that simple. Hopefully the EA system will evolve into a more normal system of governance eventually.

Do these Orthodox acknowledge each other beyond their ethnic background? I don't know anything about Orthodoxy in Italy, but my guess is that they don't. Before having an Orthodox Bishop of Rome, the Orthodox Church there must have actual unity. If the process in the US is any reference, that is an awfully painful process. Do the Orthodox in Italy want to be one, despite ethnic/convert identities? Funny that it is precisely for these cases that Jesus made His famous prayer in John for unity and not for union with heterodoxox. Maybe we should redirect our prayers to be listened.
Logged

Many Energies, Three Persons, Two Natures, One God.
Joseph Hazen
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Serbian
Posts: 150


« Reply #34 on: October 10, 2012, 03:34:24 PM »

I'm all for having a new Orthodox Pope of Rome, but that needs to go hand in hand with re-structuring the list of primacy and putting him, if not at the bottom, then near. Rome had been heterodox for so long that they should be treated as a new church, IMO.
Logged
OrthoNoob
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 1,015



« Reply #35 on: October 10, 2012, 03:38:36 PM »

I'm all for having a new Orthodox Pope of Rome, but that needs to go hand in hand with re-structuring the list of primacy and putting him, if not at the bottom, then near. Rome had been heterodox for so long that they should be treated as a new church, IMO.

I have to disagree. Why would we not restore things as they were before the schism, as nearly as we could? Why would we not seek to return Old Rome to her ancient glory?

Maybe I'm just a sentimental part-Italian convert, but this sounds like a half-baked "restoration" to me.
Logged

http://avengingredhand.wordpress.com -- My blog

'These words I, Leo, have set down for love and as a safeguard of the Orthodox Faith'
Cyrillic
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 9,509


Cyrillico est imperare orbi universo


« Reply #36 on: October 10, 2012, 03:44:00 PM »

I'm all for having a new Orthodox Pope of Rome, but that needs to go hand in hand with re-structuring the list of primacy and putting him, if not at the bottom, then near. Rome had been heterodox for so long that they should be treated as a new church, IMO.

I have to disagree. Why would we not restore things as they were before the schism, as nearly as we could? Why would we not seek to return Old Rome to her ancient glory?

Maybe I'm just a sentimental part-Italian convert, but this sounds like a half-baked "restoration" to me.

Do you really think there will ever be a mending of the great schism?
Logged

"And the Devil did grin, for his darling sin
is pride that apes humility."
-Samuel Coleridge
OrthoNoob
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 1,015



« Reply #37 on: October 10, 2012, 03:46:35 PM »

I'm all for having a new Orthodox Pope of Rome, but that needs to go hand in hand with re-structuring the list of primacy and putting him, if not at the bottom, then near. Rome had been heterodox for so long that they should be treated as a new church, IMO.

I have to disagree. Why would we not restore things as they were before the schism, as nearly as we could? Why would we not seek to return Old Rome to her ancient glory?

Maybe I'm just a sentimental part-Italian convert, but this sounds like a half-baked "restoration" to me.

Do you really think there will ever be a mending of the great schism?

With God all things are possible. But that's not what I meant. Obviously, the RCC will continue to exist for the foreseeable future. What I'm saying is: If we're going to appoint a new Orthodox Pope of Rome, we should accord him the same place as the ancient Orthodox Popes of Rome, so as to restore as far as possible the pre-schism Church.
Logged

http://avengingredhand.wordpress.com -- My blog

'These words I, Leo, have set down for love and as a safeguard of the Orthodox Faith'
Cyrillic
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 9,509


Cyrillico est imperare orbi universo


« Reply #38 on: October 10, 2012, 03:51:17 PM »

I'm all for having a new Orthodox Pope of Rome, but that needs to go hand in hand with re-structuring the list of primacy and putting him, if not at the bottom, then near. Rome had been heterodox for so long that they should be treated as a new church, IMO.

I have to disagree. Why would we not restore things as they were before the schism, as nearly as we could? Why would we not seek to return Old Rome to her ancient glory?

Maybe I'm just a sentimental part-Italian convert, but this sounds like a half-baked "restoration" to me.

Do you really think there will ever be a mending of the great schism?

With God all things are possible. But that's not what I meant. Obviously, the RCC will continue to exist for the foreseeable future. What I'm saying is: If we're going to appoint a new Orthodox Pope of Rome, we should accord him the same place as the ancient Orthodox Popes of Rome, so as to restore as far as possible the pre-schism Church.

Why? Canons can be changed if the need is there. An hypothetical EO Pope of Rome would probably be below Moscow in the dyptichs, but that's just guessing.
« Last Edit: October 10, 2012, 03:51:41 PM by Cyrillic » Logged

"And the Devil did grin, for his darling sin
is pride that apes humility."
-Samuel Coleridge
OrthoNoob
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 1,015



« Reply #39 on: October 10, 2012, 04:42:21 PM »

I'm all for having a new Orthodox Pope of Rome, but that needs to go hand in hand with re-structuring the list of primacy and putting him, if not at the bottom, then near. Rome had been heterodox for so long that they should be treated as a new church, IMO.

I have to disagree. Why would we not restore things as they were before the schism, as nearly as we could? Why would we not seek to return Old Rome to her ancient glory?

Maybe I'm just a sentimental part-Italian convert, but this sounds like a half-baked "restoration" to me.

Do you really think there will ever be a mending of the great schism?

With God all things are possible. But that's not what I meant. Obviously, the RCC will continue to exist for the foreseeable future. What I'm saying is: If we're going to appoint a new Orthodox Pope of Rome, we should accord him the same place as the ancient Orthodox Popes of Rome, so as to restore as far as possible the pre-schism Church.

Why? Canons can be changed if the need is there. An hypothetical EO Pope of Rome would probably be below Moscow in the dyptichs, but that's just guessing.

I don't know. I guess I just have a sentimental attachment to the Eternal City and want to see her glory come back. I'm not sure that's the sort of thing I can prove to you that you should agree with.
Logged

http://avengingredhand.wordpress.com -- My blog

'These words I, Leo, have set down for love and as a safeguard of the Orthodox Faith'
JoeS2
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic by choice
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 1,134


St. Mark Defender of the true Faith (old CAF guy)


« Reply #40 on: October 10, 2012, 06:01:32 PM »


Do you really think there will ever be a mending of the great schism?

Under the present situation I hope not.....
Logged
Joseph Hazen
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Serbian
Posts: 150


« Reply #41 on: October 10, 2012, 08:04:33 PM »

I'm all for having a new Orthodox Pope of Rome, but that needs to go hand in hand with re-structuring the list of primacy and putting him, if not at the bottom, then near. Rome had been heterodox for so long that they should be treated as a new church, IMO.

I have to disagree. Why would we not restore things as they were before the schism, as nearly as we could? Why would we not seek to return Old Rome to her ancient glory?

Maybe I'm just a sentimental part-Italian convert, but this sounds like a half-baked "restoration" to me.

Well, that's probably a big difference between our views: I don't think we should be striving for a "restoration." We should be looking at the situation as it exists now and moving forward.

(that's not supposed to sound challenging or anything, just statement of fact. I don't mean to sound angry)
« Last Edit: October 10, 2012, 08:06:26 PM by Joseph Hazen » Logged
age234
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antioch
Posts: 555


« Reply #42 on: October 10, 2012, 08:15:17 PM »

Well, that's probably a big difference between our views: I don't think we should be striving for a "restoration." We should be looking at the situation as it exists now and moving forward.

I agree with this overall. The Church's structure should reflect today's reality; we should not be recreating the glory of yesteryear for its own sake. (Same thing with having bishops in non-existent sees.)
Logged
celticfan1888
Production Operator - Chemtrusion
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholicism
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church of America
Posts: 3,026



« Reply #43 on: October 10, 2012, 08:55:23 PM »

Does it matter if there is a Bishop of Rome? There are loads of other bishops all over Western Europe.

This question is so Latin...
Logged

Forgive my sins.
Joseph Hazen
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Serbian
Posts: 150


« Reply #44 on: October 10, 2012, 09:42:02 PM »

Does it matter if there is a Bishop of Rome? There are loads of other bishops all over Western Europe.

This question is so Latin...

I don't think that's quite fair. Historically (and presently) Rome is an important city in Christianity. It doesn't matter that there's a Bishop in Rome anymore than it matters that there's a Bishop in Constantinople, or Antioch. Traditionally however these are important sees and to deny the question as being even worthy of consideration or discussion isn't dealing with the reality of The Faith.
Logged
podkarpatska
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: ACROD
Posts: 8,576


Pokrov


WWW
« Reply #45 on: October 10, 2012, 09:54:37 PM »

Does it matter if there is a Bishop of Rome? There are loads of other bishops all over Western Europe.

This question is so Latin...

I don't think that's quite fair. Historically (and presently) Rome is an important city in Christianity. It doesn't matter that there's a Bishop in Rome anymore than it matters that there's a Bishop in Constantinople, or Antioch. Traditionally however these are important sees and to deny the question as being even worthy of consideration or discussion isn't dealing with the reality of The Faith.

I agree, it is naive and petty to even postulate a hypothetical healing of the Great Schism in which the ancient and venerable See of Rome were not afforded the same level of dignity and honor she held for the first millennium.
Logged
Christopher McAvoy
Never forget the Franciscan Friars of the Immaculate & all persecuted christians!
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: orthodóxis, atque cathólice et apostólice fídei
Jurisdiction: Latin Catholic from the 12th c.
Posts: 443



WWW
« Reply #46 on: October 10, 2012, 10:21:58 PM »

Quote
Do you really think there will ever be a mending of the great schism

With enough study of history, I do feel certain that there will be a mending, though I do not feel certain I will be alive when it happens.
I also feel certain than many find it ridiculous that there will be a mending, to which I can only agree that at the present time, it would be ridiculous and harmful.

On the other hand I have at the present no objection to an Orthodox Pope of Rome coming into being.
I think I support this concept, but my opinion could change.

The heterodox pope of Rome created a heterodox Patriarch of Constantinople during the crusades which was not eliminated until about 1955.

if the west in the 14th century could have 3 men claiming to be Pope..it's not that bad an idea to have it again today.
It would only be history repeating.


Logged

"and for all who are Orthodox, and who hold the Catholic and Apostolic Faith, remember, O Lord, thy servants" - yet the post-conciliar RC hierarchy is tolerant of everyone and everything... except Catholic Tradition, for modernists are as salt with no taste, to be “thrown out and trampled under foot
Shanghaiski
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 7,973


Holy Trinity Church of Gergeti, Georgia


« Reply #47 on: October 10, 2012, 10:26:51 PM »

I'm all for having a new Orthodox Pope of Rome, but that needs to go hand in hand with re-structuring the list of primacy and putting him, if not at the bottom, then near. Rome had been heterodox for so long that they should be treated as a new church, IMO.

I have to disagree. Why would we not restore things as they were before the schism, as nearly as we could? Why would we not seek to return Old Rome to her ancient glory?

Maybe I'm just a sentimental part-Italian convert, but this sounds like a half-baked "restoration" to me.

How can you restore what never was? I mean, hardly no one agrees now or at the time what the precise role of Rome was. It was ambiguous for a reason--ignored when convenient, appealed to when necessary.
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.
Christopher McAvoy
Never forget the Franciscan Friars of the Immaculate & all persecuted christians!
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: orthodóxis, atque cathólice et apostólice fídei
Jurisdiction: Latin Catholic from the 12th c.
Posts: 443



WWW
« Reply #48 on: October 10, 2012, 10:33:24 PM »

I should add that I would not think it prudent to have a Pope of Rome without having him have his ancient priviledges and primacy as well.
That would be inappropriate..ridiculous to have him at the bottom of the hierarchy.

I feel absolutely certain that my Italian great grandmother, Amalia Lavagnino Fernandez (may she rest in peace), would agree with me on that particular subject.


There she is watching...
« Last Edit: October 10, 2012, 11:01:03 PM by Christopher McAvoy » Logged

"and for all who are Orthodox, and who hold the Catholic and Apostolic Faith, remember, O Lord, thy servants" - yet the post-conciliar RC hierarchy is tolerant of everyone and everything... except Catholic Tradition, for modernists are as salt with no taste, to be “thrown out and trampled under foot
Joseph Hazen
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Serbian
Posts: 150


« Reply #49 on: October 10, 2012, 10:39:01 PM »

Does it matter if there is a Bishop of Rome? There are loads of other bishops all over Western Europe.

This question is so Latin...

I don't think that's quite fair. Historically (and presently) Rome is an important city in Christianity. It doesn't matter that there's a Bishop in Rome anymore than it matters that there's a Bishop in Constantinople, or Antioch. Traditionally however these are important sees and to deny the question as being even worthy of consideration or discussion isn't dealing with the reality of The Faith.

I agree, it is naive and petty to even postulate a hypothetical healing of the Great Schism in which the ancient and venerable See of Rome were not afforded the same level of dignity and honor she held for the first millennium.

Call me naive and petty then (oh, you appear to already have).

The point of my original statement (that we aught to replace the Roman Patriarch and also not give him primacy again) was to give up any attempt at "healing" the schism. Rome isn't interested in healing the schism. Not in any truly Orthodox way. Orthodoxy isn't interested in kowtowing to the Pope of Rome's doctrines concerning his supremacy and infallability.

The time has come to face reality. The Pope should be replaced, The Church should move on.
Logged
OrthoNoob
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 1,015



« Reply #50 on: October 10, 2012, 10:45:06 PM »

I'm all for having a new Orthodox Pope of Rome, but that needs to go hand in hand with re-structuring the list of primacy and putting him, if not at the bottom, then near. Rome had been heterodox for so long that they should be treated as a new church, IMO.

I have to disagree. Why would we not restore things as they were before the schism, as nearly as we could? Why would we not seek to return Old Rome to her ancient glory?

Maybe I'm just a sentimental part-Italian convert, but this sounds like a half-baked "restoration" to me.

How can you restore what never was? I mean, hardly no one agrees now or at the time what the precise role of Rome was. It was ambiguous for a reason--ignored when convenient, appealed to when necessary.

We know Old Rome's Pope was first in honor, more or less occupying the place New Rome's Patriarch now holds by default.
Logged

http://avengingredhand.wordpress.com -- My blog

'These words I, Leo, have set down for love and as a safeguard of the Orthodox Faith'
Shanghaiski
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 7,973


Holy Trinity Church of Gergeti, Georgia


« Reply #51 on: October 10, 2012, 10:51:21 PM »

I'm all for having a new Orthodox Pope of Rome, but that needs to go hand in hand with re-structuring the list of primacy and putting him, if not at the bottom, then near. Rome had been heterodox for so long that they should be treated as a new church, IMO.

I have to disagree. Why would we not restore things as they were before the schism, as nearly as we could? Why would we not seek to return Old Rome to her ancient glory?

Maybe I'm just a sentimental part-Italian convert, but this sounds like a half-baked "restoration" to me.

How can you restore what never was? I mean, hardly no one agrees now or at the time what the precise role of Rome was. It was ambiguous for a reason--ignored when convenient, appealed to when necessary.

We know Old Rome's Pope was first in honor, more or less occupying the place New Rome's Patriarch now holds by default.

Yes, but at the time, that meant different things to different folks. Certainly, the Orthodox popes, to varying degrees, thought it meant something different than the other patriarchs. Pope Nicholas I, for example, thought it meant something quite different than Patriarch Photios.
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.
Fabio Leite
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 3,179



WWW
« Reply #52 on: October 10, 2012, 10:53:39 PM »

Not everything is ambiguity.

In The Justinian Laws very positive statements are made. The Bishop of Rome was the Head of the Bishops, a very clear statement.

This "Head of the Bishops" means much less than future papal claims would require and more than the strict conciliarists would like.

First, the Council was an ad hoc instance, which almost never was presided by a roman pope or his legates. Nevertheless, the Bishop of Rome was Head of Bishops with or without summoning or presiding councils.

The concept is probably very simple. Since among bishops some were chosen above the other for certain regions (Archbishops and metropolitans) there should be one bishop for the whole Empire and that was the bishop of Old Rome.

Rome, though, managed to transfigure a political arrangement into an ecclesiological dogma, and that is the great issue.

I think nobody would deny that it is good to have a leadership for the Church as a whole. Russia wants to be it. Constantinople claims it is it, but, de facto, there isn't any that can coordinate diverse institutions. The point is that this leadership does not have the ecclesiological consequences Rome thinks it has. One surely must be loyal to the bishop, but there is no infallibility in Orthodox Catholic tradition since the times of the Apostles.

So, leadership yes, ecclesiological dogma no.




I'm all for having a new Orthodox Pope of Rome, but that needs to go hand in hand with re-structuring the list of primacy and putting him, if not at the bottom, then near. Rome had been heterodox for so long that they should be treated as a new church, IMO.

I have to disagree. Why would we not restore things as they were before the schism, as nearly as we could? Why would we not seek to return Old Rome to her ancient glory?

Maybe I'm just a sentimental part-Italian convert, but this sounds like a half-baked "restoration" to me.

How can you restore what never was? I mean, hardly no one agrees now or at the time what the precise role of Rome was. It was ambiguous for a reason--ignored when convenient, appealed to when necessary.
Logged

Many Energies, Three Persons, Two Natures, One God.
celticfan1888
Production Operator - Chemtrusion
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholicism
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church of America
Posts: 3,026



« Reply #53 on: October 10, 2012, 11:48:57 PM »

Does it matter if there is a Bishop of Rome? There are loads of other bishops all over Western Europe.

This question is so Latin...

I don't think that's quite fair. Historically (and presently) Rome is an important city in Christianity. It doesn't matter that there's a Bishop in Rome anymore than it matters that there's a Bishop in Constantinople, or Antioch. Traditionally however these are important sees and to deny the question as being even worthy of consideration or discussion isn't dealing with the reality of The Faith.

I agree, it is naive and petty to even postulate a hypothetical healing of the Great Schism in which the ancient and venerable See of Rome were not afforded the same level of dignity and honor she held for the first millennium.

You two are accusing me of something I never meant. Strawman...or foot in mouth. Which ever you prefer.
Logged

Forgive my sins.
Joseph Hazen
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Serbian
Posts: 150


« Reply #54 on: October 11, 2012, 01:03:15 AM »

Does it matter if there is a Bishop of Rome? There are loads of other bishops all over Western Europe.

This question is so Latin...

I don't think that's quite fair. Historically (and presently) Rome is an important city in Christianity. It doesn't matter that there's a Bishop in Rome anymore than it matters that there's a Bishop in Constantinople, or Antioch. Traditionally however these are important sees and to deny the question as being even worthy of consideration or discussion isn't dealing with the reality of The Faith.

I agree, it is naive and petty to even postulate a hypothetical healing of the Great Schism in which the ancient and venerable See of Rome were not afforded the same level of dignity and honor she held for the first millennium.

You two are accusing me of something I never meant. Strawman...or foot in mouth. Which ever you prefer.

Then what did you mean, because apparently I misunderstood you.
Logged
Christopher McAvoy
Never forget the Franciscan Friars of the Immaculate & all persecuted christians!
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: orthodóxis, atque cathólice et apostólice fídei
Jurisdiction: Latin Catholic from the 12th c.
Posts: 443



WWW
« Reply #55 on: October 11, 2012, 01:32:38 AM »

I very much agree with Fabio Leite, I think we all appreciate his wisdom on this subject which not all of us have had the time to understand in detail.
I read two of Francis Dvorniks books which were recommended by Fr. Theodore Pulchini and felt they were accurately portraying the once united Orthodox position.
There is enough clarity that an Orthodox Pope of Rome could become a reality if their was an agreement able to be found to "restore" (is that the correct word?) his see.

As a former life long Roman catholic, I studied the historical role of the Pope of Rome.
What fabio says sounds to me to be exactly what I understood the role to have been before the second millenium.
It is not as difficult as it sounds.

To this day I am not even bothered with the concept of infallibility of the Pope (shocking?),
though I think it a strange political decision to have made it a dogma around 1866, that did not quite make sense to me. S
Something like infallibility, if it is real should be self evident and would than not need a dogma, as it would be commonly realized.
If infallibility were actually really limited to a few very rare instances it would be of no great concern.
However, at this very time, many roman catholics think the Pope is infallible nearly all the time !

For example this was stated by a respected roman catholic on another forum:
Quote
"When a pope says that something is error free, he is exercising the Ordinary Magisterium. The Ordinary Magisterium is always infallible. The pope need not speak Ex Cathedra to speak infallibly on matters of faith and morals.

Meanwhile, lets take a quick look at this; the ordinary and universal Episcopal magisterium is infallible as it relates to a teaching concerning a matter of faith and morals that all the Bishops of the Church (including the pope) universally hold as needing to be accepted by all the faithful. It should be noted that this aspect of infallibility only applies to teachings about faith and morals as opposed to customs and prudential practices.

Every reputable link seems to indicate the Ordinary Magisterium enjoys infallibility when it comes to preaching/teaching existing doctrine. That means that the Pope, who is a bishop, can do so as well. And when he does it, he doesn't need to use Ex Cathdra, because he's using his powers as a bishop. "

Other respected roman catholics belief the statement is an exaggeration and heretical view of papal infallibility, but it is a very commonly held view, even by many of their clerics.

Don't think though, that this means I support papal infallibility of an Orthodox Pope, I really don't care either way.
I think it is a political word, and has often used to promote evil authoritarian/centralizing practices that have helped wound and harm the roman church communion.
« Last Edit: October 11, 2012, 01:35:22 AM by Christopher McAvoy » Logged

"and for all who are Orthodox, and who hold the Catholic and Apostolic Faith, remember, O Lord, thy servants" - yet the post-conciliar RC hierarchy is tolerant of everyone and everything... except Catholic Tradition, for modernists are as salt with no taste, to be “thrown out and trampled under foot
age234
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antioch
Posts: 555


« Reply #56 on: October 11, 2012, 01:46:17 AM »

Another thought I'm pondering:

Rome acquired the primacy of honor because it was the capital of the West and because it was known for preserving Orthodoxy through some tough times (though not with an unblemished record).

Since neither of those are true anymore, on what grounds does a restored Rome (whether a post-healed schism one or an Orthodox one) deserve primacy now? Besides nostalgia I mean? It seems that a patriarchate returning from 1000 years of schism should not immediately be first again. Should Rome have to prove itself?

I mean, we don't believe in special grace unique to that see, and we don't require the papacy for the church to function, so why the pressing need to turn over the keys just because it's Rome? Special pleading?

I have no hostility to Rome, I'm just wondering what the importance is for Rome to be first when the original reasons for it are long gone. Again, I think there's a strong argument to be made that the church administrative structure should reflect today's reality, not yesterday's.
« Last Edit: October 11, 2012, 01:47:28 AM by age234 » Logged
OrthoNoob
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 1,015



« Reply #57 on: October 11, 2012, 01:52:01 AM »

Well, I certainly hope we won't put the new First See in the modern "capital of the West," which I'm guessing would be Washington, D.C.
Logged

http://avengingredhand.wordpress.com -- My blog

'These words I, Leo, have set down for love and as a safeguard of the Orthodox Faith'
age234
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antioch
Posts: 555


« Reply #58 on: October 11, 2012, 02:03:01 AM »

Well, I certainly hope we won't put the new First See in the modern "capital of the West," which I'm guessing would be Washington, D.C.

I'm not advocating we move cities around, I mean Rome as shorthand for the Western Church.
« Last Edit: October 11, 2012, 02:03:42 AM by age234 » Logged
OrthoNoob
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 1,015



« Reply #59 on: October 11, 2012, 02:08:31 AM »

Well, I certainly hope we won't put the new First See in the modern "capital of the West," which I'm guessing would be Washington, D.C.

I'm not advocating we move cities around, I mean Rome as shorthand for the Western Church.

What I mean is that if Rome got the first place because she was capital of the West, and we're going to reflect present reality in our ecclesiastical setup, I hope that won't mean putting the first See of Christendom in America.
Logged

http://avengingredhand.wordpress.com -- My blog

'These words I, Leo, have set down for love and as a safeguard of the Orthodox Faith'
choy
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,316


« Reply #60 on: October 11, 2012, 02:09:35 AM »

Well, I certainly hope we won't put the new First See in the modern "capital of the West," which I'm guessing would be Washington, D.C.

I'm not advocating we move cities around, I mean Rome as shorthand for the Western Church.

What I mean is that if Rome got the first place because she was capital of the West, and we're going to reflect present reality in our ecclesiastical setup, I hope that won't mean putting the first See of Christendom in America.

Nah.  The American Empire is in its twilight anyway.  Too many greedy corporations.
« Last Edit: October 11, 2012, 02:09:44 AM by choy » Logged
OrthoNoob
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 1,015



« Reply #61 on: October 11, 2012, 02:11:37 AM »

Well, I certainly hope we won't put the new First See in the modern "capital of the West," which I'm guessing would be Washington, D.C.

I'm not advocating we move cities around, I mean Rome as shorthand for the Western Church.

What I mean is that if Rome got the first place because she was capital of the West, and we're going to reflect present reality in our ecclesiastical setup, I hope that won't mean putting the first See of Christendom in America.

Nah.  The American Empire is in its twilight anyway.  Too many greedy corporations.

Long live the Orthodox Pope of Monaco and Patriarch of the West?
Logged

http://avengingredhand.wordpress.com -- My blog

'These words I, Leo, have set down for love and as a safeguard of the Orthodox Faith'
Joseph Hazen
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Serbian
Posts: 150


« Reply #62 on: October 11, 2012, 03:07:50 AM »

Well, I certainly hope we won't put the new First See in the modern "capital of the West," which I'm guessing would be Washington, D.C.

I'm not advocating we move cities around, I mean Rome as shorthand for the Western Church.

What I mean is that if Rome got the first place because she was capital of the West, and we're going to reflect present reality in our ecclesiastical setup, I hope that won't mean putting the first See of Christendom in America.

Saints preserve us from that (and I speak as an American).

The primacy doesn't have to move from Constantinople as far as I can see. Those of us who don't see why Rome would be first now seem to be on the same page: Rome shouldn't be first because she hasn't been Orthodox for so long. You don't put a baby in first place. I think I said she should be last, but that might have been extreme on my part. Putting Rome first now, however, would be like putting America first: both are too young for such a role.

The only good argument I can see for not moving Rome down the list (should she once again have a Patriarch) is that it may be a stumbling block for converts. Some looking at the early church might only know that Rome was first and see that she's not in our church now. Some Romans might use it to say "See! See we have Rome first just like the Early Church! They don't!" But people aren't unintelligent. They could see the reasoning behind it, I'm sure.
Logged
Fabio Leite
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 3,179



WWW
« Reply #63 on: October 11, 2012, 08:49:52 AM »

Rome was first fo several reasons:

1) Rome was a kind of hub in the region - "All roads lead to Rome" - this meant that if you had something to decide with other Christians it was easier that everybody went there than doing it in one of the smaller towns. Both St. Peter and St. Paul knew this and that is why they knew that the conversion of Rome was absolutely necessary - just like the conversion of the US is today;

2 Original capital of the Empire (historical prestige)

3 Place where the bodies of St. Peter and St. Paul were (ecclesiastic history prestige)

4) everal martyrs from many places were gathered there to be sacrificed (ecclesiastic history prestige)

5) Good history track on defending Orthodoxy, and this eventually became the main reason as Constantinople got politically charged. Rome became a backyard "redneck"(barbarians in this case) "small"(compared to Constantinople) church that had only historical prestige on its favor. It was in practice outside the political control of the Empire and that is what allowed it to defend Orthodoxy, since the political games of Constantinople did not reach it. We must remember there is a very long period of "byzantine" popes, who came from the Empire and knew very well what was going on there. In Rome, they had the room and space to speak their minds. Let's not forget that for all modern standards, the "Holy Empire" was a dictatorship. When Orthodox popes spoke of the authority o Rome, they hals had in mind that it was the only see outside the political influence of the Empire. The ongoing theme of empire-church conflict that has always been major in the West is witness to the self-awereness that these popes had about the problems of excessive closeness to the state. And also we see that Rome falls precisely when they give up this spearation believing that if they had control of the sate (authority over kings was how you controlled the state bak in those days) they would solve their problems.









Logged

Many Energies, Three Persons, Two Natures, One God.
Fabio Leite
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 3,179



WWW
« Reply #64 on: October 11, 2012, 09:02:48 AM »

Today's Rome is still the most powerful political entity of all the churches.

It is also far more culturally diverse with the plus of not confusing its eclesiastical identity with national identies.

It is still the original place of the relics of St. Peter and St. Paul and of the Proto-Martyrs of the Church.

It only lacks the Orthodox Catholic faith. Should her give up the heterodox dogmas of filioque, universal jurisdicton and papal infallibility at least, then they could return in my opinion. Sure there are other issues, but I think the other ones are all manageable. In fact, if these knots are untied I believe that all other controversies will smoothly arrange each other in brotherly theology of love.

For the Filioque they can give it up by introducing in the Catechism the Orthodox teaching on the relations of the Person and rewording the Creed simply to "from the Father, sent to word by the Son" which would keep the Orthodox meaning of the filioque clear. I say that because I do believe that the Creed will have to clarify issues of ecclesiology just like it did with Christology in the first millenium, so the concept of not touching it, for now, is not the most important in my opinion.

I would, for example, suggest the following change "I believe in the One, Holy, Catholic, Apostolic, Orthodox Church, visible in this world and triumphant in the world to come, the Body of Jesus Christ through works, faith and bread turned into His True Flesh, and wine turned into His Vivifying Blood, composed of the faithful, monks, deacons, priests and bishops, all brothers. Jesus Christ is her only head, the Holy Spirit is her only infallible and inerrant teacher, her faith delivered once and for all times by the Apostles."
« Last Edit: October 11, 2012, 09:26:04 AM by Fabio Leite » Logged

Many Energies, Three Persons, Two Natures, One God.
Fabio Leite
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 3,179



WWW
« Reply #65 on: October 11, 2012, 09:34:55 AM »

The biggies are of course universal jurisdiction and infallibility.

There is simply no way today that a schism would appear, even if all the Magisterium along with the Pope decided to confess it was one big mistake. There simply would be a very big group (more than 50%? I don't think so) who would claim this is apostasy and would require "legitimate" continuity by electing their own new pope. This would go to international courts in disputes for the Vatican itself and probably even blood would be spilled. Radical liberals would also do it and create several "progressist catholic churches" each with their own (female?) pope.

For this to work, most of the Romans, including some powerful ones to prevent the disputes above, would have to be convinced and "ok" with the concep that their see did very many good things in the last thousand years, they did commit these two big mistakes. And that it is no big deal to admit it. From what I talk to some Catholics, they actually seem rather prone to accept these excesses are just unfortunate historically dated mistakes.
Logged

Many Energies, Three Persons, Two Natures, One God.
celticfan1888
Production Operator - Chemtrusion
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholicism
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church of America
Posts: 3,026



« Reply #66 on: October 11, 2012, 10:13:09 AM »

Does it matter if there is a Bishop of Rome? There are loads of other bishops all over Western Europe.

This question is so Latin...

I don't think that's quite fair. Historically (and presently) Rome is an important city in Christianity. It doesn't matter that there's a Bishop in Rome anymore than it matters that there's a Bishop in Constantinople, or Antioch. Traditionally however these are important sees and to deny the question as being even worthy of consideration or discussion isn't dealing with the reality of The Faith.

I agree, it is naive and petty to even postulate a hypothetical healing of the Great Schism in which the ancient and venerable See of Rome were not afforded the same level of dignity and honor she held for the first millennium.

You two are accusing me of something I never meant. Strawman...or foot in mouth. Which ever you prefer.

Then what did you mean, because apparently I misunderstood you.

Let the Church handle her problems. I'm not saying Rome is not an important see or city. But it certainly isn't Orthodox right now to make such a huge deal about it. And filling the seat right now will cause BIG problems.
Logged

Forgive my sins.
Tags:
Pages: 1 2 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 0.214 seconds with 94 queries.