OrthodoxChristianity.net
October 22, 2014, 05:55:49 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  All   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Is the Apostolic See of Rome vacant?  (Read 4649 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
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 0.103 seconds with 50 queries.