J
John_of_Patmos
Guest
I think the Church of Cyprus is 5th. Then again, I am citing Wikipedia:shrug:
- Status
B
ByzCathCantor
Guest
Why would that be assumed? Could just as easily be an Orthodox guest, no?
Now, if you said they stolled up for communion and stuck out their hands to receive, that assumption would certainly be validated.
H
Hesychios
Guest
No.
That happens too sometimes.Now, if you said they strolled up for communion and stuck out their hands to receive, that assumption would certainly be validated.
B
ByzCathCantor
Guest
No.
Now, if you said they stolled up for communion and stuck out their hands to receive, that assumption would certainly be validated.
We’ll, I’m not sure what you were driving at or what you may have observed, but you did say EC, so I assumed you meant Eastern Catholic. Did you perhaps mean EO (Eastern Orthodox)?
When it is clear we have many guests in church, our priest will always make an appropriate announcement. As Latin Catholics are always welcome to receive, I don’t know why the assumption would be even necessary. And if the stranger were Eastern Orthodox, it would not matter from our side, as they are now openly welcome to receive. Of course, we recognize they may not be able to do so in obedience to their own Church’s standards, but they are welcome nonetheless.
P.S. You are always welcome in our church!
N
Nine_Two
Guest
When I look on Wikipedia it says Cyprus is 10th and Russia is 5th. Not sure which page you’re looking at though. It isn’t unusual for Wikipedia to condradict itself on two different pages.
J
John_of_Patmos
Guest
From EO Church Organization page, WikipediaWhen I look on Wikipedia it says Cyprus is 10th and Russia is 5th. Not sure which page you’re looking at though. It isn’t unusual for Wikipedia to condradict itself on two different pages.
- The Church of Constantinople, under the Ecumenical Patriarch
- The Church of Alexandria
- The Church of Antioch
- The Church of Jerusalem
- The Church of Cyprus (est. 431)
- The Church of Georgia (est. 486)
- The Orthodox Church of Mount Sinai (est 527)*[clarification needed]
- The Church of Bulgaria (est. 919)
- The Church of Serbia (est. 1219)
- The Church of Russia (est. 1448)
- The Church of Greece (est. 1833)
- The Church of Romania (est. 1872)
- The Church of Albania (est. 1922)
- The Church of Poland (est. 1924)
- The Church of Czech and Slovak lands (est. 1951)
- The Orthodox Church in America* (est. 1970)
Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople
Patriarchate of Alexandria
Patriarchate of Antioch
Patriarchate of Jerusalem
Patriarchate of Moscow
Patriarchate of Serbia
Patriarchate of Romania
Patriarchate of Bulgaria
Patriarchate of Georgia
Church of Cyprus
Church of Greece
Church of Poland
Church of Albania
Church of the Czech Lands and Slovakia
Orthodox Church in America
You’re Orthodox. I’ll take your word for it.
Peace:byzsoc:
N
Nine_Two
Guest
Actually on that Wiki page you’re looking at it notes that it is ranking them in order of year of creation. Below it notes that the list is the four ancient, followed by the five junior, though without putting them in order.From EO Church Organization page, Wikipedia
But on OrthodoxWiki:
- The Church of Constantinople, under the Ecumenical Patriarch
- The Church of Alexandria
- The Church of Antioch
- The Church of Jerusalem
- The Church of Cyprus (est. 431)
- The Church of Georgia (est. 486)
- The Orthodox Church of Mount Sinai (est 527)*[clarification needed]
- The Church of Bulgaria (est. 919)
- The Church of Serbia (est. 1219)
- The Church of Russia (est. 1448)
- The Church of Greece (est. 1833)
- The Church of Romania (est. 1872)
- The Church of Albania (est. 1922)
- The Church of Poland (est. 1924)
- The Church of Czech and Slovak lands (est. 1951)
- The Orthodox Church in America* (est. 1970)
Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople
Patriarchate of Alexandria
Patriarchate of Antioch
Patriarchate of Jerusalem
Patriarchate of Moscow
Patriarchate of Serbia
Patriarchate of Romania
Patriarchate of Bulgaria
Patriarchate of Georgia
Church of Cyprus
Church of Greece
Church of Poland
Church of Albania
Church of the Czech Lands and Slovakia
Orthodox Church in America
You’re Orthodox. I’ll take your word for it.
Peace:byzsoc:
The Wikipedia page on the “Eastern Orthodox Church” has them in the same order as Orthodox Wiki.
F
Fone_Bone_2001
Guest
I’m not sure how you got to that particular wikipedia page, but the article on the Eastern Orthodox Church has a list that far more closely corresponds to the order given on OrthodoxWiki.From EO Church Organization page, Wikipedia
But on OrthodoxWiki:
- The Church of Constantinople, under the Ecumenical Patriarch
- The Church of Alexandria
- The Church of Antioch
- The Church of Jerusalem
- The Church of Cyprus (est. 431)
- The Church of Georgia (est. 486)
- The Orthodox Church of Mount Sinai (est 527)*[clarification needed]
- The Church of Bulgaria (est. 919)
- The Church of Serbia (est. 1219)
- The Church of Russia (est. 1448)
- The Church of Greece (est. 1833)
- The Church of Romania (est. 1872)
- The Church of Albania (est. 1922)
- The Church of Poland (est. 1924)
- The Church of Czech and Slovak lands (est. 1951)
- The Orthodox Church in America* (est. 1970)
Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople
Patriarchate of Alexandria
Patriarchate of Antioch
Patriarchate of Jerusalem
Patriarchate of Moscow
Patriarchate of Serbia
Patriarchate of Romania
Patriarchate of Bulgaria
Patriarchate of Georgia
Church of Cyprus
Church of Greece
Church of Poland
Church of Albania
Church of the Czech Lands and Slovakia
Orthodox Church in America
You’re Orthodox. I’ll take your word for it.
Peace:byzsoc:
On that wikipedia page, as on OrthodoxWiki, the Orthodox Church of Russia is fifth in precedence, behind only the four historic patriarchates of Jerusalem (4th), Antioch (3rd), Alexandria (2nd), and Constantinople, the Ecumenical Patriarchate (1st).
J
John_of_Patmos
Guest
NO!!! I made a poster with the Orthodox patriarchs in what I thought was the order of precedence.:crying:
Can some one explain why Russia is number 5?
Also, in a reunited scenario, would Rome be #1, instead of the EP?
H
Hesychios
Guest
Yes, I know, I was a member once.
N
Nine_Two
Guest
Based on the pre-eminence of the Russian Empire when all the rest were weak or non-existant.
As for Rome, while I don’t think that should be a natural given, I think it is a point that the Orthodox Churches should be willing to concede if it is asked of us.
J
John_of_Patmos
Guest
Awesome! From the Orthodox side, what do you think us Catholics would have to do, as far as governing goes? (Other things welcome too)
H
Hesychios
Guest
You didn’t ask me, but I would say to repudiate the dogma of Papal universal jurisdiction is an essential beginning, because true communion between churches is a mutual act.
No one really expects that to happen, so prospects for reconciliation are slim from the git-go.
Beyond that there is the usual cast of theological characters that have been done to death here, and I have my own personal reservations about some aspects of Latin spirituality which I find disturbing and I think there are plenty of other Orthodox who feel the same way. Best not to discuss them here, just know that they exist.
Absolutely though, Papal universal jurisdiction is considered a false teaching from the Orthodox perspective because it is claimed to be dogmatic, and it is a major block to communion. If it were merely a theological opinion held personally by some people it might get a pass, but not as a dogma.
F
Fone_Bone_2001
Guest
I’m not Orthodox, but I’m confident the answer is yes. Most Orthodox I’ve talked to make a careful distinction between Roman primacy and Roman supremacy, claiming to reject the latter but accept the former.
I’m confident that most Orthodox are of the opinion that in a reunited church, the canonical default would be for precedence to be given to the Church of Rome.
Understood according to Marduk’s explanation, the pope’s “universal jurisdiction” does not entitle him to exercise authority whenever and wherever he wants but has verifiable limits.
I am convinced based on what they have written that all recent popes (including ones before my lifetime) share, at least in theory, this interpretation.
Reworking the way the pope’s supreme authority works and decentralizing papal authority in the Catholic Church is certainly compatible with the aforementioned proper understanding, and I fully believe that the Catholic bishops and the Roman Pontiff would not at all be shy about making significant changes for the sake of a reunited church.
You probably disagree, but Alexander Roman in another thread unearthed this quote:
I know that Orthodoxy is not a monolithic whole, and that individual Orthodox often differ about certain matters. It seems that some are against union for the other reasons you allude to (that we won’t go into in this thread), and that they would be perfectly willing to accept union according to Marduk’s so-called “High Petrine” view if they were convinced that Rome were orthodox in other ways.
H
Hesychios
Guest
It might be possible, but you would have to understand that for Orthodox it would be something like the thought of vesting Martin Luther as the Pope would be to Roman Catholics.
There are limits to the authority of all clerics. Verifiable limits or not, there is no way to remove a bad Pope, so the theory of ‘limits’ as a way of making a false teaching palatable is meaningless on a practical level as well as a moral one.
It is one opinion of many, and I am not fixed either way at present. If the Pope and his church were actually Orthodox believing Christians the traditional order of precedence might be accorded to it, but so far it does not deserve it.
Now you have to understand that the professor used terminology as an Orthodox Christian, he wasn’t referring to what Roman Catholics understand but what Orthodox understand as the primacy among patriarchs. Within his own church the bishop of Rome is in a class by himself, and supreme by his own definitions. That would have to change, as you already know.
This means not only the practical applications, but the claims for that office would have to be brought back into line with the truth.
The reality in the Roman Catholic church is there is no ‘high’ Petrine anything in theory nor practice. So there is no point in even discussing it.
What you have is an ultramontanist faction which has put a lock on the Papacy and no one, no matter what they might think about it privately in this day and age can change that because the ultramontanists have made what should have been church discipline into dogma. The Roman Catholic church never admits to it’s mistakes. The day your church can agree that the dogmas should be repudiated is the day that hope for Christian reconciliation will rise like a flower in spring.
J
John_of_Patmos
Guest
I also believe part of the Great Schism is a numbers game. ie Four eastern bishops vs one western one. I just honestly don’t get why 1000 years later, we are still fighting. Some remain extremely picky as to what the Western Church does, even to the point claiming that we cannot consume the Reserved Eucharist during mass. We won’t get far if this keeps up.
Three questions:
Three questions:
- Would the East, in a reconciled church, allow the West to be liturgically Western (I know many Orthodox claim that all liturgy must be Byzantine)
- For an EC: I know that the RCC states that the HS proceeds from the Father and the Son. Does the ECC teach through the Son or filioque. Are these the same? Bear with me. I’m not the brightest with the Filioque.
- Are Orthodox bothered by the principle of Petrine Supremecy? I honestly doubt that the Pope would be interfering in the Eastern Churches with patriarchs (which, in a reunited church, most eastern Churches would have a patriarch). The whole idea of Petrine Supremecy is to stop heresy within the church, not to tell other bishops what to do, just because he can. For example, I don’t think the Pope is that involved in the Coptic CC. Marduk would know.
J
John_of_Patmos
Guest
We haven’t had a bad pope in a long time…We probably won’t have one again. I really believe the bad pope phenominon was a middle ages thing. Plus, may I mention that with Europe morally collapsing, we have no need in fighting aech other…
J
John_of_Patmos
Guest
Rome historically always had the honor of being first.
Also: Consider this theoretic. Peter goes to Antioch. He never goes to Rome. Therefore, the East has the Pope. Hit 1054, and the West would have broken away. I honestly think that whichever side didn’t have the pope would have broken away.
H
Hesychios
Guest
Yes, it did.
However it is not in the Orthodox church anymore and is regarded as heretical.
Under Orthodox ecclesiology the church of Rome was first in order of precedence because it deserved it at the time. It is not considered to deserve it now, it stumbled and none of it’s bishops are Orthodox.
Assuming the church could return to Orthodoxy some people feel that this ancient precedence could be restored, some are not convinced.
Let me put another example to you, it’s not a good analogy but it might give to the sense for this:
If the Anglican communion were to become Catholic which church would have precedence within England … the Archbishop of Canterbury or the Archbishop of Westminster?
Better yet, should Cardinal Nichols be placed under the supervision of Dr Rowan Williams if the provinces merged? Does Canterbury deserve to be first?
Rome is to Orthodox something like the See of Canterbury is to English Catholics.
H
Hesychios
Guest
The Orthodox didn’t ‘break away’ from anything.
A very strong argument can be made that Rome fell because of it’s new notions of papacy. The fact that the Cardinals did their daring and outrageous act at a point in time when there was no Pope and the western church had embarked on a reformation campaign is no coincidence.
- Status