www.byzcath.org Forums General Discussions Town Hall Kiev Cathedral

Yes, they blew it with the Ukrainians as well.

Except when "special circumstances" and historical reality make the reality quite Gray. Old Rite Russians haven't forgotten. And ROCOR thinks your Patriarch has returned to her, not the other way around.

Actually, it was a voluntary decision, based on episcopal preference (completely dispensable). After all, Mar Ivanios was the head of a monastic community. He intended for the rest of his fellow bishops to join with him and did not ask for them to adopt celibacy, neither did Rome. Rome actually preferred the married clergy practice continue, according to correspondence. But that's neither here nor there, you just like to lob and run.

That's nice, the OO use the title for their own Patriarchs as well as the Roman one.

"Fact" of "historical interpretation", kind of like "Patriarch" of the UGCC, and "Catholicos" of the SMCC. All "facts of historical interpretation. By the way, why does your Patriarch of the self-proclaimed 'Orthodox in Catholic Communion not Oriental but of the Slavic persuasion' behave at times as though Canon 3 of the Second Ecumenical Council, Canons 9, 17, and 28 of the Fourth Ecumenical Council, and Canon 36 of the Quinisext Council applies to his See over the other Orthodox sees, including the "All Holiness" of your own 'Orthodox in Catholic Communion not Oriental but of the Slavic persuasion'?

I'm referring to the Orthodox Catholic Communion in union with Old Rome, and the Orthodox Catholic Communion of non-Hellenic Alexandria, Antioch, Armenia and All the East.

I've heard it said in circles of Orthodox Catholic Communion of non-Hellenic Alexandria, Antioch, Armenia and All the East that it is quite presumptuous of your Communion to use that title without their input, especially considering that as far as their concerned after Rome comes non-Hellenic Alexandria, then non-Hellenic Antioch, and then Jerusalem.

The priestless have become Eastern Protestants, quite forgotten. The priestly either have returned to the Mother Church, or joined the ranks of the Old Calendarists, who live in the gray seeing things in black and white.

Who is in the Orthodox diptychs as spelled out above, is as black and white as the post.

ROCOR can think what it likes as long as they commemorate and obey their Patriarch. Neither my Pope, nor my Patriarch, nor my Metropolitan had anything to do with it, none of us being Russian.

The Vatican's traditionalists thought all sorts of interesting things with their supreme pontiffs John Paul II and Benedict XVI, it will be interesting what they make of their present one.

You might ask your sui juris friends who have tried to dispense with it how "dispensable" it is.

No, I insist on standing and defending. The demand of the synod of the Vatican's bishop of the Middle East is not a secret, nor is its silence in response. The Vatican promises one thing, and demands another. History hasn't changed, and no matter how "voluntary" a Latinization, it remains a Latinization still.

The Vatican forbids its patriarchs in Alexandria to have that see's ancient title: Pope.

Only the Coptic OO and Roman EO have the title, in its original see, Alexandria.

That's a dream. Neither history nor the Codex Canonum Ecclesiarum Orientalis support it as a fact.

The title isn't covered in the Codex Canonum Ecclesiarum Orientalis. Under that, he remains "Major-Archbishop." Not patriarch.

a problem I see in shifting fact from fantasy.

I see facts confuse you. For one, I'm not Slavic of any persuasion. Care to put any specifics into your allegations?

those in communion with Bp. Siluan of Rome?
It's "Antioch and All the East." Not Armenian, its daughter.


Besides Mardukm, I don't know who you have "heard" that from.

I have no beef with the OO, nor they with me. But just to touch on your problem trying to cause a rift:
They have no patriarch of Jerusalem. It's just attached to their other churches, just as the case with the Vatican's communion.

There was no such thing as "non-Hellenic" Alexandria and Antioch: in Alexandria until 212 non-Greeks with few exceptions were not allowed to be citizens of Alexandria, and Antioch made a name for itself enforcing Hellenism-ever read Maccabees? The non-Chalcedonian/Syriac patriarch of Antioch never was in Antioch-I don't recall them having a Church there, and I don't know if they ever did.

Later on, Coptic adopted the Greek alphabet to write, and much of the Divine Liturgy "in Coptic" actually is in Greek-beyond the "Kyrie Eleison" of the "Latin" Mass. The Syriac, not so much.

The Pope of Alexandria was elected and joined the Patriarchs of Antioch and Jerusalem in signing the decrees of Chalcedon before the Egyptian bishops returned home, if you are complaining that we sided with your supreme pontiff St. Leo. But after all, he had agreed with Orthodoxy (as the inspection of his tome by the Council found), so we were bound to.

Other than their own primate and his sphere, the OO pretty much don't think of any other, either before or after. So the problem of where Constantinople (in the Armenian sphere for the OO) would come doesn't come up.

Oh, and for them, Old Rome isn't in the picture.

The problem with your line of thinking regarding the CCEO is that the documenbt itself is a framework for promulgating the particular law. For those who care about details: news.catholicate.net/NewsDetails.aspx?NewsType=News&ID=65

These laws refer to the Archbishop Major of the Malankara Syrian Catholic Church as Catholicos. Just as the constitution of the Universal Syriac Orthodox Church delineates the jurisdiction, rank, authority, and honor of the Patriarch and Catholicos of their Communion.

And since when do the OO not have a Patriarch of Jerusalem:
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armenian_Patriarchate_of_Jerusalem

They have at least one, perhaps more.

There's a difference between the titles of "Patriarch" and "Catholicos." The difference is that "Patriarch" is a term used in the Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches (CCEO) and "Catholicos" is not. Therefore, from the point of view of CCEO, the title of "Catholicos" is not controversial. It is simply an additional or alternative title for the head of the Syro-Malankara Catholic Church, with no canonical consequences.

It seems the OO have at least two Patriarchs of Jerusalem:
sites.google.com/site/copticorthodoxjerusalem/our-pastors

Perhaps I should have patriarchate.

The Armenian patriarch is the functional equivalent of the Latin Patriarch (who, like the Patriarch of Venice, is not "sui juris") or his Melkite coreligionist, a position ex officio as Patriarch of Antioch for the Vatican's Melkites. His elevation to a patriarch stems from two historic facts-the Syriac Orthodox Church, which had exercised jurisdiction (somewhat informally, to judge from the interactions with the Coptic Orthodox on the matter) until in early Ottoman times its poverty forced it to transfer its rights to the Armenians, who covered its debts etc., and the internationalization of the question of the Holy Sites and jurisdiction-his position was elevated from bishop to patriarch to be on a parity with the Patriarch of Jerusalem, i.e. the Roman Orthodox, and his namesakes and rivals (a similar set up occured in Constantinople, where the bishop represented all OO to the Porte). IOW, the Armeniain Patriarch of Jerusalem is not autocephalous or even "sui juris."

The OO have no basis on which to have a Patriarchate of Jerusalem in the true sense of the word: they have abandoned Ephesus II, which granted autocephaly, and do not accept officially Chalcedon, which confirmed Jerusalem's autocephaly. Hence how jurisdiction devolved to the Syriac Orthodox Church of Antioch (or at least its Syrian hinterland-the non-Chalcedonians never won over the Greek city itself) until yielding to the Armenians.

The OO could, of course, erect a Jerusalem Patriarchate, but given the progress in Alexandria and Antioch over Chalcedon, it becomes more doubtful. My time spent at the Armenian Patriarchate in Jerusalem with the Armenians gave me no indication elsewise.

I dare say, that the Syro-Malandkans involved see it differently. I know that the Orthodox ones do (I fully support the unification under an autocephalous Catholicos in India, btw).

In the EO, there was an issue and confirmation of the parity of the title "Catholicos" with the title "Patriarch." The Catholicos of Georgia optained a recognition of that fact on the part of Constantinople (the only one disputing it) in a Tomos, which can be seen in this video (at the end of the second half) on his recounting the dispute:



The Armenian Catholicos became autocephalous by default, as did the Nestorian one in a different (i.e. heretical) context.

Again, a move to create parity to preserve Coptic rights in the Holy Land, nothing more, as can be seen from this title (modeled after the (i.e. EO) Patriarch of Jerusalem and All Palestine) and the unusual method of appointment:

You will notice that the OO have no Holy Synod in Jerusalem, although they have bishops there.

If the lack of a Holy Synod proves your a point toward your direction, does it not prove against your position then that the UGCC, SMCC, and others are quite validly claiming "autonomy/sui iuris/self-governance" since they all maintain their Holy Synod in their respective locations.

The Armenians do maintain their Holy Synod in Jerusalem, and elect locally their head:
http://www.armenianchurchwd.com/new...-to-elect-new-patriarch-in-january-2013/

So does the "Ukrainian Orthodox Greek Catholic Church" of the Pidhirtsi Brothers.

The history of the dictates from their overlord in the Vatican proves otherwise. Met. (not Patriarch, as he is often called nowadays) Andrej Sheptytskyi had his ordinations ignored and his jurisdiction curtailed in his "homeland" by "the supreme authority in [his] church." He claimed jurisdiction over the "Greek Catholics" of the Soviet Union. The Soviets recognized him as such, but the Vatican did not.

The UOC-KP and UAOC maintain their synods and claim autocephaly, which they have. They just have it outside the Church, and not only are not in communion with each other (both maintaining their synods in the same location), but with anyone else. Absolute "autonomy/sui iuris/self-governance" status.

Btw, what do you mean by the "validity" of the UGCC and SMCC claiming "autonomy/sui iuris/self-governance"? The State Church of England (the Anglicans) claims as much, how valid such claims are is a different question from their "validity." Your supreme pontiff went over that a bit in Apostolicae Curae.

The Brotherhood of St. James (many of whose member serve elsewhere, not in Palestine) is not a Holy Synod of Jerusalem, as shown by the fact that Archbishop Aris Shirvanian, who called it, was elevated to Archbishop by the Catholiocos of Etchmiadzin and All Armenia, not the Armenian Patriarch of Jerusalem. The present Armenian Patriarch was elevated to archbishop and designated as Patriarchal Vicar by the Catholicos of Etchmiadzin as well, not his predecessor in Jerusalem.
http://www.armenianchurch.org/index.jsp?sid=1&id=4072&pid=85&lng=en

As for the local election, that has to do with the grants of the Muslim authorities. One Armenian Patriarch of Jerusalem, Eghiazar, taking advantage of this situation, in 1644 proclaimed himself head of the Armenians worldwide.

When Greek Orthodox Patriarch Irenios of Jerusalem was deposed by his own Synod, why did the EP or any other jurisdiction have to confirm? What's to confirm if he is wholly independent? It seems that all GO Patriarch are in some degree dependent on the EP, not much different than the other Catholic Communions outside of yours.

If the EP or any other autocephalous primate continued to commemorate Irenios, his deposition would have been problematic as he did not resign and the Sacred Canons-not the least Apostolic Canon 34-makes deposition of an autocephalous primate an unusual issue. Confirmation by the EP in this case comes in part from the vestiges of Ottoman rule-made in part from the attempt to depose the Patriarch of Jerusalem when he refused to anathemaize the Bulgarian exarchate in 1872, and when then archmandrite Meletios, in order to bind the Patriarchate of Jerusalem to the independent Greeks, tried to depose the Patriarch of Jerusalem. IIRC, Irenaios appealed to the EP per canons 9 and 17 of Chalcedon. When Meletios was deposed by the Church of Greece as the Metropolitan of Athens, or when Met.s Theodosios, Herman and Jonah were retired in the OCA, no confirmation was sought, nor needed anymore than any other autocephalous primate/Church.

Independent doesn't mean "free-for-all." The State Church of England is independent. It cannot be accepted into Orthodox communion, no matter how much it claims to be the Western Orthodox Church.

The UOC-KP and the UAOC are wholly independent, even of the Church.

The Patriarchate of Moscow was fully independent, but when Czar Peter I abolished the patriarchate to replace it with the barely canonical Holy Governing Synod, he sought (and got) approval from the other autocephalous Churches.

Yes, the Phanar and the Phanariot Hellenes would want us to think so, but no. In the link above, for instance, Catholicos Ilyas II recounts how the Phanar wanted to grant autocephaly to Georgia, but the Catholicos insisted that instead the EP recognize the autocephaly already had, since 486 from Antioch.

In the case of the Phanar's latest scheme, the Episcopal Assemblies "in the diaspora," his suffragan in Canada requested that what he sees as his territory be separated from the Assembly of Canonical Orthodox Bishops of North and Central America. The Phanar solicited approval for this among the other Churches, who have not given it, and hence Met. Sotirios and those with him remain in the ACOBoNaCA

By the very word Catholic ("according to the whole"), multiple parallel communions are ruled out.

The Vatican can depose any patriarch who submits to its jurisdiction at any time. Conversely, the OO Patriarchs are not beholden to any of these brother primates at all. Indeed, in many ways the OO Patriarchates are each their own little universe: read their constitutions, and one wouldn't know that they were in communion with anyone else.