OrthodoxChristianity.net
October 31, 2014, 06:06:55 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: All OC in the West to the Romans  (Read 1587 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
LBK
Warned
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 11,259


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us!


« Reply #45 on: October 09, 2013, 11:09:06 PM »


You bring up an excellent point.  There are no Chalcedonians in Scripture or in the first century Church.  They're very much a post-Constantine phenomenon. 

Are you listening, YiM?  Wink

Don't. Encourage. Him.  Tongue  Wink
Logged
dzheremi
No longer posting here.
Warned
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic
Posts: 4,383


« Reply #46 on: October 09, 2013, 11:26:21 PM »

Non-Chalcedonians just don't understand, huh fellas? 

That's what marijuana does to the brain. Should have thought about that before you got involved in the Afro-Carribbean Rasta Spirituality which has for so many centuries characterised the schismatic peoples of Egypt, Ethiopia, the Levant, India and the pointy-hat guys in the Caucasus.

You've sure got our number. We secretly want to turn everyone into this guy.

What can I say? It's easier to dance and smoke to than Ekezmaroout...

Etchmiadzin?

What? No. Ekesmaroout is a Coptic hymn.
Logged

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

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,157



« Reply #47 on: October 12, 2013, 07:46:52 PM »

In the case of union of Orthodox and Rome, shouldn't all Orthodox churches in the West be put under administration of Rome to keep canonicity, even if respecting ethnics traits, as an "Eastern Rite", as well as all the,Roma churches in Orthodox countries would be Western Rites under that particular jurisdiction?

Meaning that all Orthodox churches in the West would, not become catholic, because they are united, but under Rome directly?

This may not be the answer you're looking for, but what I have heard is that just the Western-Rite Orthodox would go under Rome.
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
xOrthodox4Christx
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Protestant (Inquirer)
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Christianity
Posts: 3,398



« Reply #48 on: October 12, 2013, 08:34:34 PM »

This is my new favorite OC.net trope from the younger set, btw.

"That's pretty rich coming from a (banned word for non-Chalcedonian)."

"Come back when you get your Christology right."

etc.

If only we had more active Jewish members...then we could gang up on them for having committed Deicide, and we could enjoy a foretaste of that blessed union which, please God, we may enjoy in the Kingdom of Heaven, if not during our sojourn in this vale of tears. 

Hey guys, resident Jew checking in. I totally contributed to the death of Christ.

...as did we all, with our sins!!!

...especially non-Chalcedonians!!!!!

So did that terrible Pharisee St. Peter. That dastardly man denied Christ three times. St. Peter was a Chalcedonian of course, that's why he left his See to the Roman Pontiff.
Logged

"Years ago I recognized my kinship with all living beings, and I made up my mind that I was not one bit better than the meanest on earth.... While there is a lower class, I am in it, and while there is a criminal element, I am of it, and while there is a soul in prison, I am not free." (Eugene Debs)
phronesis
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: AWRV
Posts: 46


St. Mark, Pillar of Orthodoxy, pray for me.


« Reply #49 on: November 13, 2013, 07:32:46 PM »

Even assuming, in theory, that Rome herself became Orthodox, this is silly. Rome's pre-schism jurisdiction never extended beyond Europe.

The more likely scenario is that the Roman church continues its slide into the very Protestant heresies it once so vigorously opposed and its truly faithful members decline, through attrition, and become Orthodox.

I'm increasingly of the opinion that the only means of East-West reunion is through conversion to Holy Orthodoxy. Pope Francis might be the best Orthodox Evangelist the West has ever seen.
Logged
Gunnarr
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,768



« Reply #50 on: November 14, 2013, 03:43:14 AM »

If somehow the latin pope and all its bishops and all its clergy and millions of laity suddenly decided they were wrong their parents were wrong their grand parents were wrong their great grand parents were wrong their great grand parents were wrong ect ect ect and that their church and their saints were all wrong for the past 1000 years, I do not see why it is wrong to say Rome would have complete authority at least over Europe in her traditional boundaries, except of course for autocephalous churches already established such as the Church of Greece and the like.

I think it would be a terrible thing if Rome, while having those boundaries, would have to also share it with the Patriarchate of Constantinople and other jurisdictions. IT would just set up the same problem as in America, which is nonsensical idea and uncanonical anyway (how many times to say it! more than one bishop to a city is against the canons!)

As to the New World, I would think either Rome would keep it (Since the Ecumenical Patriarchate already admits that the Bishopric of Rome had the same kind of "universal jurisdiction" that the Ecumenical Patriarchate has) or that new patriarchates or something would have to be established, some kind of jurisdictional unity. This is of course assuming by then we would have solved our jurisdictional problem in America.


Of course, if it actually happened, this is not how it would work. there would just be a hogpog of jurisdictions and a complete mess of disunity and disorginization like in the US since pride is a powerful sin
Logged

I am a demonic servant! Beware!
Alpo
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Jerkodox
Posts: 6,889



« Reply #51 on: November 14, 2013, 11:26:43 AM »

I do not see why it is wrong to say Rome would have complete authority at least over Europe in her traditional boundaries, except of course for autocephalous churches already established such as the Church of Greece and the like.

I think it would be a terrible thing if Rome, while having those boundaries, would have to also share it with the Patriarchate of Constantinople and other jurisdictions. IT would just set up the same problem as in America, which is nonsensical idea and uncanonical anyway (how many times to say it! more than one bishop to a city is against the canons!)

As to the New World, I would think either Rome would keep it (Since the Ecumenical Patriarchate already admits that the Bishopric of Rome had the same kind of "universal jurisdiction" that the Ecumenical Patriarchate has) or that new patriarchates or something would have to be established, some kind of jurisdictional unity. This is of course assuming by then we would have solved our jurisdictional problem in America.

+1

I would add though that a recent convert as a primus inter pares and a holy synod consisting o recent converts sounds like a really, really bad idea.
Logged

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

Posts: 21,467


WWW
« Reply #52 on: November 14, 2013, 12:12:59 PM »

I do not see why it is wrong to say Rome would have complete authority at least over Europe in her traditional boundaries, except of course for autocephalous churches already established such as the Church of Greece and the like.

I think it would be a terrible thing if Rome, while having those boundaries, would have to also share it with the Patriarchate of Constantinople and other jurisdictions. IT would just set up the same problem as in America, which is nonsensical idea and uncanonical anyway (how many times to say it! more than one bishop to a city is against the canons!)

As to the New World, I would think either Rome would keep it (Since the Ecumenical Patriarchate already admits that the Bishopric of Rome had the same kind of "universal jurisdiction" that the Ecumenical Patriarchate has) or that new patriarchates or something would have to be established, some kind of jurisdictional unity. This is of course assuming by then we would have solved our jurisdictional problem in America.

+1

I would add though that a recent convert as a primus inter pares and a holy synod consisting o recent converts sounds like a really, really bad idea.

Physician... Wink
Logged

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

Faith: Jerkodox
Posts: 6,889



« Reply #53 on: November 14, 2013, 01:49:27 PM »

Physician... Wink

...heal thyself?

No, I have no ambitions about becoming a pope of Rome.
Logged

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

Posts: 21,467


WWW
« Reply #54 on: November 14, 2013, 01:57:10 PM »

Physician... Wink

...heal thyself?

No, I have no ambitions about becoming a pope of Rome.

I was talking about your synod.
Logged

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

Faith: Jerkodox
Posts: 6,889



« Reply #55 on: November 14, 2013, 02:06:45 PM »

I don't object convert hierarchs. Only recently converted instantly becoming hierarchs.
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: 37,963



« Reply #56 on: November 14, 2013, 06:37:32 PM »

If somehow the latin pope and all its bishops and all its clergy and millions of laity suddenly decided they were wrong their parents were wrong their grand parents were wrong their great grand parents were wrong their great grand parents were wrong ect ect ect and that their church and their saints were all wrong for the past 1000 years, I do not see why it is wrong to say Rome would have complete authority at least over Europe in her traditional boundaries, except of course for autocephalous churches already established such as the Church of Greece and the like.

I think it would be a terrible thing if Rome, while having those boundaries, would have to also share it with the Patriarchate of Constantinople and other jurisdictions. IT would just set up the same problem as in America, which is nonsensical idea and uncanonical anyway (how many times to say it! more than one bishop to a city is against the canons!)

As to the New World, I would think either Rome would keep it (Since the Ecumenical Patriarchate already admits that the Bishopric of Rome had the same kind of "universal jurisdiction" that the Ecumenical Patriarchate has)
part of the reason why the rest of the Church rejects the Phanar's canon 28 mythology.
or that new patriarchates or something would have to be established, some kind of jurisdictional unity. This is of course assuming by then we would have solved our jurisdictional problem in America.
That includes the fact that North America already has an autocephalous Church.

The Romanians already have an Orthdoox bishop in Rome. Why should he take a back seat to the prodigal pope?
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
Luka
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Polish Autocephalous Orthodox Church
Posts: 80



« Reply #57 on: November 15, 2013, 12:18:08 PM »

Most likely would be not jurisdiction of Rome, but autocephaly of the local Churches (I try as I may, but I still don't understand planting different jurisdictions' posts all over the place where there happen to be some faithful originating from a particular Church - Russian/Greek/Whatever Orthodox).
Logged
JoeS2
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic by choice
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 1,137


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


« Reply #58 on: November 21, 2013, 11:36:28 AM »

The Vatican did remove the title "Patriarch of the West" several years ago from the Roman Pope's long list of titles.

Just another of the wacky things they've done since the 11th century.

Well, is the Pope Catholic, er Orthodox? Roll Eyes
Logged
Wandile
Peter the Roman
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church - Roman Rite
Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Pretoria, South Africa
Posts: 1,147


@Wandi_Star
« Reply #59 on: November 21, 2013, 12:12:43 PM »

The Vatican did remove the title "Patriarch of the West" several years ago from the Roman Pope's long list of titles.

It should be noted that the title of “Patriarch of the West” was only formally recognized and added first by Pius IX in 1863 and was seen merely as honorary due to the order of precedence.  The idea of Pentarchy was never a reality in the west and really, only was recognized in the east. The west had Latin eastern patriarchs and even then they were merely figureheads and the title patriarch was merely honorary with no authority attached to it...
« Last Edit: November 21, 2013, 12:15:57 PM by Wandile » Logged

\"Keep close to the Catholic Church at all times, for the Church alone can give you true peace, since she alone possesses Jesus, the true Prince of Peace, in the Blessed Sacrament.\" - Padre Pio<br /><br />\"He inquired whether he agreed with the Catholic bishops, that is
Mor Ephrem
"Mor is right, you are wrong."
Section Moderator
Hoplitarches
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 17,959


The Pope Emeritus reading OCNet


WWW
« Reply #60 on: November 21, 2013, 12:15:11 PM »

It should be noted that the title of “Patriarch of the West” was only formally recognized and added first by Pius IX in 1863 and was never actually defined.  The idea of Pentarchy was never a reality in the west and really, only was recognized in the east.

Never heard that one before, so thanks.  Do you know why Pope Pius IX added it in the first place?  I always presumed it was a much older title, but it's a little under a decade older than papal infallibility.  Hmm.
Logged

Still posting.

Apolytikion, Tone 1, by Antonis

An eloquent crafter of divine posts
And an inheritor of the line of the Baptist
A righteous son of India
And a new apostle to the internet
O Holy Mor Ephrem,
Intercede for us, that our forum may be saved.


Mor Ephrem > Justin Kissel
Wandile
Peter the Roman
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church - Roman Rite
Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Pretoria, South Africa
Posts: 1,147


@Wandi_Star
« Reply #61 on: November 21, 2013, 12:18:32 PM »

It should be noted that the title of “Patriarch of the West” was only formally recognized and added first by Pius IX in 1863 and was never actually defined.  The idea of Pentarchy was never a reality in the west and really, only was recognized in the east.

Never heard that one before, so thanks.  Do you know why Pope Pius IX added it in the first place?  I always presumed it was a much older title, but it's a little under a decade older than papal infallibility.  Hmm.

I have no idea why he added it hey but Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI did explain why he dropped the title...
but I just wanted to bring attention to the fact that the titles inclusion was not that ancient.
« Last Edit: November 21, 2013, 12:19:34 PM by Wandile » Logged

\"Keep close to the Catholic Church at all times, for the Church alone can give you true peace, since she alone possesses Jesus, the true Prince of Peace, in the Blessed Sacrament.\" - Padre Pio<br /><br />\"He inquired whether he agreed with the Catholic bishops, that is
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: 37,963



« Reply #62 on: November 21, 2013, 12:32:11 PM »

It should be noted that the title of “Patriarch of the West” was only formally recognized and added first by Pius IX in 1863 and was never actually defined.  The idea of Pentarchy was never a reality in the west and really, only was recognized in the east.

Never heard that one before, so thanks.  Do you know why Pope Pius IX added it in the first place?  I always presumed it was a much older title, but it's a little under a decade older than papal infallibility.  Hmm.

Pope St. Theodore (a Greek from Jerusalem) formalized the title in 642, but it went back further: the canons of Constantinople I, for instance, refers to the "Tome of the Westerns" sent from Rome.
Quote
Pope Damasus, and the synod assembled by him in 369, addressed a Tome to the Orientals, of which fragments are still preserved, and that nine years later, in 379, a great synod at Antioch of one hundred and forty-six orthodox Oriental bishops, under Meletius, accepted and signed this Tome, and at the same time sought to put a stop to the Meletian schism.  Soon afterwards, in 380, Pope Damasus and his fourth Roman Synod again sent a treatise on the faith, of which we still possess a portion, containing anathemas, to the Orientals, especially to Bishop Paul of Antioch, head of the Eustathians of that city.  Under these circumstances, we are justified in referring the expression “the tome of the Westerns” either to the Roman treatise of 369 or to that of 380
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf214.ix.viii.vi.html
As Rome was the only Patriarchate in the Western Roman Empire, the usage isn't extraordinary.
« Last Edit: November 21, 2013, 12:35:10 PM by ialmisry » Logged

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

Faith: One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church - Roman Rite
Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Pretoria, South Africa
Posts: 1,147


@Wandi_Star
« Reply #63 on: November 21, 2013, 01:05:34 PM »

It should be noted that the title of “Patriarch of the West” was only formally recognized and added first by Pius IX in 1863 and was never actually defined.  The idea of Pentarchy was never a reality in the west and really, only was recognized in the east.

Never heard that one before, so thanks.  Do you know why Pope Pius IX added it in the first place?  I always presumed it was a much older title, but it's a little under a decade older than papal infallibility.  Hmm.

Pope St. Theodore (a Greek from Jerusalem) formalized the title in 642, but it went back further: the canons of Constantinople I, for instance, refers to the "Tome of the Westerns" sent from Rome.
Quote
Pope Damasus, and the synod assembled by him in 369, addressed a Tome to the Orientals, of which fragments are still preserved, and that nine years later, in 379, a great synod at Antioch of one hundred and forty-six orthodox Oriental bishops, under Meletius, accepted and signed this Tome, and at the same time sought to put a stop to the Meletian schism.  Soon afterwards, in 380, Pope Damasus and his fourth Roman Synod again sent a treatise on the faith, of which we still possess a portion, containing anathemas, to the Orientals, especially to Bishop Paul of Antioch, head of the Eustathians of that city.  Under these circumstances, we are justified in referring the expression “the tome of the Westerns” either to the Roman treatise of 369 or to that of 380
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf214.ix.viii.vi.html
As Rome was the only Patriarchate in the Western Roman Empire, the usage isn't extraordinary.

Yes St Theodore along with a few other used the title... However the title was used sparingly and was really honorary in nature in the western understanding. Its formal introduction into the official titles of the Bishop of Rome was in 1863. important to keep in mind that Patriarch of the West was not a traditional term used in the Roman Church. Patriarch doesn't have the same canonical meaning in the Latin Church, and was used for major Sees, like Venice for example. This is also true in the Armenian Orthodox Church, where Catholicos is the chief title and there are several Patriarchs.

It really developed from the byzantine way of looking...it's never been a Latin thing.


Further, "Tome of the westerners" shows nothing more than it being a tome of western Christians. It cannot be used to show that it meant the pipes official title was Patriarch of the west...
« Last Edit: November 21, 2013, 01:09:36 PM by Wandile » Logged

\"Keep close to the Catholic Church at all times, for the Church alone can give you true peace, since she alone possesses Jesus, the true Prince of Peace, in the Blessed Sacrament.\" - Padre Pio<br /><br />\"He inquired whether he agreed with the Catholic bishops, that is
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: 37,963



« Reply #64 on: November 21, 2013, 02:18:08 PM »

It should be noted that the title of “Patriarch of the West” was only formally recognized and added first by Pius IX in 1863 and was never actually defined.  The idea of Pentarchy was never a reality in the west and really, only was recognized in the east.

Never heard that one before, so thanks.  Do you know why Pope Pius IX added it in the first place?  I always presumed it was a much older title, but it's a little under a decade older than papal infallibility.  Hmm.

Pope St. Theodore (a Greek from Jerusalem) formalized the title in 642, but it went back further: the canons of Constantinople I, for instance, refers to the "Tome of the Westerns" sent from Rome.
Quote
Pope Damasus, and the synod assembled by him in 369, addressed a Tome to the Orientals, of which fragments are still preserved, and that nine years later, in 379, a great synod at Antioch of one hundred and forty-six orthodox Oriental bishops, under Meletius, accepted and signed this Tome, and at the same time sought to put a stop to the Meletian schism.  Soon afterwards, in 380, Pope Damasus and his fourth Roman Synod again sent a treatise on the faith, of which we still possess a portion, containing anathemas, to the Orientals, especially to Bishop Paul of Antioch, head of the Eustathians of that city.  Under these circumstances, we are justified in referring the expression “the tome of the Westerns” either to the Roman treatise of 369 or to that of 380
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf214.ix.viii.vi.html
As Rome was the only Patriarchate in the Western Roman Empire, the usage isn't extraordinary.

Yes St Theodore along with a few other used the title... However the title was used sparingly and was really honorary in nature in the western understanding. Its formal introduction into the official titles of the Bishop of Rome was in 1863. important to keep in mind that Patriarch of the West was not a traditional term used in the Roman Church. Patriarch doesn't have the same canonical meaning in the Latin Church, and was used for major Sees, like Venice for example. This is also true in the Armenian Orthodox Church, where Catholicos is the chief title and there are several Patriarchs.

It really developed from the byzantine way of looking...it's never been a Latin thing.
"Byzantine" has always been a Latin thing.

Again, Rome being the only Patriarchate in the West, and both the Ecumenical Councils codifying the canons and the Emperor issuing the Roman Code in the East, it was inevitable.

Further, "Tome of the westerners" shows nothing more than it being a tome of western Christians. It cannot be used to show that it meant the pipes official title was Patriarch of the west...
The history of the Tome shows otherwise.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
Tags:
Pages: « 1 2  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 0.101 seconds with 48 queries.