The Roman Orthodox Church?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Miserere_Mei
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
M

Miserere_Mei

Guest
I have a question for my Orthodox and Uniate friends; it presumes no great attempt at making a specific case for or against anything, it is a mere question:

Why was there never established an Orthodox See at Rome?

After Chalcedon and the headaches caused by Dioscorus, Eutyches, etc. at some point there began to develop an Orthodox See in Parallel (but significantly smaller) Than the local Coptic Mia/Mono Physites. The same is True of Antioch, Georgia, Ukraine, Jerusalem (With the Latin Patriarchates I believe).

SO why no Roman Orthodox Church? Do the ROmanians believe they hold this position, being virtually the only Latin People with an Orthodox Heritage???

I am by no means an especially Papal Supporter, I acknowledge the Primacy; I simply am curious about this.
 
Well first, could you avoid using the term “uniate” in the future. It is considered to be derogatory . Just giving you a heads up on that : p

I beleive the Orthodox would say that because the other sees you listed had a sizable amount of calcedonians present, they were able to keep the sees going. Such as Antioch has the Melkites (or king’s men) and likewise in Egypt as well. Notice that the Assyrian Church of the East has no Orthodox counterpart like the Miaphysite churches do. Also, on a purely speculative note, another point might be that the Empire controlled all those sees you mentioned at the time of the various schisms. So the Imerial laws would have enforced filling those sees left vacant by the miaphysites.
 
Yes, I understand that, but after 1024 (The official Date of the refusal to enter the Pope’s name in the Diptychs and the ACTUAL point of serious departure)

If the Orthodox view Rome as Heretical, why no Orthodox See?
 
There were no Orthodox clergy in the west to replace the “fallen away” Bishop of Rome, nor would it have been feasible since Rome had long been outside of Imperial control and the political consequences of attempting to do so could have ended up quite negatively. It would have ended up being more trouble then it was worth.
 
I see, well, I am up for any other explanations too. Do the Romanians consider themselves heirs to Western Orthodoxy in any particular way?

Was there ever any attempt at this?

Any other (name removed by moderator)ut appreciated.
 
Miserere_Mei said:
I see, well, I am up for any other explanations too. Do the Romanians consider themselves heirs to Western Orthodoxy in any particular way?

Was there ever any attempt at this?

Any other (name removed by moderator)ut appreciated.
Click to expand...
Romanians have always viewed themselves as Greek Orthodox because Romania was part of the Eastern Empire, however there has been and still is a strong pro-Catholic movement in Romania hense the relatively large “Romanian Church united with Rome” (aka Romanian Byzantine Catholic Church) and a Roman Catholic presence in the country.

A culture, espiecially in Eastern Europe can identify with a certain race (for Romanians it is the Latins - that is French and Italians) but maintain a fairly different religion at the same time, for example the Catholic Slovaks and Slovenes associating themselves with pan-Slavism which is/was strongly connected with Orthodox Russia.

During the fourth crusade Latin Catholics set up their own Patriarch of Constantinople only because they took the city and they considered both the imperial throne the prestigious patriarchal title theirs, if the situation was reversed and a Greek Orthodox army took Rome they may have set up their own anti-pope, the Germans actually did something like that in the same time period
 
There is a Western Rite of the Orthodox Church, not exactly a Roman Orthodox Church but a definitely Western liturgy of the Orthodox Church. “Uniatism” is not the sole property of the Catholic Church.
FDRLB
 
Volodymyr said:
Rumanian church is avtokefalnа since 1825 - they are not Greek Orthodox, are Rumanian Orthodox.

Тидосу - де є Нова Львов? Странна назва! Чому не Новий Львів чи инша назва по українськи?
Click to expand...
Я Русский a не говорю по-украинский, я живу в Бразилию 🙂
 
Formosus said:
There were no Orthodox clergy in the west to replace the “fallen away” Bishop of Rome, nor would it have been feasible since Rome had long been outside of Imperial control and the political consequences of attempting to do so could have ended up quite negatively. It would have ended up being more trouble then it was worth.
Click to expand...
Ok, but what about now? Secular politics seems to be a moot point nowadays.
 
Spirithound said:
Ok, but what about now? Secular politics seems to be a moot point nowadays.
Click to expand...
Another moot point is the apparent lack of interest or intent for the communion of national churches in Orthodoxy to establish a “Roman Orthodox Church”. If evidence is out there to support the notion that there are some mainstream enthusiasts or interested parties in such an endeavor, I certainly have yet to see it.
 
Miserere_Mei said:
Yes, I understand that, but after 1024 (The official Date of the refusal to enter the Pope’s name in the Diptychs and the ACTUAL point of serious departure)

If the Orthodox view Rome as Heretical, why no Orthodox See?
Click to expand...
My answer would be that there were no more troops to send in to enforce a “new patriarchate.”
 
What I have heard is that every Orthodox Church, with the exception of the Russian Church, has made an agreement with the Pope not to establish a Roman Orthodox See. The Russian Orthodox Church Outside Russia (ROCOR) at one time broke communion with the Church of Greece and ordained Greek bishops which started many of the Old Calender Greek Churches. These Old Calender Greek Churches are concidered schismatic by most Orthodox communions. Likewise an Orthodox Church in Rome would at least appear to the world as a schism and it would probably make all of Orthodoxy by association appear schismatic. I think that there are better ways to go!
 
Romanians have always viewed themselves as Greek Orthodox,but is ok for that!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top