• Please remember: Pray for Ukraine in the Prayer forum; Share news in the Christian News section; Discuss religious implications in FFA: Religious Topics; Discuss political implications in Politics (and if you don't have access, PM me) Thank you! + Fr. George, Forum Administrator

Titular Patriarch of Rome?

Amatorus

OC.Net Guru
Joined
May 11, 2014
Messages
1,105
Reaction score
1
Points
0
TO my knowledge, the Papacy holds an exhaustive laundry list of titular sees and bishoprics that mainly refer to areas that are longer Christian or part of their Church, such as Kingdom of the Vandals in North Africa before the Muslim invasion, bishoprics in Greece and Anatolia from the Fourth Crusade days, and some even in Rus' I believe. I don't recall if they have their own Archbishop of Constantinople but I bet there is.

Does the Orthodox Church have a titular Patriarch of Rome representing the West even if totally honorary? Before the Schism, the Bishop of Rome was Patriarch of Rome, but is there one now of any sort?
 

Dominika

Merarches
Staff member
Global Moderator
Moderator
Joined
Dec 23, 2011
Messages
8,360
Reaction score
716
Points
113
Age
30
Location
Poland
Website
www.youtube.com
Faith
Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction
Antiochian Patriarchate/POC
There are at least a few topics discussing the issue why there is no Orthodox patriarch of Rome now, probably the most recent one:
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php?topic=65508.0
 

minasoliman

Stratopedarches
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
May 24, 2004
Messages
20,198
Reaction score
8
Points
38
Location
NJ
Faith
Oriental Orthodox
Jurisdiction
Coptic
There should be a discussion on whether we should have anything titular to begin with!
 

FatherGiryus

Protokentarchos
Joined
Jun 24, 2009
Messages
4,195
Reaction score
1
Points
0
Amatorus said:
TO my knowledge, the Papacy holds an exhaustive laundry list of titular sees and bishoprics that mainly refer to areas that are longer Christian or part of their Church, such as Kingdom of the Vandals in North Africa before the Muslim invasion, bishoprics in Greece and Anatolia from the Fourth Crusade days, and some even in Rus' I believe. I don't recall if they have their own Archbishop of Constantinople but I bet there is.

Does the Orthodox Church have a titular Patriarch of Rome representing the West even if totally honorary? Before the Schism, the Bishop of Rome was Patriarch of Rome, but is there one now of any sort?
In Eastern Orthodox, titular seas are used to provide bishops with a means of consecration but without actual eparchial duties.  It is a kind of 'demotion' as it were, so that a bishop can assist an actual ruling hierarch.
 

Amatorus

OC.Net Guru
Joined
May 11, 2014
Messages
1,105
Reaction score
1
Points
0
minasoliman said:
There should be a discussion on whether we should have anything titular to begin with!
It's tradition and hope of a return
 

TheTrisagion

Hoplitarches
Joined
Nov 9, 2012
Messages
17,997
Reaction score
325
Points
83
Age
42
Location
PA, USA
Faith
Orthodox
Jurisdiction
Antiochian
minasoliman said:
There should be a discussion on whether we should have anything titular to begin with!
word.
 

TheTrisagion

Hoplitarches
Joined
Nov 9, 2012
Messages
17,997
Reaction score
325
Points
83
Age
42
Location
PA, USA
Faith
Orthodox
Jurisdiction
Antiochian
Amatorus said:
minasoliman said:
There should be a discussion on whether we should have anything titular to begin with!
It's tradition and hope of a return
except in many instances, the places literally no longer exist. You can't return someplace that doesn't exist. Maybe you can build a new city where the old one was, but that doesn't make it the same city.
 

podkarpatska

Merarches
Joined
Oct 24, 2009
Messages
9,732
Reaction score
3
Points
0
Location
Northeast United States
Website
www.acrod.org
They exist in many  different Eastern Orthodox traditions. In some they are fashioned as 'Vicar Bishops' or 'assistants' to the Ruling Bishop but with no independent authority. the OCA has used this style off and of over the years. I believe that the current Archbishop of Eastern Pennsylvania was  the Bishop of Baltimore, a city within the Jurisdiction of the Diocese of Washington, DC. This follows the Russian patriarchal style where dioceses may be geographically or population based large... The Greeks use titular titles in a variety of ways as well. To paraphrase Orwell, all Orthodox Bishops are equal, but some are more equal than others...

 

Amatorus

OC.Net Guru
Joined
May 11, 2014
Messages
1,105
Reaction score
1
Points
0
TheTrisagion said:
Amatorus said:
minasoliman said:
There should be a discussion on whether we should have anything titular to begin with!
It's tradition and hope of a return
except in many instances, the places literally no longer exist. You can't return someplace that doesn't exist. Maybe you can build a new city where the old one was, but that doesn't make it the same city.
They do exist though, unless there was a bishopric on a former ice shelf that melted. The population currently in these cases are just not in the Church.

Maybe we're confusing something. For example, it's been a very long time since the Maghreb was Christian, not counting coloniaslism. What if communities of Muslims started converting to Christianity? The Church should just scrap together a bishopric for them? Stranger things happen all the time.
 

FatherGiryus

Protokentarchos
Joined
Jun 24, 2009
Messages
4,195
Reaction score
1
Points
0
If I was a patriarch, I could really have fun and consecrate a titular Bishop of Rome and the Septum Colles, and have him as my personal chauffeur...
 

TheTrisagion

Hoplitarches
Joined
Nov 9, 2012
Messages
17,997
Reaction score
325
Points
83
Age
42
Location
PA, USA
Faith
Orthodox
Jurisdiction
Antiochian
Amatorus said:
TheTrisagion said:
Amatorus said:
minasoliman said:
There should be a discussion on whether we should have anything titular to begin with!
It's tradition and hope of a return
except in many instances, the places literally no longer exist. You can't return someplace that doesn't exist. Maybe you can build a new city where the old one was, but that doesn't make it the same city.
They do exist though, unless there was a bishopric on a former ice shelf that melted. The population currently in these cases are just not in the Church.

Maybe we're confusing something. For example, it's been a very long time since the Maghreb was Christian, not counting coloniaslism. What if communities of Muslims started converting to Christianity? The Church should just scrap together a bishopric for them? Stranger things happen all the time.
No. For example the Titular See of Acci was of an ancient Spanish city. The current location is the Diocese of Guadix. It is the same exact physical location except that Acci no longer exists. It has been lost to the sands of time, yet there is a Bishop of Acci and a Bishop of Guadix.
 

Amatorus

OC.Net Guru
Joined
May 11, 2014
Messages
1,105
Reaction score
1
Points
0
TheTrisagion said:
Amatorus said:
TheTrisagion said:
Amatorus said:
minasoliman said:
There should be a discussion on whether we should have anything titular to begin with!
It's tradition and hope of a return
except in many instances, the places literally no longer exist. You can't return someplace that doesn't exist. Maybe you can build a new city where the old one was, but that doesn't make it the same city.
They do exist though, unless there was a bishopric on a former ice shelf that melted. The population currently in these cases are just not in the Church.

Maybe we're confusing something. For example, it's been a very long time since the Maghreb was Christian, not counting coloniaslism. What if communities of Muslims started converting to Christianity? The Church should just scrap together a bishopric for them? Stranger things happen all the time.
No. For example the Titular See of Acci was of an ancient Spanish city. The current location is the Diocese of Guadix. It is the same exact physical location except that Acci no longer exists. It has been lost to the sands of time, yet there is a Bishop of Acci and a Bishop of Guadix.
Acci is Guadix, the same place though. Why give it a new name? Like if there was an Orthodox Bishopric of New Amsterdam in 1650, but the see was vacant of followers for a while until now, the Bishopric should just be destroyed when there are no (apparent) followers in the area until it returns as the Bishopric of New York City?

That doesn't make sense to me as it's sending a message like the Church is weak and malleable and can be easily removed. Once a see is established, why should it not be eternal?
 

TheTrisagion

Hoplitarches
Joined
Nov 9, 2012
Messages
17,997
Reaction score
325
Points
83
Age
42
Location
PA, USA
Faith
Orthodox
Jurisdiction
Antiochian
Amatorus said:
TheTrisagion said:
Amatorus said:
TheTrisagion said:
Amatorus said:
minasoliman said:
There should be a discussion on whether we should have anything titular to begin with!
It's tradition and hope of a return
except in many instances, the places literally no longer exist. You can't return someplace that doesn't exist. Maybe you can build a new city where the old one was, but that doesn't make it the same city.
They do exist though, unless there was a bishopric on a former ice shelf that melted. The population currently in these cases are just not in the Church.

Maybe we're confusing something. For example, it's been a very long time since the Maghreb was Christian, not counting coloniaslism. What if communities of Muslims started converting to Christianity? The Church should just scrap together a bishopric for them? Stranger things happen all the time.
No. For example the Titular See of Acci was of an ancient Spanish city. The current location is the Diocese of Guadix. It is the same exact physical location except that Acci no longer exists. It has been lost to the sands of time, yet there is a Bishop of Acci and a Bishop of Guadix.
Acci is Guadix, the same place though. Why give it a new name? Like if there was an Orthodox Bishopric of New Amsterdam in 1650, but the see was vacant of followers for a while until now, the Bishopric should just be destroyed when there are no (apparent) followers in the area until it returns as the Bishopric of New York City?

That doesn't make sense to me as it's sending a message like the Church is weak and malleable and can be easily removed. Once a see is established, why should it not be eternal?
I don't know, you were the one arguing the opposite way a few posts back. Perhaps you should tell me!
 

Amatorus

OC.Net Guru
Joined
May 11, 2014
Messages
1,105
Reaction score
1
Points
0
Mor Ephrem said:
Amatorus said:
Once a see is established, why should it not be eternal?
Acts 1.20; Rev 2.5.
'For it is written in the book of Psalms, Let his habitation be desolate, and let no man dwell therein: and his position as bishop let another take." - Acts 1:20

"let another take"...exactly, that's a perfect chance for someone else to fill the vacant see and hold the title until it is necessary again, right?

Remember therefore from whence thou art fallen, and repent, and do the first works; or else I will come unto thee quickly, and will remove thy candlestick out of his place, except thou repent. - Revelations 2:5

How is that one relevant though?

TheTrisagion said:
Amatorus said:
TheTrisagion said:
Amatorus said:
TheTrisagion said:
Amatorus said:
minasoliman said:
There should be a discussion on whether we should have anything titular to begin with!
It's tradition and hope of a return
except in many instances, the places literally no longer exist. You can't return someplace that doesn't exist. Maybe you can build a new city where the old one was, but that doesn't make it the same city.
They do exist though, unless there was a bishopric on a former ice shelf that melted. The population currently in these cases are just not in the Church.

Maybe we're confusing something. For example, it's been a very long time since the Maghreb was Christian, not counting coloniaslism. What if communities of Muslims started converting to Christianity? The Church should just scrap together a bishopric for them? Stranger things happen all the time.
No. For example the Titular See of Acci was of an ancient Spanish city. The current location is the Diocese of Guadix. It is the same exact physical location except that Acci no longer exists. It has been lost to the sands of time, yet there is a Bishop of Acci and a Bishop of Guadix.
Acci is Guadix, the same place though. Why give it a new name? Like if there was an Orthodox Bishopric of New Amsterdam in 1650, but the see was vacant of followers for a while until now, the Bishopric should just be destroyed when there are no (apparent) followers in the area until it returns as the Bishopric of New York City?

That doesn't make sense to me as it's sending a message like the Church is weak and malleable and can be easily removed. Once a see is established, why should it not be eternal?
I don't know, you were the one arguing the opposite way a few posts back. Perhaps you should tell me!
I'm saying there's no harm in having a Patriarch of Rome, or at least have the title added to the Ecumenical Patriarch's. The Pope was Patriarch of Rome in his titles until recently.
 

TheTrisagion

Hoplitarches
Joined
Nov 9, 2012
Messages
17,997
Reaction score
325
Points
83
Age
42
Location
PA, USA
Faith
Orthodox
Jurisdiction
Antiochian
You can't add it to the EP, Rome was a separate Patriarchate. Not even the Pope tried to usurp the titles of all the Patriarchs he broke communion with. That would be the height of hubris.
 

Amatorus

OC.Net Guru
Joined
May 11, 2014
Messages
1,105
Reaction score
1
Points
0
TheTrisagion said:
You can't add it to the EP, Rome was a separate Patriarchate. Not even the Pope tried to usurp the titles of all the Patriarchs he broke communion with. That would be the height of hubris.
"Vicar of Jesus Christ, Successor of the Prince of the Apostles, Supreme Pontiff of the Universal Church, Primate of Italy, Archbishop and Metropolitan of the Roman Province, Sovereign of the Vatican City State, Servant of the servants of God" isn't?
 

TheTrisagion

Hoplitarches
Joined
Nov 9, 2012
Messages
17,997
Reaction score
325
Points
83
Age
42
Location
PA, USA
Faith
Orthodox
Jurisdiction
Antiochian
Amatorus said:
TheTrisagion said:
You can't add it to the EP, Rome was a separate Patriarchate. Not even the Pope tried to usurp the titles of all the Patriarchs he broke communion with. That would be the height of hubris.
"Vicar of Jesus Christ, Successor of the Prince of the Apostles, Supreme Pontiff of the Universal Church, Primate of Italy, Archbishop and Metropolitan of the Roman Province, Sovereign of the Vatican City State, Servant of the servants of God" isn't?
Not as much as if it read: "Vicar of Jesus Christ, Successor of the Prince of the Apostles, Supreme Pontiff of the Universal Church, Primate of Italy, Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch and all the East, Archbishop and Metropolitan of the Roman Province, Sovereign of the Vatican City State, Servant of the servants of God"
 

Mor Ephrem

Hypatos
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
Oct 3, 2002
Messages
36,444
Reaction score
339
Points
83
Age
41
Location
New York!
Website
www.orthodoxchristianity.net
Faith
Mercenary Freudianism
Jurisdiction
Texas Feminist Coptic
Amatorus said:
Mor Ephrem said:
Amatorus said:
Once a see is established, why should it not be eternal?
Acts 1.20; Rev 2.5.
'For it is written in the book of Psalms, Let his habitation be desolate, and let no man dwell therein: and his position as bishop let another take." - Acts 1:20

"let another take"...exactly, that's a perfect chance for someone else to fill the vacant see and hold the title until it is necessary again, right?

Remember therefore from whence thou art fallen, and repent, and do the first works; or else I will come unto thee quickly, and will remove thy candlestick out of his place, except thou repent. - Revelations 2:5

How is that one relevant though?
My point was that sees can be lost.  There is nothing about them that is inherently "eternal". 

But perhaps the better question is what you think a see is. 
 

ialmisry

Strategos
Joined
Aug 17, 2007
Messages
41,970
Reaction score
179
Points
63
Location
Chicago
TheTrisagion said:
You can't add it to the EP, Rome was a separate Patriarchate. Not even the Pope tried to usurp the titles of all the Patriarchs he broke communion with. That would be the height of hubris.
No necessarily (leaving aside the present occupants of office). The Patriarch of Serbia, for instance presides over the union of four separate Churches, and he holds the title of two of them, a Metropolitan under him holds the third title (which includes part of the fourth Church, the title having gone back to the Metropolitan of Moldavia).

The Vatican's supreme pontiff went on Crusade to take more than just the titles of all the Patriarchs he broke communion with.
 
Top