The current status of the Papacy is far from the traditional jurisdiction which he had authority in 1054 CE. I am not absolutely sure, but my European history at the time would have this include well, Western Europe save Greece.Theres an anomaly of the greatest significance that the Western Patriarchy has dioceses within the jurisdictions of probably all the other Patriarchs, whose assent he has never requested or attained. In the new position of the Bishop of Rome, these other churches would fall under the jurisdictions of the Patriarchs now covering them. They would maintain their Western Rite status in these jurisdictions. I can imagine for the purpose of giving the Pope time to relocate, he would soon enough need to cease his role as sovereign ruler of the Vatican state, as that would be incompatible with his status as Patriarch of the West. Areas, such as the Americas, the Ecumenical Council would be able to hopefully and finally determine jurisdictions and autocephaly for those areas with their own Patriarchs. For sure, the Pope would maintain his position doctrinally that he had in 1054 CE. This might seem the great fantasy of the Orthodox Church. I set up this picture to reorient the Latin/Roman Church members that its efforts described in these post are the Roman Church fantasy for unity. The unification would maintain the Pope with his current powers and jurisdiction. There is nothing that the Orthodox believe that matters, as everything is reduced to a Roman Church world view. Everything thats been discussed is to reinforce a Roman ideal of unity, even to the extent of maintaining two creeds. What is unity with two creeds? Is that not the marrow of the bone? The RCC is a large administrative body which in order to be a suitable 5th patriarch would need to prove convincingly that despite their size, they will not overwhelm the other churches. The way the Orthodox administers itself is cautious and slowly. If this was a business, the two models are incompatible to be run as one without a takeover at the top. The conflict that the Roman Church vision of unity would create would create an even greater and bitter division. I came to this discussion with some optimism that mutual respect would allow for creative thinking around how unity could occur. Rather there is legalism and rules. There is no search from either side to admire or bring out the best in the ways the current beliefs affect unity. Not being a scholar enough to go into all the Cyril said this in 354 which then Dionysis said that in 564. Thats all gone, whether it benefits one side or the other. The last 1000 years is enough of a problem to understand than the 2000 years. What is the current status on the ground as they say in warfare. This is what needs fixing and unity. How we live as church now is not going to be established to retain every inch of what used to be. Jesus gave us both East and West. The Romans in the group say they want to fulfill the desire of St. Paul for church unity. I am sure that the East wants the same, But it doesnt want it on your terms.
Posted on: Thu, 10 Jul 2014 08:26:31 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015