Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

Orthodox Bishop of Rome


  • Please log in to reply
12 replies to this topic

#1 Algernon

Algernon

    Regular Poster

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 170 posts
  • Orthodox Christian Member

Posted 03 October 2014 - 10:29 PM

It my understanding that the Orthodox Church has not placed a bishop in Rome because of the hope that the RCC and EOC will one day reconcile. Is this true? 

 

Thanks,

A



#2 Kosta

Kosta

    Very Frequent Poster

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,517 posts

Posted 04 October 2014 - 01:30 AM

No, at the time it was historically impossible to install a rival bishop. In past times the emperor would simply forcefully remove him and install a hand picked successor as was the case with Pope Martin. Or better yet simply Google the term "byzantine Papacy" about how popes were approved to the office.

#3 Algernon

Algernon

    Regular Poster

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 170 posts
  • Orthodox Christian Member

Posted 04 October 2014 - 07:31 AM

"No, at the time it was historically impossible..."

 

I'm sure it was. But it's not now. Why isn't there an Orthodox bishop of Rome now?



#4 Phoebe K.

Phoebe K.

    Regular Poster

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 278 posts
  • Orthodox Christian Member

Posted 04 October 2014 - 09:15 AM

I am not shore why as in other places where the bishop went heretical in history you have ended up with two, one Orthodox one heretical, such as in Alexandria after the council of Chalcidon and after the crusades in Jerusalem.

 

It may well be a practical thing of their not being sufficient Orthodox people to support a bishop, The Romanian jurisdiction has a diocese of Italy with a corresponding bishop which is part of the group of diocese which serve western Europe.  I have noticed though that the diocese tend to be named regionally rather than to a specific city (where the cathedral is) with the more recently founded diocese in western Europe as they tend to cover one or more countries under a single bishop.



#5 Rdr Andreas

Rdr Andreas

    Very Frequent Poster

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,028 posts
  • Orthodox Christian Member

Posted 04 October 2014 - 10:40 AM

I can see that diplomatically, installing an Orthodox Bishop of Rome would seem something of a provocation. But which jurisdiction would do it? Both EP and MP have dialogue with the Roman Church and would not wish to create tension. Besides, there is an EP archdiocese of Italy though based in Venice. And as Phoebe says are there enough Orthodox Christians in Rome to support a diocese? The Russians have recently (2009) built a fine church, St Catherine's, in Rome which can be seen from the Vatican. It serves mostly the expat Russians in Rome.



#6 Kosta

Kosta

    Very Frequent Poster

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,517 posts

Posted 04 October 2014 - 06:45 PM

My comment was deleted for some reason, but to make it short and to the point:

The reason why there is no Orthodox bishop of Rome today is because there is no need of one. Its simply not in the best interests of anyone. The canonical rules would require that this new pope to occupy the first place, bumping down everyone else on the diptychs.

#7 Kosta

Kosta

    Very Frequent Poster

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,517 posts

Posted 04 October 2014 - 06:50 PM

I am not shore why as in other places where the bishop went heretical in history you have ended up with two, one Orthodox one heretical, such as in Alexandria after the council of Chalcidon and after the crusades in Jerusalem.
 
It may well be a practical thing of their not being sufficient Orthodox people to support a bishop, The Romanian jurisdiction has a diocese of Italy with a corresponding bishop which is part of the group of diocese which serve western Europe.  I have noticed though that the diocese tend to be named regionally rather than to a specific city (where the cathedral is) with the more recently founded diocese in western Europe as they tend to cover one or more countries under a single bishop.


It only happened when a sizeable portion of the flock did not accept the rule of the official bishop. The Latins installed a latin Patriarch from 1204-1274 in Constantinople. But when the byzantines recaptured their city it became geopolitically impossible to continue a Latin succession. Meaning he would have been chased out of the city or worse lynched. Likewise at the time installing a roman Orthodox Patriarch in the west simply meant the Franks would have rid him including any followers he may of had.

#8 Rdr Andreas

Rdr Andreas

    Very Frequent Poster

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,028 posts
  • Orthodox Christian Member

Posted 04 October 2014 - 09:00 PM

In the time when the west was Orthodox under the Pope of Rome, there was that one jurisdiction in western Europe. Since the falling away of Rome from Orthodoxy, there has been no Orthodox jurisdiction of the west. What we have had in recent times is a multiplicity of jurisdictions in the west. If there were to be an Orthodox Bishop of Rome, he would not be like the Popes of Orthodox times since there is no jurisdiction of western Europe. An Orthodox Bishop of Rome would have to be appointed from some eastern jurisdiction and those Orthodox Christians in the west of a different jurisdiction would not owe allegiance to him. I suppose that in order to revive the old Orthodox jurisdiction of Rome, the entire Church would have to devise a way to revive it and an existing Orthodox bishop would have to be appointed and then assume the role. All other jurisdictions would have to agree that only the newly revived Roman jurisdiction would exist in the west. Otherwise, what's the point?



#9 Kosta

Kosta

    Very Frequent Poster

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,517 posts

Posted 04 October 2014 - 10:12 PM

Andreas,

That's the thing, (among other factors). It benefits none of the autocephalous churches to revive the roman see. Why would the EP or MP want that? There are canonical implications.

Secondly there really is no latin mass for an Orthodox pope to head. The Latin Western tradition is basically defunct. The Orthodox of western europe are basically ex- pats all following the byzantine rite. Thirdly the pentarchy is an obselete model. Autocephaly would suggest installing an "archbishop of Rome and all of Italy", but no longer maintains having a patriarch presiding over such a diverse geographical region.

Edited by Kosta, 04 October 2014 - 10:13 PM.


#10 Phoebe K.

Phoebe K.

    Regular Poster

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 278 posts
  • Orthodox Christian Member

Posted 04 October 2014 - 10:42 PM

Reader Andreas has a good point to restore the see of Rome in a way all Orthodox would recognize would take a lot of work and would probably be not much short of a mirical.  There is also little likelihood while some of the Patriarchs are making positive overtones to the Catholic Church and the Ecumenical movement, whatever we happen to think of such things while such things are happening no one will want to rock the boat.

 

Considering the issues which happened in america when they tried to make a single jurisdiction and only created another competing one.  

 

There has been discussion of a single jurisdiction for Great Britain and although this has lead to a synod of the canonical bishops in Great Britain it would probably take a bishop of the Stature of St Augustine of Canterbury or St Theodore of Canterbury to actually unite all the jurisdictions as one Church.

 

Such a restoration of the western jurisdiction or organisation of jurisdictions in western Europe (and the rest of the world) is properly a discussion for the next pan orthodox council, among many other things.  It would require a single or multiple jurisdictions to be set up at the same time to cover western europe for it to work rather than peace-meal and with universal agreement or it will be a mess.

 

Kosta, there still exists Orthodox Latin services in the rights persevered within academia such as the Sarum Right which is a pree scisam originating liturgy from Sulsbury in the UK, there is also a lot which can be gleaned about the liturgical practice from the lives of saints and histories which survive from the church before 1054.  I also know of one Orthodox Priest who uses western vestments, there are a number who preserve or have rediscovered the western tradition from before the schisam, it is just not very well known that it happens.

 

The western tradition was also far lager then the Latin right practices, they never really tamed the British Church as was shown that even at the Reformation the newly formed independent Anglican church could not contain the full extent of the diversity found in Scotland and Ireland.  The Catholic Church in wales in the high middle ages was also very much a law onto itself almost internally ignoring what was said by Canterbury.  St Bede also recorders the difficulties had by the see of Rome in trying to gain control over the church in Britain in the 6th Century, especially the monastic tradition which owed far more to the fathers of the Egyptian desert than of the rest of western Europe.  Of course the whole church uses the liturgy of one of the early popes for the presanctifed in lent.

 

Also though there is a dominance of ex-pats in some jurisdictions there is an increasing number of converts both first generation and more recently young people who have grown up in the Church, but as children of converts in the church, or children of ex-pats who if they stay Orthodox do not have such an exclusive view of the faith.  This is more noticeable in some jurisdictions than others, mostly the parishes which manage to keep the children involved and have not lost their teens, it is in these parishes where nationality is not as important as faith where the church is growing and there is involvement in pan Orthodox fellowships.



#11 Kosta

Kosta

    Very Frequent Poster

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,517 posts

Posted 04 October 2014 - 11:56 PM


Considering the issues which happened in america when they tried to make a single jurisdiction and only created another competing one.

There has been discussion of a single jurisdiction for Great Britain and although this has lead to a synod of the canonical bishops in Great Britain it would probably take a bishop of the Stature of St Augustine of Canterbury or St Theodore of Canterbury to actually unite all the jurisdictions as one Church..

But that's the whole point. A single british jurisdiction is the antithesis of having a patriarch of Rome. In America, those that most yearn for an autocephalous Church speak of letting go of the "old world patriarchs". In other words everyone is seeking episcopal autonomy within their defined territories, they are not yearning for the recreation of an Orthodox caliphate. This means no reason in filling the hole created by the schism.

But you brought up something I'm interested to hear about. Are those that are talking about creating a single Orthodox synod in Britain mean they want to revive the historic archbishopric of Canterbury? Has anyone ever said it's time to fill the vacant throne of Canterbury?

Edited by Kosta, 04 October 2014 - 11:59 PM.


#12 Rdr Andreas

Rdr Andreas

    Very Frequent Poster

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,028 posts
  • Orthodox Christian Member

Posted 05 October 2014 - 06:59 AM

I see very little chance of a single jurisdiction within Britain. The Patriarchate of Antioch has just set up an archdiocese of the 'British Isles and Ireland' which therefore adds yet another to the list here, and it has established new jurisdictions in the rest of Europe. It is true, as Phoebe says, that the numbers of Orthodox English people in England are growing but they are still very few and are vastly outnumbered by Cypriots, Greeks, and now Russians. A single jurisdiction here is unlikely: the various jurisdictions here use the two differing calendars for one thing. And please let us not revive the debate about western liturgy! But the question was about reviving the Patriarchate of Rome and for the reasons given, it's a non-starter.



#13 Michał

Michał

    Conversationalist

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 111 posts
  • Orthodox Christian Member

Posted 05 October 2014 - 11:53 AM

 The reason why there is no Orthodox bishop of Rome today is because there is no need of one. Its simply not in the best interests of anyone. The canonical rules would require that this new pope to occupy the first place, bumping down everyone else on the diptychs.


This.
 

 The Latins installed a latin Patriarch from 1204-1274 in Constantinople. But when the byzantines recaptured their city it became geopolitically impossible to continue a Latin succession. 

 

That's not true. Last Latin Patriarch of Constantinople died in 1964.






0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users