Jurisdictional disputes arose between Antioch and Jerusalem Patriarchates

<< < (11/19) > >>

ialmisry:
Quote from: James2 on March 15, 2013, 12:10:23 PM

Quote from: podkarpatska on March 10, 2013, 12:41:08 PM

It is the ancient, nonsensical bickering among us as exemplified on this thread to which our Roman brothers point when presenting their arguments for a meaningful role for a "Primus" within an undivided church. Of course they have it wrong, as articulated at its worst by Vatican I. Sigh.....


Agreed.  The RC Church has the wrong ecclesiology but actually practices it.  We, on the other hand, have the right ecclesiology but often fail to practice it.

We've had overlapping patriarchal jurisdictions for decades in the New World.  No big surprise that this would crop up in the Old World.

Oh, it happens all the time.  This isn't new in the Old World.  Remember Estonia?  and that was just one of the most celebrated (infamous?) examples.

Quote from: ialmisry on March 15, 2013, 08:39:05 AM

As to the Vatican, they have a Major Archbishop in Kiev who claims he is-contrary to their canons and their supreme pontiff's pronouncements-a Patriarch, two patriarchs (NOT Popes, the ancient title of the see, the original to bear that title) of Alexandria, three patriarchs of Antioch, two patriarchs of Jerusalem-one of which, however, isn't, according to their canons, really a patriarch, a sui juris (the Ruthenian) in three pieces-only one of which, in the "diaspora" is really sui juris, the other two being directly under the Vatican but separately from each other; one (Mukacheve) being eyed by another sui juris (UGCC) and the other sharing the same country (Slovakia) with another sui juris (the Slovak)-and another (the Italo-Albanian) which is missing its ancient Metropolitan, i.e. Rome.  Having a supreme pontiff hasn't succeeded in ironing everything out, as keeps on coming up (e.g. the letter of the Italian Conference of Bishops telling the Romanian Major Archbishop not to send married priests to his flock in Italy).

mike:
Antiochian Delegation Meets with Archbishop of Athens about Qatar:
http://araborthodoxy.blogspot.com/2013/03/antiochian-delegation-meets-with.html

Dominika:
http://www.jp-newsgate.net/en/2013/12/10/3451 - second official response of the Jerusalem Patriarchate regarding the Qatar issue...

I'm amazed they still be able to argue about just one parish while both Patriarchates have to deal with so difficult circumnstanses that are much more important and dangerous

mike:
It's probably some serious sheiks' money related to the parish or something.

edit:

But I missed Antioch breaking communion with Jerusalem.

ialmisry:
Quote from: Dominika on December 18, 2013, 03:28:59 PM

http://www.jp-newsgate.net/en/2013/12/10/3451 - second official response of the Jerusalem Patriarchate regarding the Qatar issue...

I'm amazed they still be able to argue about just one parish while both Patriarchates have to deal with so difficult circumnstanses that are much more important and dangerous

Quote

In this present letter of response it is enough for Us to even acknowledge the concern raised by the Church of Antioch at the expense of the Church of Jerusalem. We never went and protested to any other sister Orthodox Church, but responded to the invitation of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Greece, sending Our own delegation, which met with both Your delegation and that of the Ecumenical Patriarchate at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Greece.
just the tip of the iceberg.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page