www.byzcath.org Forums News & Events Church News Jerusalem Patriarch Dismissed?

Xhristos Voshreshi!

Amongst this joyful period, I came across this BBC article...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4517223.stm



Anton

Dear AntonI:

Dismissed?

No, but the signatories have requested the Patriarch to resign for the reasons we already know.

If the "conflict" comes to a head, i.e., Patriarch Irineos refuses to resign or continues to exercise his patriarchal prerogatives, the next step would be for the Holy Synod of the Jerusalem Patriarchate to depose him canonically (and elect a replacement/successor).

In any of these events, I think the Ecumenical Patriarchate has the authority and power to weigh in as the Jerusalem Patriarchate is a Greek Orthodox patriarchate and, therefore, under the omophorion of the EP. And then the final vetting of the newly elected Patriarch will again be sought from Israel, Jordan, and the Palestinian Authority.

His Beatitutde is in such a sorry mess that, personally, it would redound to the best interests of the Jerusalem Greek Orthodox Patriarchate for him just to step down.

One of the burning issues raised is for the next Patriarch to come from the local hierarchs, meaning Palestinian or any Arabic bishop. Are there any Greek Orthodox bishops of Palestinian or Arabic descent in the Jerusalem Patriarchate?

It is a fact that the Latin Patriarchate of Jerusalem under HB Michel Sabbah is run mostly by Palestinian and Arabic Catholic hierarchs. Further, there is one bishop, a convert from Judaism, who takes care of the Hebrew Catholics within Israel. The election by the local synod (or appointment) of the Latin Patriarch does not go through the governments of the countries just mentioned.

Amado

Are you sure? I don't think so, but maybe.
There is no such thing in the Orthodox Church as one patriarch being under another patriarch. The Patriarchate of Jerusalem, like every other patriarchate, is Autocephalous; the patriarch answers to no earthly authority.
If deposition is sought, then there would be a trial where his peers, including the Patriarch of Constantinople, would be invited to sit in judgement, as happened to Patriarch Nikon of Moscow.
May I ask by what authority you judge a bishop? Do you have a reason to think he personally did what he is accused of? Even if you knew it for a fact, it is sin to call a bishop "such a sorry mess"!
The next patriarch will nearly certainly be Greek; there are no Arabic bishops or archimandrites in the Jerusalem Patriarchate, and have not been any for several centuries.

Photius

Photius:

I am not judging the bishop at all! It is of public knowledge what has transpired and is transpiring in the Jerusalem Orthodox Patriarchate which led to this sordid mess!

We do not know whether the Patriarch is/was complicit in the "sorry mess he is in." For all we know, the chief financial officer of the Patriarchate was solely responsible for the fiasco.

But he was under the Patriarch! That being the case, the Patriarch is directly and indirectly responsible for the mess befallen the Jerusalem Orthodox Patriarchate because of the misdealings of the CFO, don't you think so?

The Patriarchate is located in Jerusalem and it purpotedly serves the welfare of Palestinians and other Arabic Christians. Not having a single Arabic Bishop in that Patriarchate speaks volume how Palestinians and other Arabic priests (and there are many!) are treated: unworthy to be elevated to the episcopacy?

Now, tell me.

Amado

I don't know. I don't have enough information (e.g., did the patriarch appoint or inherit the CFO), and, it is not my place to judge a bishop.

And, remeber, that Christ chose Judas as His disciple. By the above logic, Judas was under Christ, so Christ was "directly and indirectly responsible" for his betrayal!
My wife is Palastinian; her great grandfather was an archpriest in the Patriarchate of Jerusalem, so I am quite familiar with the situation.
No one ever claimed that Arabs are "unworthy to be elevated to the episcopacy"! The fact is that the Greeks some centuries ago adversarily took over the hierarchy of the Jerusalem Patriarchate. The Church is not a Democracy and the Church is guided by the Holy Spirit, and this is how things are; I know not what else to say.

Photius, Reader

Photius:

Now you tell me!

The Catholic Church has been under a "benevolent dictatorship" all these years. Remember Orthodoxy's rant against "Papal Supremacy?"

The Church cannot commit sin; but some hierarchs act as if that assurance extends singularly to themselves.

No Pope, Patriarch, or bishop is impeccable. They are as human as we are, subject to the frailties of other men!

Amado

Amado, Christ is Risen!
I am proud to say that my patron saint began what you call a "rant" aginst what the Orthodox Church calls "heresy"; but, I fail to see that "Papal Supremacy" has anything at all to do with any of them items discussed here, such as, whether we may judge bishops, or whether bishops must reflect the ethnic make up of their diocese, or whether a bishop should be deposed for an action of a subordinate, et cetera.
Probably such hierarchs exist, but again, what bearing does that have on the matter at hand. I am sure that whoever lied about the sale of land, whether that be a deputy of the patriarch or the patriarch himself, does not claim that it is not a sin!
Very true!

Photius, Reader

Dear Photius,

I believe, Friend, you were a bit shocked by the revelation that St Seraphim of Sarov recited what the West calls the "Rosary," were you not?

I've another shocker for you!

Many Eastern Catholics venerate St Photius as a CAtholic saint AND the Ruthenian Catholic Church has OFFICIALLY entered the name of our Holy Father among the Saints Photius the Patriarch of Constantinople on its calendar under February 6th . . .

If you don't believe me, ask the Administrator. He knows a thing or two about the Ruthenian Church!

We honour him as a saint who died in communion with Rome, with the Roman Pope John VIII vindicating him and receiving him on a patriarchal throne that was equal in height to his own.

A practice that endures in Rome to this day whenever the Patriarch of New Rome comes visiting!

(I just love these shockers - so many indicators that I do have a life after all . . . ).

And are you open to reciting the Rule of the Theotokos?

(Is this not what one could call "salvific needling?")

Alex

I've been following this development in another board; would it be too much to say that if things go on like this, a schism there might not be too far off?

Orthodox leaders withdraw recognition of Jerusalem patriarch
Associated Press
May 24, 2005 ORTHODOX0525



ISTANBUL, Turkey � World Orthodox leaders voted Tuesday to stop recognizing the patriarch of Jerusalem, Irineos I, church officials said, asserting a rare unified position on the crisis facing the Church in the Holy Land.

The vote came during a rare "pan-Orthodox'' synod involving the 12 main Orthodox churches and presided over by Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew I, the Istanbul-based spiritual leader of Orthodox Christians.

Church members have tried to depose Irineos over explosive allegations that his church leased property to Jewish investors in east Jerusalem, which Palestinians consider their capital. Irineos has persistently refused to resign.

Tuesday's vote, taken during the synod, does not directly call for Irineos' removal, but the act of refusing to recognize his authority is expected to put additional pressure on him to resign.

The Istanbul proceedings are the first major pan-Orthodox summit in more than a decade. However, the gathering has no authority to formally dismiss Irineos or pick his successor.

That duty rests solely with the synod, or governing council, of the Jerusalem church, and Irineos refuses to convene the synod.

Orthodox clerics supporting Irineos' removal � represented by six bishops at the synod � claim they already have voted to remove him as patriarch, and they sought the endorsement of the pan-Orthodox synod representing the highest authority in the Orthodox church.

Cornelius, the Metropolitan of Petra, said Tuesday's vote would boost efforts by church leaders in the Holy Land to remove the patriarch.

"He can call himself patriarch, but he is not,'' Cornelius said.

He added that church leaders in the Holy Land would appoint a caretaker by next week.

Irineos was asked by reporters as he was leaving the patriarchate whether he would resign. He said nothing, but waved his finger back and forth as if to indicate no.

How stunning would it be IF Patriarch Ireneos or the EP decided to "appeal" or "forward" the decision of the Pan-Orthodox Synod to Rome for "final" determination?

Don't look at me, I am just imagining the way it was supposed to be done, not a few times, during the 1st millenium!

And I prefaced my "innocent" query with a BIG if! :p

Amado

It would appear that at least one of the Churches will not accept the decision of the Pan-Orthodox Synod...

http://www.civil.ge/eng/article.php?id=9974

The Lord knows whats going to happen....

Anton

Christ is Risen!

But there is no Orthodox Bishop of Rome to appeal to.

Please give me an example of when in the the 1st millenium the Pope of Rome decided the fate of some other patriarch.

Besides, all the synod has done, all it could do, is recommend that Patriarch Ireneos resign. As I posted some weeks ago, the patriarch answers to no earthly authority.

Photius

Photius, why of course your now venerable namesake Photius (810 AD - 895 AD) who died in communion with the Apostolic See of Rome.
Photius himself appealed to the Pope of Rome Nicholas I. Nicholas still recognized Ignatius as the rightful Patriarch of Constantinople.
He declared Photius deposed and his friend Gregory of Asbestas, deprived of the priesthood and of all ecclesiastical offices.
Stephanos I
It is interesting to note the comment by Fr John Meyendorf of blessed memory:
"Thus for Photius, as for the later Byzantine theologians, the polemnical argument artifically opposing Peter to his confession did not exist. By confessing his faith in the Divinity of the Savior, Peter became the Rock of the Church. The Council of 879-880 AD, which followed the reconciliation between Photius and John VIII, went even so far as to proclaim: The Lord placed him at the head of all Churches, saying ...'Feed my sheep.'"

Well your certainly looking into things in a schismatic orthodox pan view circa 2005. In the first millinium of christianity there certainly an authority higher than a patriarch and since there was the one holy catholic church and not fractures of 12 churches with no authority over one another the Pope did what came naturally when he had to deal with heretical Patriarch's that adhered to Monophysite and Arian and other heretical views and actions. The Pope excommunicated these heretics from the catholic church. Thus he accomplished something greater than taking away their rank he took away their catholcity and right to be called catholic. But being orthodox you see that as not being the great offense but merely the title being important. It looses a lot if your not in the catholic church bud.