www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West Orthodoxy and the Roman Papacy: Ut Unum Sint

The "Patriarch of the West" abolished the Patriarchate of the West a few years ago. So much for "respect" and "validity" of western structures developed from ancient times (I'm leaving aside the issue of the suppression of the Irish, Mozarabic etc. Churches, the Ambrosian (with its married clergy), Gallican etc. rites etc.). That left the Ultramontanist superstructure developed since the Schism. Just to make that clear, at the same time the metochia of the Patriarchs (St. Peter's/Constantinople, St. Paul-beyond-the-Walls/Alexandria, St. Mary Maggiore/Antioch, St. Lawrence/Jerusalem) , the "Patriarchal Basilicas" were made "Papal Basilicas." We don't need that imposed on us.

Your Middle Eastern Bishops were in Synod in Rome last year, calling on the right to exercise their right to ordain married men, and the promulgation of the law enabling that. And the response? Silence. (and a few slaps in the face).
Like you say, even when they rock the boat, the deck is stacked.

We're all pretty mixed up, brother. As me mother used to say,"It all comes out in the wash!" Good will is the best detergent,too. The Patriarch of the West abolished the title a few years ago; not the fact that he is head of the Latin church.

So, according to your reasoning, the Patriarchate of the West existed for ... what, less than two centuries?

Is this a common idea?

Are we discussing Old Catholics?


Are you now, or have you even been, a robot?

While certainly not an ideal situation, do not fool yourself that the Constantiopolitan Orthodox (Eastern Orthodox/Byzantine Orthodox) have done any better. When was the last time you saw the Syriac Liturgy of St. James celebrated in Antioch, or the Coptic Liturgy of St. Mark in Alexandria, etc. by the Constantiopolitan Orthodox?
Another thread mentions this event: http://araborthodoxy.blogspot.de/2012/11/a-non-chalcedonian-bishop-converts-to.html and the one linked the thread - Have any of the non-Byzantine Liturgies been preserved by the Constantiopolitan Orthodox, or were they all suppressed?

His predecessor got in trouble with the Romanians over such claims.

It was just more than the pretense to the title, as the post facto "explanations"(rationalizations) showed: to Orthodox objections, the consensus response I heard from the outlets of the Vatican "you'll just have to like it and deal with it." So much for "good will." Mind your nose so it doesn't get hit by the door slamming. That's "dealing with it."

They let slip the fact that the Vatican still confuses Latin and West for Catholic/Universal: what meaning does "West" have when its purported patriarch has claim on Japan, China and the Phillipines, and still has it suffragan "patriarch" in Jerusalem?

The Patriarch of the West once held sway over North Africa, the homeland of SS. Victor (introducer of the Latin Mass at Rome) and Augustine, and of the first Latin Father, Tertuillian. It now comes under the jurisdiction of the Pope of Alexandria, and , despite the musing of the former bishop of Great Britain for the Phanar, so it shall remain. If the Supreme Pontiff of the Vatican confesses the Orthodox Faith, the Patriarch of Serbia, the Archbishop of Albania, and the Metropolitans of Poland, the Czech Lands and Slovakia and the Orthodox Church in America will not be reduced to his suffragans, any more than they answer now to the Pariarch of Romania nor the Ecumenical Patriarch because of the Romanian Bishop of the Bishoprick of Italy at Rome or the EP's Metropolitan Archbishop of Italy in Venice.

About nearly a millenium, its vestige for nearly a millenium more.

No, I think for myself too much.

The rites were suppressed, a Constantinopolitan version of Latinization (although the DL of St. James is still celebrated periodically, and not just in Antioch). You seem to think that I let New Rome off any more than I am willing to let Old Rome.

That said, the patriarchates of Alexandria, Antioch, Jerusalem, Georgia and the Church of Cyprus remain, never having been "abolished," as the "Patriarchate of the West" purportedly has been.

The link has nothing to do with the suppression of rites, just the reception of a non-Chalcedonian into the Chalcedonian Orthodox Church.

(emphasis added)

I'm not the one who claimed that the Patriarchate of the West was abolished a few years ago -- presumably referring to 2005, when the title was removed from the Annuario Pontificio, which had contained it since 1863.

Neither was I. As I said, it has been defunct for almost a millenium, its Eastern parts subsumed into New Rome and then autocephaly before then, its South gravitated to the Pope of Alexandria since then.

It was 2006.

According to it, Archbishop Theodore I (Rome had not yet taken the title of "Pope" it seems) used the title for his patriarchate in 642.

Fair enough. I meant to say it was in the Annuario Pontificio from 1863 till 2005. But any way you slice it, its removal wasn't nearly as significant as many make it out to be.

Yeah, the Vatican tried to down play it at the time. No, we didn't buy it, then or now.

Any reason why we should obsess on the Annuario Pontificio? I didn't think so.