Patriarchal Jurisdiction

[dvdjs]

Why don’t you answer my question?

 

[Diak]

Whereas the Ukraine has two large stable Orthodox Churches; the Canonical Eastern Orthodox Communion affiliated Ukrainian Orthodox Church (Moscow Patriarchate), and the schismatic Ukrainian Orthodox Church Kyiv Patriarchate. Plus the lesser schismatic Orthodox churches.

Do you believe the KP to be “schismatic”? If so, why? The Catholic Churches, whether the UGCC or the Latin Church, have made no such determination officially.

 

[Diak]

I support SELF-establishment. But would you agree that the only authority that can OFFICIALLY RECOGNIZE such an establishment outside of that jurisdiction is an Ecumenical Council? What I mean is that for OTHER particular Churches to accept or recognize the self-establishment, an Ecumenical Council is required. Perhaps the Pope understands this to be the case. So it is not as if he is withholding recognition - it is simply that he knows such recognition can only come about in the extraordinary forum of an Ecumenical Council. …

Not necessarily. In fact that’s not been the case in Orthodoxy as they have had no Ecumenical Council since the Seventh. Several national Patriarchal churches were not considered “canonical” and were later accepted piecemeal local church by local church - sometimes after decades or centuries being considered “uncanonical” and there is no question now that they are indeed Patriarchal churches.

 

[malphono]

Not necessarily. In fact that’s not been the case in Orthodoxy as they have had no Ecumenical Council since the Seventh. Several national Patriarchal churches were not considered “canonical” and were later accepted piecemeal local church by local church - sometimes after decades or centuries being considered “uncanonical” and there is no question now that they are indeed Patriarchal churches.

Ah yes. Seems to me that’s a good example of autocephaly at its worst.

 

[Diak]

Ah yes. Seems to me that’s a good example of autocephaly at its worst.

At one time there was a Pope of Rome and of Avignon as well. Autocephaly at its worst?

Come to think of it, none of the Patriarchates of the Pentarchy (including Rome) were ever formally established by any acta of an Ecumenical Council. In every case there was first the realization of the Patriarchate at the level of the particular Church within the Patriarchate before outside recognition. Autocephaly at its worst?

Even well into the post-Trent era Rome had little to do with the direct establishment of Latin dioceses or the election of bishops. The newly consecrated bishops were elected (or just as often appointed by the civil authority), sent in a statement of communion and their profession of faith was witnessed by others in good standing. Autocephaly at its worst?

 

[malphono]

At one time there was a Pope of Rome and of Avignon as well. Autocephaly at its worst?

Come to think of it, none of the Patriarchates of the Pentarchy (including Rome) were ever formally established by any acta of an Ecumenical Council. In every case there was first the realization of the Patriarchate at the level of the particular Church within the Patriarchate before outside recognition. Autocephaly at its worst?

Even well into the post-Trent era Rome had little to do with the direct establishment of Latin dioceses or the election of bishops. The newly consecrated bishops were elected (or just as often appointed by the civil authority), sent in a statement of communion and their profession of faith was witnessed by others in good standing. Autocephaly at its worst?

Yes the Pentarchy. And only the Pentarchy.

In any case, you know full well what I meant. Twist it as you wish. Doesn’t change things.

 

[Diak]

Yes the Pentarchy. And only the Pentarchy.

In any case, you know full well what I meant. Twist it as you wish. Doesn’t change things.

If anything I have said was taken as uncharitable, I ask forgiveness.

I hope asking for clarification and pointing out historical facts or inaccuracy is not taken as “twisting”, as that was certainly not my meaning to do so. It is often dangerous in short messages in electronic media to assume others really “know full well what I meant”.

And if “only the Pentarchy”, then that is the ecclesiastical basis for the entire Apostolic Church.

 

[malphono]

If anything I have said was taken as uncharitable, I ask forgiveness.

I hope asking for clarification and pointing out historical facts or inaccuracy is not taken as “twisting”, as that was certainly not my meaning to do so. It is often dangerous in short messages in electronic media to assume others really “know full well what I meant”.

No problem really. Matter forgotten.

Diak:

And if “only the Pentarchy”, then that is the ecclesiastical basis for the entire Apostolic Church.

Yes. For the purpose at hand, I believe it is.

 

[mardukm]

Dearest Father Dcn Diak (I’ve only very recently realized you are a Father Dcn - please forgive me for not properly addressing you in past posts ),

Not necessarily. In fact that’s not been the case in Orthodoxy as they have had no Ecumenical Council since the Seventh. Several national Patriarchal churches were not considered “canonical” and were later accepted piecemeal local church by local church - sometimes after decades or centuries being considered “uncanonical” and there is no question now that they are indeed Patriarchal churches.

I believe I addressed this in a prior post. From my understanding (and belief), new jursidictional patriarchates may be established by a Patriarch himself on the condition that the new patriarchate was originally within his jurisdictional territory, or in territory adjudged by that Patriarch as wthin his missionary territory. I think all new Patriarchates within Eastern Orthodoxy have met this criterion, so I don’t see why an Ecumenical Council would be involved in their establishments. Under the given condition, only the Patriarch’s recognition is necessary for the REST of the Church (i.e., the Church universal) to recognize that NEW patriarchate.

On the other hand, while self-recognition is valid, only an Ecumenical Council (or a consensus among Patriarchs) can grant UNIVERSAL recognition (1) if a Patriarch/head bishop challenges the establishment of the new jurisdiction within his territory and the new jurisdiction challenges the Patriarch/head bishop’s decision and/or (2) if the new jurisdiction does not have a Patriarchal head in the first place.

Comments?

Humbly,
Marduk

 

[Aramis]

At least, in the Orthodox world, there is a further method of building universal acceptance: each of the non-patriarchal churches recognizes, and the patriarchal churches will do likewise.

Much the same as with autocephaly. There were, as of last year, still canonical orthodox who only acknowledged the OCA as autnonomous, not autocephalic.

 

[mardukm]

At least, in the Orthodox world, there is a further method of building universal acceptance: each of the non-patriarchal churches recognizes, and the patriarchal churches will do likewise.

I’m confident this is the case as well within the Catholic Church. However, it does not seem our hierarchs are as nationalistic as the Eastern Orthodox are wont to be, so there is less (MUCH less) wrangling about jurisdiction.

Much the same as with autocephaly. There were, as of last year, still canonical orthodox who only acknowledged the OCA as autnonomous, not autocephalic.

I don’t know why autocephaly is so cherished among the Eastern Orthodox. It might (rather, more than likely) have something to do with nationalism, jingoism, or [someone else called it something else one time]. I have seen the principle of autonomy work quite well within the Coptic Church. I have seen moves for autocephaly only when that local Church has been infected with nationalistic interests, a mindset that I honestly believe has no place in the Church of Christ.

Blessings,
Marduk