Isn’t there Ukraine too? Also it is worth to note that some autonomous Churches are not Patriarchates but are nevertheless self-governing.9 actually: Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch, Jerusalem, Moscow, Georgia, Serbia, Romania, and Bulgaria.
And there are also those Titular “Patriarchs”, Latin Patriarchs… but then again it makes no sense to count them in this context since they are just local Bishops with fancy titles.The Catholic Church has 6 Eastern Patriarchs. Seven if you count, which most Eastern Catholics do, the Major Archbishop of the UGCC. Eight total if you include the Pope of Rome.
No - the primate of Ukraine is titled Metropolitan. Not all autocephalous churches are led by a patriarch. A handful are led by bishops titled as either Archbishop or Metropolitan, depending on if they follow a more Greek or Slavic style.Isn’t there Ukraine too? Also it is worth to note that some autonomous Churches are not Patriarchates but are nevertheless self-governing.
I see. Thank you. I got a bit confused because his title is still “His Beatitude” and while Schismatic, group of Ukrainians who split from Russia did actually claim to be Patriarchate. Oh well, good to know.No - the primate of Ukraine is titled Metropolitan. Not all autocephalous churches are led by a patriarch. A handful are led by bishops titled as either Archbishop or Metropolitan, depending on if they follow a more Greek or Slavic style.
I see. What does this relationship entail? Also is Ukraine autocephalous or autonomous? I was under impression only Patriarchs head autocephalous Churches but then again that was simply impression.Point of clarification - an autonomous church is only “mostly” independent, it still has some specific relationship to its mother church. Autocephalous is the term for fully independent churches.
By that logic, there is no point in having a successor to St Peter. In fact, by that logic there is no point in Christ having picked one Peter, on the contrary he might aswell have picked three Peters or three equal apostles to be head of the church instead of one, thereby having three patriarchs with equal authority succeeding them. By this understanding it is unnecessary that after Christ’s death that he will have a Vicar representing him as Shepherd of the World. This understanding has led to the unnecessary division which exists today.We acknowledge that the Bishop of Rome is the successor of St Peter along with the Patriarchs of Anioch and Alexandria, the other Petrine Sees. We do not accept that the Roman Pontiff has supreme and immediate jurisdiction over the whole Church.
Most typically, the primate of an autonomous church is confirmed by its mother church. Likewise, they’ll receive their consecrated chrism oil as well.I see. What does this relationship entail? Also is Ukraine autocephalous or autonomous? I was under impression only Patriarchs head autocephalous Churches but then again that was simply impression.
Oh, I meant one recently granted autocephaly by Constantinople.Which church in Ukraine? The autonomous church that is part of the Moscow patriarchate or the church recently granted autocephaly by Constantinople?
You can know by the light of natural reason as well as by history. When Cardinal Newman converted he said “to be deep in history is to cease being Protestant”. He could’ve become orthodox after studying history but he did not. That would’ve been a similar structure to to the high Anglicanism he was in before. After all Anglicanism had the intention of “purifying the church” and making it more like the original one (or so they thought by having “no popery”). He was already in a synodical church and he knew this was not how the original church founded by Christ would run.How can I know I am in the right half of the split?
Constantinople did indeed grant them Autocephaly; only Alexandria and Greece have given recognition. Complicating matters, Constantinople mandated that, unlike other autocephalous churches, the new Ukrainian church must receive its chrism oil from Constantinople as well as defer to Constantinople on major issues. In other words they’re not actually independent.Oh, I meant one recently granted autocephaly by Constantinople.
That doesn’t even vaguely follow; you are saying that primacy must mean absolute jurisdiction in all things, or it is meaningless.By that logic, there is no point in having a successor to St Peter. In fact, by that logic there is no point in Christ having picked one Peter, on the contrary he might aswell have picked three Peters or three equal apostles to be head of the church instead of one, thereby having three patriarchs with equal authority succeeding them.
It follows if the orthodox take the position that St Peter (one person) had absolute jurisdiction in all things. If they do not take that view then it does not follow.That doesn’t even vaguely follow; you are saying that primacy must mean absolute jurisdiction in all things, or it is meaningless.
There is different aspect to that. Different things Catholic Church says about jurisdiction of Pope:That doesn’t even vaguely follow; you are saying that primacy must mean absolute jurisdiction in all things, or it is meaningless.
I think that’s in the “said no Orthodox, ever” category . . .It follows if the orthodox take the position that St Peter (one person) had absolute jurisdiction in all things.
In that case, I don’t know why they bother emphasizing that they think other Bishops are successors to St Peter if St Peter is not even considered Supreme anyway in Orthodoxy.I think that’s in the “said no Orthodox, ever” category .
This is the very reason for the primacy–to guarantee the unity of the Church and that it can be easily recognized. One See, that of Rome, is fixed like a rock, always within the true Church. Without it, it would be impossible to discern the true Church after a pure schism (communion is broken, but a common faith is maintained). Both would have equal claims.I know nothing of Orthodoxy besides that it used to be one with Catholicism. How can I know I am in the right half of the split?
True and let us not forget that there are Oriental Orthodox churches too, independent of each other and of the EO national churches.the EO Churches simply are not one as we profess in the Creed.
Yes, however Oriental Orthodox Churches do not have communion problems like Eastern Orthodox Churches do. Concept of primacy is somewhat strong with them. There does not seem to be possibility of non-transitive communion (A=B=C while A =/= C).True and let us not forget that there are Oriental Orthodox churches too, independent of each other and of the EO national churches.
Only the Catholic Church has all four marks in the Creed.
Is the Catholic Church ONE in belief or are there differences in:the EO Churches simply are not one as we profess in the Creed.
It’s fun to see people confuse nouns and adjectives. In the creed, “Catholic” is used to state the church is “full” or “whole”Even the Orthodox say it in their creed.
The official name of the Orthodox church is the Orthodox Catholic church, is it not?It’s fun to see people confuse nouns and adjectives. In the creed, “Catholic” is used to state the church is “full” or “whole”