Talk:Antonio (de Rosso) of Ravenna
(Difference between revisions)
Revision as of 16:44, November 3, 2007
Am I right that Metropolitan Antonio is an Old Calendarist bishop? --Arbible 12:19, August 28, 2006 (CDT)
- His church (ie Orthodox Church in Italy) is Old Calendarist, so yes. If he is to be considered a bishop, his article needs renaming (I assume to 'Antonio (de Rosso) of Italy' or something similar), currently the implication is that he is a figure (i.e. not even a monk). — edited by Pιsτévο talk complaints at 06:52, August 29, 2006 (CDT)
- Thanks. Not sure if Old Calendarists have valid bishops, so will remove the 'cat Bishops' until you/we confirm that he is a canonical bishop/metropolitan with valid Apostolic succession. --Arbible 08:25, August 29, 2006 (CDT)
- I removed the reference to his friendships - I don't think that should be in the article. Also - to Arbible - many (Western, schismatic, especially Anglican-descdent) groups use the traditional/scholastic Roman Catholic distinction between licit and valid orders, tracing a history of ordinations, as a way of claiming legitmacy. In my understanding, the Orthodox church does not adopt this distinction. Epsicopal consecration is only valid and licit (to use Scholastic terminology) when in communion with the other Orthodox churches around the world. There has been some flexibility here in terms of how hard-nosed the division is, e.g. in the case of ROCOR and other schisms resulting from Communism, but schism remains a painful and destructive reality and should not be taken too lightly either. All that said, I'm not sure how this applies to the group or person in question here. — FrJohn (talk)
- P.S. I've posted some of this at Episcopi vagantes.