Author Topic: Orthodox Bishop of Rome?  (Read 12745 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Isaiah53IsMessiah

  • Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 287
  • Faith: Orthodox
Orthodox Bishop of Rome?
« on: August 12, 2019, 07:53:14 AM »
There is an Orthodox Patriarch of Alexandria and Antioch. How come a separate Patriarchate cannot be established in Rome if the current BOR of the Latin Church is in schism? I am no expert on the canons though so please inform my ignorance.
« Last Edit: August 12, 2019, 07:54:06 AM by Isaiah53IsMessiah »

Offline PorphyriosK

  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,138
  • Господи помилуй
  • Faith: Russian Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: ROCOR
Re: Orthodox Bishop of Rome?
« Reply #1 on: August 12, 2019, 10:05:59 AM »
I think it's probably an acknowledgement that Rome is still the Patriarch of the West and the East has no right to simply usurp an entire patrimony.  Nor would it even be realistic considering the size, power, and influence of the Roman Catholic Church.  It would be seen as a joke.  Also, in spite of the separation there is still a hope that Rome will return to its first millennium roots and to its place of primacy. 
"When you don’t live with Christ, you live in melancholy, in sorrow, in anxiety and in worry. You don’t live properly… The best medicine is to devote yourself to the worship of Christ. Everything is cured. Everything works properly."

~ St. Porphyrios


"The Church is indeed 'Apostolic'.  But the Church is also 'Patristic'.  And only by being 'Patristic' is the Church continuously 'Apostolic'."

~ Fr. Georges Florovsky

Offline Iconodule

  • Hoplitarches
  • *************
  • Posts: 16,466
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Patriarchate of Johnstown
Re: Orthodox Bishop of Rome?
« Reply #2 on: August 12, 2019, 10:21:18 AM »
It would be a very grandiose and empty gesture, since said bishop would have a tiny flock and would be totally dependent on whichever foreign patriarchate(s) installed him there.
“Steel isn't strong, boy, flesh is stronger! That is strength, boy! That is power! What is steel compared to the hand that wields it?  Contemplate this on the tree of woe.” - Elder Thulsa Doom of the Mountain of Power

Mencius said, “Instruction makes use of many techniques. When I do not deign to instruct someone, that too is a form of instruction.”

Come look at my lame blog

Offline Lepanto

  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 645
  • Faith: Roman Catholic
  • Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Munich and Freising
Re: Orthodox Bishop of Rome?
« Reply #3 on: August 12, 2019, 02:22:18 PM »
But there is an orthodox bishop of Rome. His name is Francis.
SCNR  8)
Sanctus Deus, Sanctus fortis, Sanctus immortalis, miserere nobis.

Offline Alpo2

  • The artist formerly known as Alpo
  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 54
  • Faith: Fenno-Ugric Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Finnish Orthodox Inside of Finland
Re: Orthodox Bishop of Rome?
« Reply #4 on: August 12, 2019, 02:43:32 PM »
It would be a very grandiose and empty gesture, since said bishop would have a tiny flock

So basically like New Rome. :angel:

Offline Iconodule

  • Hoplitarches
  • *************
  • Posts: 16,466
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Patriarchate of Johnstown
Re: Orthodox Bishop of Rome?
« Reply #5 on: August 12, 2019, 02:50:29 PM »
It would be a very grandiose and empty gesture, since said bishop would have a tiny flock

So basically like New Rome. :angel:

*Unwaning light intensifies*
“Steel isn't strong, boy, flesh is stronger! That is strength, boy! That is power! What is steel compared to the hand that wields it?  Contemplate this on the tree of woe.” - Elder Thulsa Doom of the Mountain of Power

Mencius said, “Instruction makes use of many techniques. When I do not deign to instruct someone, that too is a form of instruction.”

Come look at my lame blog

Offline Agabus

  • The user formerly known as Agabus.
  • Section Moderator
  • Taxiarches
  • *****
  • Posts: 6,274
  • Faith: The Angelus
  • Jurisdiction: Whichever one you think is wrong
Re: Orthodox Bishop of Rome?
« Reply #6 on: August 12, 2019, 02:56:37 PM »
I guess it is about time for someone to start this topic again.
Blessed Nazarius practiced the ascetic life. His clothes were tattered. He wore his shoes without removing them for six years.

THE OPINIONS HERE MAY NOT REFLECT THE ACTUAL OR PERCEIVED ORTHODOX CHURCH

Take a breath, read Ecclesiastes 1:9.

Offline hecma925

  • Non-clairvoyant, but you can call me Elder
  • Stratopedarches
  • **************
  • Posts: 18,618
  • You're my guardian angel hiding in the woods
  • Faith: Truthful Chalcedonian Truther
  • Jurisdiction: Enemy State Orthodox Church Abroad
Re: Orthodox Bishop of Rome?
« Reply #7 on: August 12, 2019, 05:46:31 PM »
But there is an orthodox bishop of Rome. His name is Francis.
SCNR  8)

That's rich lol
Happy shall he be, that shall take and dash thy little ones against the rock. Alleluia.

Once Christ has filled the Cross, it can never be empty again.

"But God doesn't need your cookies!  Arrive on time!"

Offline PorphyriosK

  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,138
  • Господи помилуй
  • Faith: Russian Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: ROCOR
Re: Orthodox Bishop of Rome?
« Reply #8 on: August 12, 2019, 06:42:05 PM »
But there is an orthodox bishop of Rome. His name is Francis.
SCNR  8)

There are even some Cardinals who might argue with you on that one!  :laugh:
"When you don’t live with Christ, you live in melancholy, in sorrow, in anxiety and in worry. You don’t live properly… The best medicine is to devote yourself to the worship of Christ. Everything is cured. Everything works properly."

~ St. Porphyrios


"The Church is indeed 'Apostolic'.  But the Church is also 'Patristic'.  And only by being 'Patristic' is the Church continuously 'Apostolic'."

~ Fr. Georges Florovsky

Online Asteriktos

  • Hypatos
  • *****************
  • Posts: 38,718
Re: Orthodox Bishop of Rome?
« Reply #9 on: August 12, 2019, 06:44:42 PM »
This thread needs more ialmisry
"when Mme. Vauquer lay down to rest on the day of M. Goriot's installation, her heart, like a larded partridge, sweltered before the fire of a burning desire to shake off the shroud of Vauquer and rise again as Goriot." - Balzac

Offline Alveus Lacuna

  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 7,409
  • Faith: Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: OCA
Re: Orthodox Bishop of Rome?
« Reply #10 on: August 12, 2019, 07:08:52 PM »
The Greek Orthodox version of the Pope of Alexandria is similarly historically anachronistic and numerically insignificant in the local area, so I say why not? There are already dozens of titular Greek bishops with no flock in their lands abandoned by Christians long ago.

Here's to one more puppet patriarchate of Constantinople! To a Greek Orthodox Pope of Rome!

Offline isxodnik

  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 696
  • Faith: Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: ROC
Re: Orthodox Bishop of Rome?
« Reply #11 on: August 12, 2019, 08:41:37 PM »
It's a Catholic modus operandi. The crusades, proselytism, unia...
нечестивый да сквернится ещё

Offline augustin717

  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 6,842
  • Faith: Higher Criticism
  • Jurisdiction: Dutch
Re: Orthodox Bishop of Rome?
« Reply #12 on: August 12, 2019, 09:05:14 PM »
There is Siluan, the Romanian Orthodox bishop of Rome and all Italy if memory serves. Romanians form the largest orthodox community in Italy. Like over one million.
"I saw a miracle where 2 people entered church one by baptism and one by chrismation. On pictures the one received by full baptism was shinning in light the one by chrismation no."

Offline Eamonomae

  • The Dead
  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,073
  • I am become death, destroyer of worlds.
  • Faith: Lost
Re: Orthodox Bishop of Rome?
« Reply #13 on: August 12, 2019, 10:07:50 PM »
The Greek Orthodox version of the Pope of Alexandria is similarly historically anachronistic and numerically insignificant in the local area, so I say why not? There are already dozens of titular Greek bishops with no flock in their lands abandoned by Christians long ago.

Here's to one more puppet patriarchate of Constantinople! To a Greek Orthodox Pope of Rome!

Numerically insignificant? The Greek Orthodox Pope of Alexandria has several flocks all over Africa and Egypt; while there is an estimated 150,000 to 200,000 Eastern Orthodox Christians in Egypt, there's an estimated 1,200,000 native Africans who have been converted to Christ.
"I go to seek a Great Perhaps."

Offline Eamonomae

  • The Dead
  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,073
  • I am become death, destroyer of worlds.
  • Faith: Lost
Re: Orthodox Bishop of Rome?
« Reply #14 on: August 12, 2019, 10:13:13 PM »
The reason why the Orthodox Church didn't appoint an Orthodox Bishop of Rome was because by the time the Great Schism happened, Rome was already under the territory of the Holy Roman Empire rather than the Eastern Roman Empire, which - obviously - sided with the West on the schism.

Remember, there was no separation of Church and State back then.

Unlike the Chalcedonian Schism, where the Byzantine Empire owned the territory of the Eastern Sees and could try to legally enforce the appointment of new Patriarchs by the Eastern Orthodox Church, such attempts by the Eastern Orthodox Church in a foreign country completely hostile to it would have been crushed by the authority of the HRE and the Papacy, or at the very least, would've resulted in tons of imprisonment, torture, and death, as well as the threat of war; it would provoke hostile tensions and create animosity, which the appointment of Latin Patriarchs under the PLC in Eastern Europe and the Fourth Crusade would prove.

I think the Eastern Orthodox Church could do it now, but considering how hostile the relationships between certain Patriarchs are - for example, Constantinople and Moscow, Antioch and Jerusalem, etc., the attempt by one of these groups to do so would be very controversial and lead to heightened tensions.
« Last Edit: August 12, 2019, 10:17:57 PM by Eamonomae »
"I go to seek a Great Perhaps."

Offline Iconodule

  • Hoplitarches
  • *************
  • Posts: 16,466
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Patriarchate of Johnstown
Re: Orthodox Bishop of Rome?
« Reply #15 on: August 13, 2019, 09:16:49 AM »
The Greek Orthodox version of the Pope of Alexandria is similarly historically anachronistic and numerically insignificant in the local area, so I say why not? There are already dozens of titular Greek bishops with no flock in their lands abandoned by Christians long ago.

Here's to one more puppet patriarchate of Constantinople! To a Greek Orthodox Pope of Rome!

Numerically insignificant? The Greek Orthodox Pope of Alexandria has several flocks all over Africa and Egypt; while there is an estimated 150,000 to 200,000 Eastern Orthodox Christians in Egypt, there's an estimated 1,200,000 native Africans who have been converted to Christ.

The Greek Orthodox version of the Pope of Alexandria is similarly historically anachronistic and numerically insignificant in the local area

numerically insignificant in the local area

the local area
“Steel isn't strong, boy, flesh is stronger! That is strength, boy! That is power! What is steel compared to the hand that wields it?  Contemplate this on the tree of woe.” - Elder Thulsa Doom of the Mountain of Power

Mencius said, “Instruction makes use of many techniques. When I do not deign to instruct someone, that too is a form of instruction.”

Come look at my lame blog

Offline Agabus

  • The user formerly known as Agabus.
  • Section Moderator
  • Taxiarches
  • *****
  • Posts: 6,274
  • Faith: The Angelus
  • Jurisdiction: Whichever one you think is wrong
Re: Orthodox Bishop of Rome?
« Reply #16 on: August 13, 2019, 09:37:36 AM »
The Greek Orthodox version of the Pope of Alexandria is similarly historically anachronistic and numerically insignificant in the local area, so I say why not? There are already dozens of titular Greek bishops with no flock in their lands abandoned by Christians long ago.

Here's to one more puppet patriarchate of Constantinople! To a Greek Orthodox Pope of Rome!

Numerically insignificant? The Greek Orthodox Pope of Alexandria has several flocks all over Africa and Egypt; while there is an estimated 150,000 to 200,000 Eastern Orthodox Christians in Egypt, there's an estimated 1,200,000 native Africans who have been converted to Christ.

It's sweet when someone believes our missionary numbers.

Don't get me wrong, I believe that the mission has seen some success. But watching the bean counters inflate conversions in every other hemisphere makes me dubious about 1.2 million.
Blessed Nazarius practiced the ascetic life. His clothes were tattered. He wore his shoes without removing them for six years.

THE OPINIONS HERE MAY NOT REFLECT THE ACTUAL OR PERCEIVED ORTHODOX CHURCH

Take a breath, read Ecclesiastes 1:9.

Offline Agabus

  • The user formerly known as Agabus.
  • Section Moderator
  • Taxiarches
  • *****
  • Posts: 6,274
  • Faith: The Angelus
  • Jurisdiction: Whichever one you think is wrong
Re: Orthodox Bishop of Rome?
« Reply #17 on: August 13, 2019, 09:46:51 AM »
The reason why the Orthodox Church didn't appoint an Orthodox Bishop of Rome was because by the time the Great Schism happened, Rome was already under the territory of the Holy Roman Empire rather than the Eastern Roman Empire, which - obviously - sided with the West on the schism.

Remember, there was no separation of Church and State back then.

Unlike the Chalcedonian Schism, where the Byzantine Empire owned the territory of the Eastern Sees and could try to legally enforce the appointment of new Patriarchs by the Eastern Orthodox Church, such attempts by the Eastern Orthodox Church in a foreign country completely hostile to it would have been crushed by the authority of the HRE and the Papacy, or at the very least, would've resulted in tons of imprisonment, torture, and death, as well as the threat of war; it would provoke hostile tensions and create animosity, which the appointment of Latin Patriarchs under the PLC in Eastern Europe and the Fourth Crusade would prove.

Until Florence put the nail in it, reunion talk between the two Roman sees was a regular occurrence; there's lots of correspondence between the two that is basically friendly if standing their ground. Even after Lyons there was some real hope that reunion could happen, so appointing a bishop of Rome before then would have blown up that chance. And then of course Constantinople fell to the Turks and had bigger problems to worry about under the Millet than what people were doing in Italy.

Quote
I think the Eastern Orthodox Church could do it now, but considering how hostile the relationships between certain Patriarchs are - for example, Constantinople and Moscow, Antioch and Jerusalem, etc., the attempt by one of these groups to do so would be very controversial and lead to heightened tensions.

I suppose the question for the Byzantine Orthodox is why would they do it? There's no point in creating new patriarchates -- or recreating old ones -- in what is essentially the diaspora. The patriarchal system is a vestigial organ of the imperial age. Local church synods work fine.
Blessed Nazarius practiced the ascetic life. His clothes were tattered. He wore his shoes without removing them for six years.

THE OPINIONS HERE MAY NOT REFLECT THE ACTUAL OR PERCEIVED ORTHODOX CHURCH

Take a breath, read Ecclesiastes 1:9.

Offline platypus

  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 556
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America
Re: Orthodox Bishop of Rome?
« Reply #18 on: August 13, 2019, 11:07:48 AM »
Is the priest at St. Catherine's at the Russian Embassy married? I think there's a simple and obvious course of action here.
"Eternal truth finds no favorable soil where one encounters at every turn the skeptical, sarcastic query 'what is truth,' where life insurance takes the place of eternal hope." -Hieromonk Antonius

Vanity of vanities, saith the preacher; all is vanity. -Ecclesiastes 12:8

Offline Alveus Lacuna

  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 7,409
  • Faith: Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: OCA
Re: Orthodox Bishop of Rome?
« Reply #19 on: August 13, 2019, 11:21:52 AM »
Numerically insignificant? The Greek Orthodox Pope of Alexandria has several flocks all over Africa and Egypt; while there is an estimated 150,000 to 200,000 Eastern Orthodox Christians in Egypt...

Let's just take your high number, which isn't accurate, for granted. There are 98 million people in Egypt. That's 0.2% of the population. The historical and real Coptic Pope of Alexandria has 18 million in his local flock. That works out nicely to 18% of the population.

I understand that numbers don't dictate the correctness of doctrine, but I also like to live in reality. The Pope of Rome is the legitimate heir to the Western Latin patrimony of Christendom. The Coptic Pope of Alexandria is the legitimate heir to the Alexandrian school and historical African Christianity along with Ethiopia, as well as Nubia before it was lost to Christianity.

If we can have historically meaningful but local insignificant patriarchs in Constantinople and Alexandria, then why not in Rome as well?
« Last Edit: August 13, 2019, 11:23:01 AM by Alveus Lacuna »

Offline hecma925

  • Non-clairvoyant, but you can call me Elder
  • Stratopedarches
  • **************
  • Posts: 18,618
  • You're my guardian angel hiding in the woods
  • Faith: Truthful Chalcedonian Truther
  • Jurisdiction: Enemy State Orthodox Church Abroad
Re: Orthodox Bishop of Rome?
« Reply #20 on: August 13, 2019, 12:28:08 PM »
Is the priest at St. Catherine's at the Russian Embassy married? I think there's a simple and obvious course of action here.

What?
Happy shall he be, that shall take and dash thy little ones against the rock. Alleluia.

Once Christ has filled the Cross, it can never be empty again.

"But God doesn't need your cookies!  Arrive on time!"

Offline Eamonomae

  • The Dead
  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,073
  • I am become death, destroyer of worlds.
  • Faith: Lost
Re: Orthodox Bishop of Rome?
« Reply #21 on: August 13, 2019, 04:23:11 PM »
Numerically insignificant? The Greek Orthodox Pope of Alexandria has several flocks all over Africa and Egypt; while there is an estimated 150,000 to 200,000 Eastern Orthodox Christians in Egypt...

Let's just take your high number, which isn't accurate, for granted. There are 98 million people in Egypt. That's 0.2% of the population. The historical and real Coptic Pope of Alexandria has 18 million in his local flock. That works out nicely to 18% of the population.

I understand that numbers don't dictate the correctness of doctrine, but I also like to live in reality. The Pope of Rome is the legitimate heir to the Western Latin patrimony of Christendom. The Coptic Pope of Alexandria is the legitimate heir to the Alexandrian school and historical African Christianity along with Ethiopia, as well as Nubia before it was lost to Christianity.

If we can have historically meaningful but local insignificant patriarchs in Constantinople and Alexandria, then why not in Rome as well?

I think your logic here is fallacious, Number one, a million in of itself is a high number, regardless of how much of a minority, comparatively, they are. Number two, in 2010, there are only about 1.5 million Eastern Orthodox Christians in the US, according to the National Orthodox Consensus. This is in comparison to the 273,000,000 - roughly - self identified Christians in the United States, according to a 2015 study. Why should the United States have its own autocephalous Church? In fact, what seems to be implied (and I could be misreading you here, but it's what comes across) in your claims to be "realistic" as you put in contrast to "correct doctrine" is the question of why there should be Orthodox communities as small minorities within these countries which are predominately another form of Christianity. Why should the Church actually have Bishops in the United States, then, out of respect for the United States, whose legitimate patrimony is Protestantism and Catholicism?

So the idea of insignificance as you proposed here is, in my opinion, fallacious.

Now, with that being said, I think you do have a point about the residence of these Patriarchs (which I still personally disagree with, but I'll explain below). The Patriarch of Constantinople's flock is in the thousands in Turkey, and in Egypt specifically, same with the Patriarch of Alexandria; with the rest of Constantinople's flock mostly existing within the United States, and now Ukraine - ish, and Alexandria's flock mostly residing elsewhere in Africa. And I believe that there is a question as to why the Patriarch of Constantinople resides in Turkey and not Greece or America, or even perhaps why the Patriarch of Alexandria resides in Cairo instead of Africa, and why there aren't just vicars or other Bishops who manage the small flocks within those cities. After all, even though the Patriarch of Antioch resides in Damascus, it's not as if Damascus is where Antioch was; the Patriarch clearly moved.

At the same time, though, the Patriarch of Alexandria, Constantinople, and Antioch all reside in hostile environments, and perhaps their existence, as being historically significant and having leadership positions within the Orthodox Church, puts pressure on these hostile governments from sources that are supportive of the Orthodox Church. If there are a couple of thousand people in Turkey, and Turkey - considering especially how tyrannical its government has become under Erdogan - starts restricting the civil rights of the Orthodox communities there in a very noticeable fashion to these thousands - if it doesn't affect the Patriarch directly, the US and Russia would probably just wag their fingers at Turkey. Now if the Patriarch of Constantinople were to be affected by these restrictions, outcry from the communities of the United States, Ukraine, and other Christian organizations - the Pope, Protestants, etc. and then the U.S. government, Russia, etc. would be very noticeable, and said countries would clamp down harder to remove these restrictions. Nor is the existence in hostile environments something to be frowned upon; Saint Cyprian is a Saint because he tried to manage his flock to the best of his ability in Pagan Roman Carthage, and he was martyred for it; or perhaps Saint Ignatius of Antioch, same thing, or perhaps Pope Saint Stephen, who had a flock in the capital city of the Whore of Babylon that once existed, and was martyred as well. And perhaps having such leadership in Hostile environments can lead to fruits - we never know where history will take us; I doubt that Marcus Aurelius would've predicted that his empire would convert to Christianity, and he probably thought that this cult, with it's insignificant population would've died off; instead, the official religion of the empire died off, except for some edgy rebellious angsty teenagers. Maybe the seeds planted in these hostile environments will one day, centuries in the future, lead to a conversion of these places to Christianity, in much the same way Pagan Rome did. Maybe it won't. But if it happened once in Rome, it can happen again.

And again, the reason why the Patriarch of Alexandria exists and not the Patriarch of Rome is only for historical reasons, as I've explained before; the government in control of Rome was hostile to Orthodoxy, and as religions were associated with governments at this point in history, such an attempt would probably lead to outrage or a war of the Empires with each other.
« Last Edit: August 13, 2019, 04:34:17 PM by Eamonomae »
"I go to seek a Great Perhaps."

Offline noahzarc1

  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 595
Re: Orthodox Bishop of Rome?
« Reply #22 on: August 13, 2019, 05:05:02 PM »
Numerically insignificant? The Greek Orthodox Pope of Alexandria has several flocks all over Africa and Egypt; while there is an estimated 150,000 to 200,000 Eastern Orthodox Christians in Egypt...

Let's just take your high number, which isn't accurate, for granted. There are 98 million people in Egypt. That's 0.2% of the population. The historical and real Coptic Pope of Alexandria has 18 million in his local flock. That works out nicely to 18% of the population.

I understand that numbers don't dictate the correctness of doctrine, but I also like to live in reality. The Pope of Rome is the legitimate heir to the Western Latin patrimony of Christendom. The Coptic Pope of Alexandria is the legitimate heir to the Alexandrian school and historical African Christianity along with Ethiopia, as well as Nubia before it was lost to Christianity.

If we can have historically meaningful but local insignificant patriarchs in Constantinople and Alexandria, then why not in Rome as well?

I think your logic here is fallacious, Number one, a million in of itself is a high number, regardless of how much of a minority, comparatively, they are. Number two, in 2010, there are only about 1.5 million Eastern Orthodox Christians in the US, according to the National Orthodox Consensus. This is in comparison to the 273,000,000 - roughly - self identified Christians in the United States, according to a 2015 study. Why should the United States have its own autocephalous Church? In fact, what seems to be implied (and I could be misreading you here, but it's what comes across) in your claims to be "realistic" as you put in contrast to "correct doctrine" is the question of why there should be Orthodox communities as small minorities within these countries which are predominately another form of Christianity. Why should the Church actually have Bishops in the United States, then, out of respect for the United States, whose legitimate patrimony is Protestantism and Catholicism?

A Western Rite Orthodox priest told me that the competing jurisdictions and overlaps in the west are really an embarrassment to Orthodoxy. He stated if things were to be done correctly then there would be one Western Rite. I think he realized too that would be Rome’s rightful place and it appeared he’d be quite fine with it if they were not separated from the Orthodox. Their fasting practices are Western and actually the Eastern Rite Catholics have a stricter fasting regiment than the Western Rite Orthodox, though both share the same Lenten fasting rules I believe.
"While we fight about words, take advantage of ambiguities, criticize authors, fight on party questions, have difficulty in agreeing, and prepare to anathematize each other, there is scarce a man who belongs to Christ." - Hilary of Poitiers (367)

Offline Gorazd

  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 2,571
  • Faith: 7 Councils
  • Jurisdiction: First without Equals
Re: Orthodox Bishop of Rome?
« Reply #23 on: August 13, 2019, 05:15:33 PM »
Restoring an Orthodox Patriarchate of Rome would require consent between the major Orthodox jurisdictions. We're infinitely far from that. Let get some reconciliation between Constantinople and Moscow, and between Antioch and Jerusalem, and solve the jurisdictional issues in Ukraine and Northern Macedonia, before even thinking of that kind of stuff.

Offline Isaiah53IsMessiah

  • Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 287
  • Faith: Orthodox
Re: Orthodox Bishop of Rome?
« Reply #24 on: August 13, 2019, 05:49:53 PM »
Restoring an Orthodox Patriarchate of Rome would require consent between the major Orthodox jurisdictions. We're infinitely far from that. Let get some reconciliation between Constantinople and Moscow, and between Antioch and Jerusalem, and solve the jurisdictional issues in Ukraine and Northern Macedonia, before even thinking of that kind of stuff.
I mean absolutely no disrespect to the clergy, but sometimes I feel as if some of the clergy drag us Church laymen into these kinds of things. I try to pray for the Orthodox Church without ceasing!

Κύριε Ἰησοῦ Χριστέ Υἱέ τοῦ Θεοῦ ἐλέησόν με τὸν ἁμαρτωλόν
« Last Edit: August 13, 2019, 05:51:46 PM by Isaiah53IsMessiah »

Offline Isaiah53IsMessiah

  • Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 287
  • Faith: Orthodox
Re: Orthodox Bishop of Rome?
« Reply #25 on: August 13, 2019, 06:08:09 PM »
Restoring an Orthodox Patriarchate of Rome would require consent between the major Orthodox jurisdictions. We're infinitely far from that. Let get some reconciliation between Constantinople and Moscow, and between Antioch and Jerusalem, and solve the jurisdictional issues in Ukraine and Northern Macedonia, before even thinking of that kind of stuff.
I mean absolutely no disrespect to the clergy, but sometimes I feel as if some of the clergy drag us Church laymen into these kinds of things. I try to pray for the Orthodox Church without ceasing!

Κύριε Ἰησοῦ Χριστέ Υἱέ τοῦ Θεοῦ ἐλέησόν με τὸν ἁμαρτωλόν

Let me clarify. If this was over theology it would be different. Its just this time it feels so political. I understand the holy canons of the church must be followed, but is it taking it too far for oikonomia?
« Last Edit: August 13, 2019, 06:09:55 PM by Isaiah53IsMessiah »

Offline RaphaCam

  • Merarches
  • ***********
  • Posts: 8,103
  • It is honourable to reveal the works of God
    • Em Espírito e em Verdade
  • Faith: Big-O Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Exarchate of Gotham City
Re: Orthodox Bishop of Rome?
« Reply #26 on: August 13, 2019, 07:02:21 PM »
It would be nice for major trolling. Pro-gamer move.
"May the Lord our God remember in His kingdom all Holy Catholic Apostolic Church, which heralds the Word of Truth and fearlessly offers and distributes the Holy Oblation despite human deficiencies and persecutions moved by the powers of this world, in all time and unto the ages of ages."

May the Blessed Light shine Forth

Offline biro

  • Site Supporter
  • Stratopedarches
  • *****
  • Posts: 22,833
  • Excelsior
    • Archive of Our Own works
Re: Orthodox Bishop of Rome?
« Reply #27 on: August 13, 2019, 07:17:07 PM »
The RCC will never give up St. Peter's Basilica.
https://archiveofourown.org/users/Parakeetist/works Warning: stories have mature content.

"Some people only feel good when they are praising the Lord." - Coptic bishop

Mt. 21:31 Jesus said to them, “Assuredly, I say to you that tax collectors and harlots enter the kingdom of God before you."

"Our Lord will *never* stop loving us." - Fr. Michael P.

Offline platypus

  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 556
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America
Re: Orthodox Bishop of Rome?
« Reply #28 on: August 13, 2019, 08:16:40 PM »
Is the priest at St. Catherine's at the Russian Embassy married? I think there's a simple and obvious course of action here.

What?

If he is celibate, he could be elevated to the episcopate.
"Eternal truth finds no favorable soil where one encounters at every turn the skeptical, sarcastic query 'what is truth,' where life insurance takes the place of eternal hope." -Hieromonk Antonius

Vanity of vanities, saith the preacher; all is vanity. -Ecclesiastes 12:8

Offline Alveus Lacuna

  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 7,409
  • Faith: Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: OCA
Re: Orthodox Bishop of Rome?
« Reply #29 on: August 13, 2019, 08:44:39 PM »
I think your logic here is fallacious, Number one, a million in of itself is a high number, regardless of how much of a minority, comparatively, they are. Number two, in 2010, there are only about 1.5 million Eastern Orthodox Christians in the US, according to the National Orthodox Consensus. This is in comparison to the 273,000,000 - roughly - self identified Christians in the United States, according to a 2015 study. Why should the United States have its own autocephalous Church? In fact, what seems to be implied (and I could be misreading you here, but it's what comes across) in your claims to be "realistic" as you put in contrast to "correct doctrine" is the question of why there should be Orthodox communities as small minorities within these countries which are predominately another form of Christianity. Why should the Church actually have Bishops in the United States, then, out of respect for the United States, whose legitimate patrimony is Protestantism and Catholicism?

So the idea of insignificance as you proposed here is, in my opinion, fallacious.

Now, with that being said, I think you do have a point about the residence of these Patriarchs (which I still personally disagree with, but I'll explain below). The Patriarch of Constantinople's flock is in the thousands in Turkey, and in Egypt specifically, same with the Patriarch of Alexandria; with the rest of Constantinople's flock mostly existing within the United States, and now Ukraine - ish, and Alexandria's flock mostly residing elsewhere in Africa. And I believe that there is a question as to why the Patriarch of Constantinople resides in Turkey and not Greece or America, or even perhaps why the Patriarch of Alexandria resides in Cairo instead of Africa, and why there aren't just vicars or other Bishops who manage the small flocks within those cities. After all, even though the Patriarch of Antioch resides in Damascus, it's not as if Damascus is where Antioch was; the Patriarch clearly moved.

At the same time, though, the Patriarch of Alexandria, Constantinople, and Antioch all reside in hostile environments, and perhaps their existence, as being historically significant and having leadership positions within the Orthodox Church, puts pressure on these hostile governments from sources that are supportive of the Orthodox Church. If there are a couple of thousand people in Turkey, and Turkey - considering especially how tyrannical its government has become under Erdogan - starts restricting the civil rights of the Orthodox communities there in a very noticeable fashion to these thousands - if it doesn't affect the Patriarch directly, the US and Russia would probably just wag their fingers at Turkey. Now if the Patriarch of Constantinople were to be affected by these restrictions, outcry from the communities of the United States, Ukraine, and other Christian organizations - the Pope, Protestants, etc. and then the U.S. government, Russia, etc. would be very noticeable, and said countries would clamp down harder to remove these restrictions. Nor is the existence in hostile environments something to be frowned upon; Saint Cyprian is a Saint because he tried to manage his flock to the best of his ability in Pagan Roman Carthage, and he was martyred for it; or perhaps Saint Ignatius of Antioch, same thing, or perhaps Pope Saint Stephen, who had a flock in the capital city of the Whore of Babylon that once existed, and was martyred as well. And perhaps having such leadership in Hostile environments can lead to fruits - we never know where history will take us; I doubt that Marcus Aurelius would've predicted that his empire would convert to Christianity, and he probably thought that this cult, with it's insignificant population would've died off; instead, the official religion of the empire died off, except for some edgy rebellious angsty teenagers. Maybe the seeds planted in these hostile environments will one day, centuries in the future, lead to a conversion of these places to Christianity, in much the same way Pagan Rome did. Maybe it won't. But if it happened once in Rome, it can happen again.

And again, the reason why the Patriarch of Alexandria exists and not the Patriarch of Rome is only for historical reasons, as I've explained before; the government in control of Rome was hostile to Orthodoxy, and as religions were associated with governments at this point in history, such an attempt would probably lead to outrage or a war of the Empires with each other.

Yikes

Offline hecma925

  • Non-clairvoyant, but you can call me Elder
  • Stratopedarches
  • **************
  • Posts: 18,618
  • You're my guardian angel hiding in the woods
  • Faith: Truthful Chalcedonian Truther
  • Jurisdiction: Enemy State Orthodox Church Abroad
Re: Orthodox Bishop of Rome?
« Reply #30 on: August 13, 2019, 08:58:33 PM »
Is the priest at St. Catherine's at the Russian Embassy married? I think there's a simple and obvious course of action here.

What?

If he is celibate, he could be elevated to the episcopate.

He's not.  I'm not sure what you were getting at.  Elevate an OCA priest to be a Bishop of Rome?
Happy shall he be, that shall take and dash thy little ones against the rock. Alleluia.

Once Christ has filled the Cross, it can never be empty again.

"But God doesn't need your cookies!  Arrive on time!"

Offline platypus

  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 556
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America
Re: Orthodox Bishop of Rome?
« Reply #31 on: August 13, 2019, 09:04:18 PM »
Is the priest at St. Catherine's at the Russian Embassy married? I think there's a simple and obvious course of action here.

What?

If he is celibate, he could be elevated to the episcopate.

He's not.  I'm not sure what you were getting at.  Elevate an OCA priest to be a Bishop of Rome?

It was a joke; since people were talking about having an Orthodox bishop in Rome, I pointed out that there is an Orthodox priest with a parish at the Vatican. Perhaps I should have specified Russian Embassy to the Vatican. This might be where the confusion is.
"Eternal truth finds no favorable soil where one encounters at every turn the skeptical, sarcastic query 'what is truth,' where life insurance takes the place of eternal hope." -Hieromonk Antonius

Vanity of vanities, saith the preacher; all is vanity. -Ecclesiastes 12:8

Offline hecma925

  • Non-clairvoyant, but you can call me Elder
  • Stratopedarches
  • **************
  • Posts: 18,618
  • You're my guardian angel hiding in the woods
  • Faith: Truthful Chalcedonian Truther
  • Jurisdiction: Enemy State Orthodox Church Abroad
Re: Orthodox Bishop of Rome?
« Reply #32 on: August 13, 2019, 09:04:51 PM »
Is the priest at St. Catherine's at the Russian Embassy married? I think there's a simple and obvious course of action here.

What?

If he is celibate, he could be elevated to the episcopate.

He's not.  I'm not sure what you were getting at.  Elevate an OCA priest to be a Bishop of Rome?

It was a joke; since people were talking about having an Orthodox bishop in Rome, I pointed out that there is an Orthodox priest with a parish at the Vatican. Perhaps I should have specified Russian Embassy to the Vatican. This might be where the confusion is.

Ah.
Happy shall he be, that shall take and dash thy little ones against the rock. Alleluia.

Once Christ has filled the Cross, it can never be empty again.

"But God doesn't need your cookies!  Arrive on time!"

Offline Eamonomae

  • The Dead
  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,073
  • I am become death, destroyer of worlds.
  • Faith: Lost
Re: Orthodox Bishop of Rome?
« Reply #33 on: August 14, 2019, 02:32:50 PM »
I think your logic here is fallacious, Number one, a million in of itself is a high number, regardless of how much of a minority, comparatively, they are. Number two, in 2010, there are only about 1.5 million Eastern Orthodox Christians in the US, according to the National Orthodox Consensus. This is in comparison to the 273,000,000 - roughly - self identified Christians in the United States, according to a 2015 study. Why should the United States have its own autocephalous Church? In fact, what seems to be implied (and I could be misreading you here, but it's what comes across) in your claims to be "realistic" as you put in contrast to "correct doctrine" is the question of why there should be Orthodox communities as small minorities within these countries which are predominately another form of Christianity. Why should the Church actually have Bishops in the United States, then, out of respect for the United States, whose legitimate patrimony is Protestantism and Catholicism?

So the idea of insignificance as you proposed here is, in my opinion, fallacious.

Now, with that being said, I think you do have a point about the residence of these Patriarchs (which I still personally disagree with, but I'll explain below). The Patriarch of Constantinople's flock is in the thousands in Turkey, and in Egypt specifically, same with the Patriarch of Alexandria; with the rest of Constantinople's flock mostly existing within the United States, and now Ukraine - ish, and Alexandria's flock mostly residing elsewhere in Africa. And I believe that there is a question as to why the Patriarch of Constantinople resides in Turkey and not Greece or America, or even perhaps why the Patriarch of Alexandria resides in Cairo instead of Africa, and why there aren't just vicars or other Bishops who manage the small flocks within those cities. After all, even though the Patriarch of Antioch resides in Damascus, it's not as if Damascus is where Antioch was; the Patriarch clearly moved.

At the same time, though, the Patriarch of Alexandria, Constantinople, and Antioch all reside in hostile environments, and perhaps their existence, as being historically significant and having leadership positions within the Orthodox Church, puts pressure on these hostile governments from sources that are supportive of the Orthodox Church. If there are a couple of thousand people in Turkey, and Turkey - considering especially how tyrannical its government has become under Erdogan - starts restricting the civil rights of the Orthodox communities there in a very noticeable fashion to these thousands - if it doesn't affect the Patriarch directly, the US and Russia would probably just wag their fingers at Turkey. Now if the Patriarch of Constantinople were to be affected by these restrictions, outcry from the communities of the United States, Ukraine, and other Christian organizations - the Pope, Protestants, etc. and then the U.S. government, Russia, etc. would be very noticeable, and said countries would clamp down harder to remove these restrictions. Nor is the existence in hostile environments something to be frowned upon; Saint Cyprian is a Saint because he tried to manage his flock to the best of his ability in Pagan Roman Carthage, and he was martyred for it; or perhaps Saint Ignatius of Antioch, same thing, or perhaps Pope Saint Stephen, who had a flock in the capital city of the Whore of Babylon that once existed, and was martyred as well. And perhaps having such leadership in Hostile environments can lead to fruits - we never know where history will take us; I doubt that Marcus Aurelius would've predicted that his empire would convert to Christianity, and he probably thought that this cult, with it's insignificant population would've died off; instead, the official religion of the empire died off, except for some edgy rebellious angsty teenagers. Maybe the seeds planted in these hostile environments will one day, centuries in the future, lead to a conversion of these places to Christianity, in much the same way Pagan Rome did. Maybe it won't. But if it happened once in Rome, it can happen again.

And again, the reason why the Patriarch of Alexandria exists and not the Patriarch of Rome is only for historical reasons, as I've explained before; the government in control of Rome was hostile to Orthodoxy, and as religions were associated with governments at this point in history, such an attempt would probably lead to outrage or a war of the Empires with each other.

Yikes

Psycho Mantis?
"I go to seek a Great Perhaps."

Offline WPM

  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 7,231
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Granbury to Abilene
Re: Orthodox Bishop of Rome?
« Reply #34 on: August 16, 2019, 09:35:07 AM »
There is an Orthodox Patriarch of Alexandria and Antioch. How come a separate Patriarchate cannot be established in Rome if the current BOR of the Latin Church is in schism? I am no expert on the canons though so please inform my ignorance.

(?) The Church fell out of Order as time went on. For example, churches further out in Barbarian lands do not really have any connection with the See of Peter. What you have is loose affiliation with churches everywhere. (For example, the Orthodox refer to church but where is the connection? There probably isn't one.

Offline Alpha60

  • A thing of routers, hubs and switches, and dreary web GUIs
  • Technical Director
  • Taxiarches
  • ***
  • Posts: 5,604
  • OCNet Systems and Network Operations
  • Faith: Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Orthodox
Re: Orthodox Bishop of Rome?
« Reply #35 on: August 16, 2019, 02:06:22 PM »
The reason why the Orthodox Church didn't appoint an Orthodox Bishop of Rome was because by the time the Great Schism happened, Rome was already under the territory of the Holy Roman Empire rather than the Eastern Roman Empire, which - obviously - sided with the West on the schism.

Remember, there was no separation of Church and State back then.

Unlike the Chalcedonian Schism, where the Byzantine Empire owned the territory of the Eastern Sees and could try to legally enforce the appointment of new Patriarchs by the Eastern Orthodox Church, such attempts by the Eastern Orthodox Church in a foreign country completely hostile to it would have been crushed by the authority of the HRE and the Papacy, or at the very least, would've resulted in tons of imprisonment, torture, and death, as well as the threat of war; it would provoke hostile tensions and create animosity, which the appointment of Latin Patriarchs under the PLC in Eastern Europe and the Fourth Crusade would prove.

Until Florence put the nail in it, reunion talk between the two Roman sees was a regular occurrence; there's lots of correspondence between the two that is basically friendly if standing their ground. Even after Lyons there was some real hope that reunion could happen, so appointing a bishop of Rome before then would have blown up that chance. And then of course Constantinople fell to the Turks and had bigger problems to worry about under the Millet than what people were doing in Italy.

Quote
I think the Eastern Orthodox Church could do it now, but considering how hostile the relationships between certain Patriarchs are - for example, Constantinople and Moscow, Antioch and Jerusalem, etc., the attempt by one of these groups to do so would be very controversial and lead to heightened tensions.

I suppose the question for the Byzantine Orthodox is why would they do it? There's no point in creating new patriarchates -- or recreating old ones -- in what is essentially the diaspora. The patriarchal system is a vestigial organ of the imperial age. Local church synods work fine.

The OCA was created in the diaspora and I daresay it does a rather fine job.

Council of Nicea:
Εθη ἀρχαῖα κρατείτω. 
Mores antiqui obtineant.
The ancient ways shall prevail.

The sentiment of Nicea in Greek and Latin, translated into English.

Offline Alpha60

  • A thing of routers, hubs and switches, and dreary web GUIs
  • Technical Director
  • Taxiarches
  • ***
  • Posts: 5,604
  • OCNet Systems and Network Operations
  • Faith: Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Orthodox
Re: Orthodox Bishop of Rome?
« Reply #36 on: August 16, 2019, 02:11:00 PM »
Restoring an Orthodox Patriarchate of Rome would require consent between the major Orthodox jurisdictions. We're infinitely far from that. Let get some reconciliation between Constantinople and Moscow, and between Antioch and Jerusalem, and solve the jurisdictional issues in Ukraine and Northern Macedonia, before even thinking of that kind of stuff.

Actually, creating an Orthodox Patriarchate of Rome would be a good way for the EP to be bypassed by Antioch, Moscow, Bulgaria, Georgia and other local churches that have grievances with it, in that it would provide a means by which the functions allocated to Rome or New Rome under the otherwise ill-advised Canon 28 could be discharged without having to deal with the politics which have sadly become attached to the See of Constantinople.

Council of Nicea:
Εθη ἀρχαῖα κρατείτω. 
Mores antiqui obtineant.
The ancient ways shall prevail.

The sentiment of Nicea in Greek and Latin, translated into English.

Offline Alpha60

  • A thing of routers, hubs and switches, and dreary web GUIs
  • Technical Director
  • Taxiarches
  • ***
  • Posts: 5,604
  • OCNet Systems and Network Operations
  • Faith: Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Orthodox
Re: Orthodox Bishop of Rome?
« Reply #37 on: August 16, 2019, 02:13:49 PM »
This thread needs more ialmisry

The world needs more ialmisry

Council of Nicea:
Εθη ἀρχαῖα κρατείτω. 
Mores antiqui obtineant.
The ancient ways shall prevail.

The sentiment of Nicea in Greek and Latin, translated into English.

Offline Agabus

  • The user formerly known as Agabus.
  • Section Moderator
  • Taxiarches
  • *****
  • Posts: 6,274
  • Faith: The Angelus
  • Jurisdiction: Whichever one you think is wrong
Re: Orthodox Bishop of Rome?
« Reply #38 on: August 16, 2019, 06:03:03 PM »
The reason why the Orthodox Church didn't appoint an Orthodox Bishop of Rome was because by the time the Great Schism happened, Rome was already under the territory of the Holy Roman Empire rather than the Eastern Roman Empire, which - obviously - sided with the West on the schism.

Remember, there was no separation of Church and State back then.

Unlike the Chalcedonian Schism, where the Byzantine Empire owned the territory of the Eastern Sees and could try to legally enforce the appointment of new Patriarchs by the Eastern Orthodox Church, such attempts by the Eastern Orthodox Church in a foreign country completely hostile to it would have been crushed by the authority of the HRE and the Papacy, or at the very least, would've resulted in tons of imprisonment, torture, and death, as well as the threat of war; it would provoke hostile tensions and create animosity, which the appointment of Latin Patriarchs under the PLC in Eastern Europe and the Fourth Crusade would prove.

Until Florence put the nail in it, reunion talk between the two Roman sees was a regular occurrence; there's lots of correspondence between the two that is basically friendly if standing their ground. Even after Lyons there was some real hope that reunion could happen, so appointing a bishop of Rome before then would have blown up that chance. And then of course Constantinople fell to the Turks and had bigger problems to worry about under the Millet than what people were doing in Italy.

Quote
I think the Eastern Orthodox Church could do it now, but considering how hostile the relationships between certain Patriarchs are - for example, Constantinople and Moscow, Antioch and Jerusalem, etc., the attempt by one of these groups to do so would be very controversial and lead to heightened tensions.

I suppose the question for the Byzantine Orthodox is why would they do it? There's no point in creating new patriarchates -- or recreating old ones -- in what is essentially the diaspora. The patriarchal system is a vestigial organ of the imperial age. Local church synods work fine.

The OCA was created in the diaspora and I daresay it does a rather fine job.

It is not a patriarchate, nor is it universally recognized as an autocephalous church.
Blessed Nazarius practiced the ascetic life. His clothes were tattered. He wore his shoes without removing them for six years.

THE OPINIONS HERE MAY NOT REFLECT THE ACTUAL OR PERCEIVED ORTHODOX CHURCH

Take a breath, read Ecclesiastes 1:9.

Offline Katechon

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 53
  • Faith: Orthodox Catechumen
Re: Orthodox Bishop of Rome?
« Reply #39 on: August 21, 2019, 03:54:55 PM »

Offline Alpha60

  • A thing of routers, hubs and switches, and dreary web GUIs
  • Technical Director
  • Taxiarches
  • ***
  • Posts: 5,604
  • OCNet Systems and Network Operations
  • Faith: Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Orthodox
Re: Orthodox Bishop of Rome?
« Reply #40 on: August 21, 2019, 04:55:18 PM »
The reason why the Orthodox Church didn't appoint an Orthodox Bishop of Rome was because by the time the Great Schism happened, Rome was already under the territory of the Holy Roman Empire rather than the Eastern Roman Empire, which - obviously - sided with the West on the schism.

Remember, there was no separation of Church and State back then.

Unlike the Chalcedonian Schism, where the Byzantine Empire owned the territory of the Eastern Sees and could try to legally enforce the appointment of new Patriarchs by the Eastern Orthodox Church, such attempts by the Eastern Orthodox Church in a foreign country completely hostile to it would have been crushed by the authority of the HRE and the Papacy, or at the very least, would've resulted in tons of imprisonment, torture, and death, as well as the threat of war; it would provoke hostile tensions and create animosity, which the appointment of Latin Patriarchs under the PLC in Eastern Europe and the Fourth Crusade would prove.

Until Florence put the nail in it, reunion talk between the two Roman sees was a regular occurrence; there's lots of correspondence between the two that is basically friendly if standing their ground. Even after Lyons there was some real hope that reunion could happen, so appointing a bishop of Rome before then would have blown up that chance. And then of course Constantinople fell to the Turks and had bigger problems to worry about under the Millet than what people were doing in Italy.

Quote
I think the Eastern Orthodox Church could do it now, but considering how hostile the relationships between certain Patriarchs are - for example, Constantinople and Moscow, Antioch and Jerusalem, etc., the attempt by one of these groups to do so would be very controversial and lead to heightened tensions.

I suppose the question for the Byzantine Orthodox is why would they do it? There's no point in creating new patriarchates -- or recreating old ones -- in what is essentially the diaspora. The patriarchal system is a vestigial organ of the imperial age. Local church synods work fine.

The OCA was created in the diaspora and I daresay it does a rather fine job.

It is not a patriarchate, nor is it universally recognized as an autocephalous church.

Both true, but IMO the lack of universal recognition of OCA autocephaly is a farce, because it is de facto autocephalous and it received a lawful Tome from Moscow granting that autocephaly.  Historically the argument the EP used against it was that the EP alone had jurisdiction “In the lands of the Barbarians”, but now there is the novel claim that only the EP can grant (and also rescind) autocephaly.

Council of Nicea:
Εθη ἀρχαῖα κρατείτω. 
Mores antiqui obtineant.
The ancient ways shall prevail.

The sentiment of Nicea in Greek and Latin, translated into English.

Offline Mor Ephrem

  • A highly skilled and trained Freudian feminist slut
  • Section Moderator
  • Hypatos
  • *****
  • Posts: 35,890
  • I am the Provisional Supreme Church Authority
    • OrthodoxChristianity.net
  • Faith: Mercenary Freudianism
  • Jurisdiction: Texas Feminist Coptic
Re: Orthodox Bishop of Rome?
« Reply #41 on: August 21, 2019, 05:30:13 PM »
OC.NET is full of temptations, but in temptations we are enforced, remember about the thread "Temptation in the Desert: Rachel Weisz and the Undoing of Mor Ephrem". OC.NET helps in becoming unpassionate.

Quote
Oh you Greeks, you are all dumb!

An Athonite

Offline Alpha60

  • A thing of routers, hubs and switches, and dreary web GUIs
  • Technical Director
  • Taxiarches
  • ***
  • Posts: 5,604
  • OCNet Systems and Network Operations
  • Faith: Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Orthodox
Re: Orthodox Bishop of Rome?
« Reply #42 on: August 22, 2019, 09:35:06 PM »

Council of Nicea:
Εθη ἀρχαῖα κρατείτω. 
Mores antiqui obtineant.
The ancient ways shall prevail.

The sentiment of Nicea in Greek and Latin, translated into English.

Offline Alpha60

  • A thing of routers, hubs and switches, and dreary web GUIs
  • Technical Director
  • Taxiarches
  • ***
  • Posts: 5,604
  • OCNet Systems and Network Operations
  • Faith: Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Orthodox
Re: Orthodox Bishop of Rome?
« Reply #43 on: August 22, 2019, 09:37:09 PM »
Is the priest at St. Catherine's at the Russian Embassy married? I think there's a simple and obvious course of action here.

What?

If he is celibate, he could be elevated to the episcopate.

He's not.  I'm not sure what you were getting at.  Elevate an OCA priest to be a Bishop of Rome?

It was a joke; since people were talking about having an Orthodox bishop in Rome, I pointed out that there is an Orthodox priest with a parish at the Vatican. Perhaps I should have specified Russian Embassy to the Vatican. This might be where the confusion is.

I think chanceries of embassies to the Vatican revert to Italian territory if the embassy is withdrawn and extraterritoriality forfeit.

Council of Nicea:
Εθη ἀρχαῖα κρατείτω. 
Mores antiqui obtineant.
The ancient ways shall prevail.

The sentiment of Nicea in Greek and Latin, translated into English.


Offline Lepanto

  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 645
  • Faith: Roman Catholic
  • Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Munich and Freising
Re: Orthodox Bishop of Rome?
« Reply #45 on: August 23, 2019, 02:38:05 AM »
Bishop of Rome is the Catholic Pope.
Most obviously.That's the definition.
Sanctus Deus, Sanctus fortis, Sanctus immortalis, miserere nobis.