The Byzantine Forum
Newest Members
arekeon27, Wenura Ravindu, Leeno, San Nicolas, Skanderbeg
5,845 Registered Users
Who's Online Now
3 members (San Nicolas, 2 invisible), 65 guests, and 36 robots.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Latest Photos
Holy Saturday from Kirkland Lake
Holy Saturday from Kirkland Lake
by Veronica.H, April 24
Byzantine Catholic Outreach of Iowa
Exterior of Holy Angels Byzantine Catholic Parish
Church of St Cyril of Turau & All Patron Saints of Belarus
Byzantine Nebraska
Byzantine Nebraska
by orthodoxsinner2, December 11
Forum Statistics
Forums26
Topics35,168
Posts414,964
Members5,845
Most Online3,380
Dec 29th, 2019
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Page 5 of 5 1 2 3 4 5
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 915
L
Member
Offline
Member
L
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 915
Hey guys,

Just wanted to comment briefly, since the Avignon papacy came up. The residence of the popes at Avignon in the 14th century actually began more by accident--it was the age and infirmity of Pope Clement V which led him to procrastinate on his intended journey to Rome, which ended up never happening. His successors lived at Avignon until 1377, but they were still bishops of Rome, not bishops of Avignon. Avignon was just a convenient place whence to telecommute; it is not by accident that this is the period in which the papal bureaucracy really matured and became professionalized. After Gregory XI returned to Rome and his successor Urban VI was elected there, it was a coalition of renegade cardinals that began the schism by electing an anti-pope, who took up residence at Avignon in 1378; this began the period of schism and confusion which endured until 1417. My only point is that the popes at Avignon did not cease to be bishops of ROME, either in their minds or in anyone else's; they were simply non-resident bishops of Rome.

DMD makes a lot of good points about how the Orthodox would view the election of an Eastern Cardinal as pope; in theory, should such an election occur, the new pope would become "Western" upon accepting his election to be the bishop of a Western see. Wasn't this the plot of a movie in the 1960s?

Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 26,272
Likes: 20
Member
Offline
Member
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 26,272
Likes: 20
Dear Talon,

I apologise for my lack of grace here.

What did you mean then? An Orthodox aquaintance of mine here actually reacted to your statement with, how shall I put it, a lot less grace than myself . . . wink

Alex

Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 26,272
Likes: 20
Member
Offline
Member
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 26,272
Likes: 20
Dear DMD,

Unlike myself, you EXUDE grace sir!

However, I've always wondered if there was a uniform view of the papacy by all Orthodox.

Alex

Joined: May 2009
Posts: 1,953
D
DMD Offline
Member
Offline
Member
D
Joined: May 2009
Posts: 1,953
There is no uniform Orthodox point of view on many things, except the things we say we agree upon them when we say we agree upon them. The rest of the time...not so much....

The inability to get a 'straight answer' out of us has confused western theologians for centuries.

Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 1,132
M
Member
Offline
Member
M
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 1,132
Dear brother Alex,

Having been in the Orthodox camp most of my life, I would venture the following to be views that all Orthodox share in common about the Roman papacy:
(1) The Roman Pope held the primacy in the undivided Church universal, and CAN do so in a reunited Church;
(2) His historical role included (a) having the authority to hear appeals from other Churches, (b) make decisions to settle those appeals based on the Canons, and (c) showing a pastoral care for all the Churches;
(3) For the Roman Pope to again hold such a place (and coincidentally, for reunion to occur) he must be Orthodox.

Blessings

Joined: May 2009
Posts: 1,953
D
DMD Offline
Member
Offline
Member
D
Joined: May 2009
Posts: 1,953
Originally Posted by mardukm
Dear brother Alex,

Having been in the Orthodox camp most of my life, I would venture the following to be views that all Orthodox share in common about the Roman papacy:
(1) The Roman Pope held the primacy in the undivided Church universal, and CAN do so in a reunited Church;
(2) His historical role included (a) having the authority to hear appeals from other Churches, (b) make decisions to settle those appeals based on the Canons, and (c) showing a pastoral care for all the Churches;
(3) For the Roman Pope to again hold such a place (and coincidentally, for reunion to occur) he must be Orthodox.

Blessings

That would sum it up, I agree. Yet we see that even in such a limited role - one with the Patriarch of Constantinople asserts devolved upon his see subsequent to the Great Schism - many Orthodox recoil as if Satan himself had entered the room. Just go on www.orthodoxchristianity.net [orthodoxchristianity.net] any time the secular press refers to the EP as the 'leader of Eastern Orthodoxy' and one will find a great deal of ill informed huffing and puffing.

Last edited by DMD; 05/13/14 03:59 PM.
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 1,471
Likes: 4
G
Member
Offline
Member
G
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 1,471
Likes: 4
Originally Posted by Orthodox Catholic
...There is NO way that Patriarch Svyatoslav will ever be Pope (of Rome)...And, Pavloosh and Griego - I think I'm older than both of you put together.

Listen to your elder here . . .

Alex

Okay. (fingers crossed behind back) wink

Joined: May 2009
Posts: 1,953
D
DMD Offline
Member
Offline
Member
D
Joined: May 2009
Posts: 1,953
The usual 'world is falling the press called the EP the leader of the Orthodox' crowd is having a meltdown there on oc.net today.

Yawn.

Joined: Apr 2014
Posts: 186
T
Member
Offline
Member
T
Joined: Apr 2014
Posts: 186
Originally Posted by Orthodox Catholic
Dear Talon,

I apologise for my lack of grace here.

What did you mean then? An Orthodox aquaintance of mine here actually reacted to your statement with, how shall I put it, a lot less grace than myself . . . wink

Alex

Alex,

Sorry for the delay. It's been a very busy week. I accept and appreciate the apology and offer "half" an apology of my own. Re-reading what I wrote, I could see how it may have readily been misinterpreted.

The phrase "You should check your facts" just struck me the wrong way - as if you were saying, "Hey, idiot!" Which, needless to say ruffled my feathers a bit.

What I was getting at was the ideal. Conceptually speaking, "If all were still as it should be with the See of Rome (in the eyes of Orthodoxy)", one might say, the See of Rome would hold primacy over all the others, even in Orthodox eyes. As subsequent posts have illustrated, the qualifier "most (or at least many) Orthodox eyes" should probably be inserted for aforementioned reasons.

I hope that helps to clarify.

Last edited by Talon; 05/18/14 10:25 PM.
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 26,272
Likes: 20
Member
Offline
Member
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 26,272
Likes: 20
Dear Talon

OK - and I would never call anyone that, FYI.

Yes, if Rome and Orthodoxy ever reconciled, then Rome would most definitely have its Primacy restored within the united Church.

Cheers, Alex

Joined: Mar 2014
Posts: 44
2
Member
OP Offline
Member
2
Joined: Mar 2014
Posts: 44
I am not being flippant when I say it would be nice (as one who is Catholic and hirsute) to see a bearded pontiff. (By that I don't mean a Fr. Seraphim Rose type beard!)

Last edited by 2lungsambassador; 05/24/14 11:02 AM.
Page 5 of 5 1 2 3 4 5

Link Copied to Clipboard
The Byzantine Forum provides message boards for discussions focusing on Eastern Christianity (though discussions of other topics are welcome). The views expressed herein are those of the participants and may or may not reflect the teachings of the Byzantine Catholic or any other Church. The Byzantine Forum and the www.byzcath.org site exist to help build up the Church but are unofficial, have no connection with any Church entity, and should not be looked to as a source for official information for any Church. All posts become property of byzcath.org. Contents copyright - 1996-2022 (Forum 1998-2022). All rights reserved.
Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.5