OrthodoxChristianity.net
August 01, 2014, 10:25:01 PM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Reminder: No political discussions in the public fora.  If you do not have access to the private Politics Forum, please send a PM to Fr. George.
 
   Home   Help Calendar Contact Treasury Tags Login Register  
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 »  All   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Sharing sacraments?  (Read 11148 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,166


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #135 on: November 16, 2010, 03:10:58 PM »


No, we're not. Ya'll and the Vatican are on your own.
There you go referring to that city state again.  Grin
Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
Wyatt
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Posts: 2,395


« Reply #136 on: November 16, 2010, 03:12:14 PM »

So at the time, if there was no Orthodox parish in town, permission was given to take Communion in the local Anglican parish - but not in the local Roman Catholic parish?

At times, which to me seems totally ridiculous. I'd much rather take communion at a Roman Catholic church than at an Anglican church, if this were even possible. In reality, I would never take the communion from anyone outside of The Holy Greek Catholic Orthodox Eastern Church.

Yeah. I don't see what would be the point in taking "Communion" outside the Church.
For the most part I agree with this. I don't need to be taking communion from an EO priest when I am perfectly capable of receiving the Body and Blood of Christ from a priest within my own communion.
It is still sort of frustrating that in an emergency situation, an EO priest would likely still not give us the Eucharist.
Actually, some might. I have heard some very conservative EO priests say that they would indeed offer viaticum to an ailing Catholic.

This would be inappropriate IMO because they are not in communion, so giving them communion is for what reason?  magic? to make them feel good?  What is the purpose of giving them communion when they are not in communion?  
Grace and salvation. I could be wrong, but I seem to remember Fr. Ambrose saying that he might be willing to commune a Roman Catholic that was on his deathbed when no Catholic Priest is available. Fr. Ambrose, was it you who said this or am I misktaken?
I wonder if certain EO Priests would only commune us on our deathbed if we renounced certain RC teachings that the EO consider heretical? Would I only be allowed to receive the Eucharist on my deathbed if I renounced the belief in Papal Primacy, Purgatory, the Immaculate Conception, etc.?

We are the ones who believe in Papal Primacy. You are suppose to believe in what is called Papal Supremacy. You are also suppose to believe in "Ultramontanism".

How do you define ultramontanism?

Good question. I wasn't able to find what I was looking for on the Roman Catholic website http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15125a.htm (Newadvent)

And so I will just say that the meaning I had in mind was one in where the Pope was above Church councils.....even ecumenical Church councils. What idea did you have in mind?
I didn't have one. I was just curious as to what you meant because so many people use the word in so many different ways.
Ultramontanism: the heresy that holds that the Church is one because all its bishops receive their authority by submission to the "supreme pontiff," that the Churhc is holy because the "Vicar of Christ" can speak infallibly ex cathedra and sacraments are licit by being done in his name, that the Church is Catholic because its "pope" has jursidiction throughout the world, and that the Church is Apostolic because its "visible head" alone calls and approves Ecumenical Councils.
Oh so you don't think that those of us in communion with Rome are ultramontanits then. cool
I'm curious as to when and by whom is the Holy Eucharist offered in the name of the Pope. What does that happen?
I'm sorry, but I don't understand the question. Being in communion with Rome means that we are part of the same mystical body of Christ as Rome is and we can share in the sacraments with one another.
I was more responding to ialmisry's definition of ultramontanism above (sorry...probably should have quoted his post instead of yours) where he said that our Sacraments are only licit if done "in his name" (in the name of the Pope). My question was when do we, as RCs, offer up the Holy Eucharist or celebrate the Sacrament of Confession, or any other Sacrament for that matter, in the name of the Pope? I don't recall the Pope's name being brought up when any of the Sacraments are celebrated save for a brief mention of him in the Mass. I know of no Sacrament that is rendered illicit by the Pope's name not being invoked.
« Last Edit: November 16, 2010, 03:13:20 PM by Wyatt » Logged
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,166


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #137 on: November 16, 2010, 03:13:06 PM »

So at the time, if there was no Orthodox parish in town, permission was given to take Communion in the local Anglican parish - but not in the local Roman Catholic parish?

At times, which to me seems totally ridiculous. I'd much rather take communion at a Roman Catholic church than at an Anglican church, if this were even possible. In reality, I would never take the communion from anyone outside of The Holy Greek Catholic Orthodox Eastern Church.

Yeah. I don't see what would be the point in taking "Communion" outside the Church.
For the most part I agree with this. I don't need to be taking communion from an EO priest when I am perfectly capable of receiving the Body and Blood of Christ from a priest within my own communion.
It is still sort of frustrating that in an emergency situation, an EO priest would likely still not give us the Eucharist.
Actually, some might. I have heard some very conservative EO priests say that they would indeed offer viaticum to an ailing Catholic.

This would be inappropriate IMO because they are not in communion, so giving them communion is for what reason?  magic? to make them feel good?  What is the purpose of giving them communion when they are not in communion?  
Grace and salvation. I could be wrong, but I seem to remember Fr. Ambrose saying that he might be willing to commune a Roman Catholic that was on his deathbed when no Catholic Priest is available. Fr. Ambrose, was it you who said this or am I misktaken?
I wonder if certain EO Priests would only commune us on our deathbed if we renounced certain RC teachings that the EO consider heretical? Would I only be allowed to receive the Eucharist on my deathbed if I renounced the belief in Papal Primacy, Purgatory, the Immaculate Conception, etc.?

We are the ones who believe in Papal Primacy. You are suppose to believe in what is called Papal Supremacy. You are also suppose to believe in "Ultramontanism".

How do you define ultramontanism?

Good question. I wasn't able to find what I was looking for on the Roman Catholic website http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15125a.htm (Newadvent)

And so I will just say that the meaning I had in mind was one in where the Pope was above Church councils.....even ecumenical Church councils. What idea did you have in mind?
I didn't have one. I was just curious as to what you meant because so many people use the word in so many different ways.
Ultramontanism: the heresy that holds that the Church is one because all its bishops receive their authority by submission to the "supreme pontiff," that the Churhc is holy because the "Vicar of Christ" can speak infallibly ex cathedra and sacraments are licit by being done in his name, that the Church is Catholic because its "pope" has jursidiction throughout the world, and that the Church is Apostolic because its "visible head" alone calls and approves Ecumenical Councils.
Oh so you don't think that those of us in communion with Rome are ultramontanits then. cool
I'm curious as to when and by whom is the Holy Eucharist offered in the name of the Pope. What does that happen?
I'm sorry, but I don't understand the question. Being in communion with Rome means that we are part of the same mystical body of Christ as Rome is and we can share in the sacraments with one another.
I was more responding to ialmisry's definition of ultramontanism above (sorry...probably should have quoted his post instead of yours) where he said that our Sacraments are only licit if done "in his name" (in the name of the Pope). My question was when do we, as RCs, offer up the Holy Eucharist or celebrate the Sacrament of Confession, or any other Sacrament for that matter, in the name of the Pope? I don't recall the Pope's name being brought up when any of the Sacraments are celebrated save for a brief mention of him in the Mass.
Oh, I see. Sorry for the misunderstanding.
Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,124



« Reply #138 on: November 16, 2010, 03:13:16 PM »

Ultramontanism: the heresy that holds that the Church is one because all its bishops receive their authority by submission to the "supreme pontiff," that the Churhc is holy because the "Vicar of Christ" can speak infallibly ex cathedra and sacraments are licit by being done in his name, that the Church is Catholic because its "pope" has jursidiction throughout the world, and that the Church is Apostolic because its "visible head" alone calls and approves Ecumenical Councils.
Oh so you don't think that those of us in communion with Rome are ultramontanits then. cool
I'm curious as to when and by whom is the Holy Eucharist offered in the name of the Pope. What does that happen?
To take as an example, the DL that the Melkites in submission to the Vatican use:
Dear LBK,

Thank you for responding to my query. I find the topic to be very interesting.

Fr Anastasios, you wrote:

When I was an Eastern Rite Roman Catholic, our parish did not alter the liturgical texts that we lifted from Orthodoxy when we schismed.  So I think we have to be real careful where we draw the line lest the Eastern Rite Roman Catholics turn your argument right back on you.

That's easy to refute, Father. The definitive sign of an Eastern Rite Catholic is liturgical commemoration of the Pope of Rome as Supreme Pontiff. Last time I checked, this is heresy in the Orthodox Church.

While I would agree with you that such commemoration is heretical, I don't believe you can deduce that just from the liturgical deposit; the main reason we know that Roman Catholics are heretics is because they were condemned by several councils and the Fathers wrote against their false doctrines.

No, actually it is heretical on the face of it.
Quote
First, Lord, remember our Father N. Pope of Rome, our Most Blessed Patriarch N., our Father and (Arch)bishop N.  Graciously bestow them to Your Holy Churches in peace, safty, honor, health, long life, rightly dispensing the word of Your truth.
http://www.melkite.org/PDF/LITURGY2009.pdf

Now, the (arch)bishop is there because the parish exists only antimens.  The Patriarch is there, because of the Church's canonical order, of the synod of the local Church having a primate.

But the mere mention of the pope of Rome, first of all, on the face of it is an intrusion of ultramontanism, the idea that someone is above the Local Church.  Both "Rome" and "Pope" point to that:if you are not in the Patriarchate of Rome, there is no reason to be commorating him over any other primate in the diptych.  And "Pope" breaks the Word "Call no one Father," the Orthodox not falling for the Protestant trap on denying to anyone (otherwise they could not Honor your father as the commandment says, and would have to condemn scripture 1 Cor. 4:15 where St. Paul claims to be their father), but neither the error of the Vatican in claiming the title the Father, arrogating the title "pope" "dad" only to himself. In fact, since I got this from the Melkite Web site, their is the problem that the Melkite patriarch claims, and is installed by Rome to be, the patriarch of Alexandria, upon whom was bestowed the title, long before Rome took it, of "Pope."  Yet the Vatican, because of the heresies of Vatican I, denies him this title, and it doesn't appear in their liturgy.

There is a dogmatic basis for the commemoration, and the liturgical commemoration of the Vatican breaks it, making it clear that it is heresy.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,166


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #139 on: November 16, 2010, 03:15:15 PM »

^ So then Isa, you don't have a meaningful answer to Wyatt's question? That's what I thought.
Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,124



« Reply #140 on: November 16, 2010, 03:15:51 PM »


No, we're not. Ya'll and the Vatican are on your own.
There you go referring to that city state again.  Grin
Whose flag is in your parish, or do you deny that?
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,166


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #141 on: November 16, 2010, 03:17:29 PM »


No, we're not. Ya'll and the Vatican are on your own.
There you go referring to that city state again.  Grin
Whose flag is in your parish, or do you deny that?
What does that have to do with the price of tea in china?
Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
Father H
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian--God's One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: UOCofUSA-Ecumenical Patriarchate
Posts: 2,535



« Reply #142 on: November 16, 2010, 03:23:22 PM »

No, we're not. Ya'll and the Vatican are on your own.
There you go referring to that city state again.  Grin
Whose flag is in your parish, or do you deny that?
What does that have to do with the price of tea in china?
Good question.  The tea in China is both cheaper and superior to that in the US (i.e. the tea that they drink, not that which they send to the US).   But there may be a connection:  your flag may be made in China by people drinking inexpensive Chinese tea.   There you go, that is what it has to do with the price of tea in China
« Last Edit: November 16, 2010, 03:24:45 PM by FatherHLL » Logged
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,124



« Reply #143 on: November 16, 2010, 03:38:29 PM »

I'm curious as to when and by whom is the Holy Eucharist offered in the name of the Pope. What does that happen?
I'm sorry, but I don't understand the question. Being in communion with Rome means that we are part of the same mystical body of Christ as Rome is and we can share in the sacraments with one another.
I was more responding to ialmisry's definition of ultramontanism above (sorry...probably should have quoted his post instead of yours) where he said that our Sacraments are only licit if done "in his name" (in the name of the Pope). My question was when do we, as RCs, offer up the Holy Eucharist or celebrate the Sacrament of Confession, or any other Sacrament for that matter, in the name of the Pope? I don't recall the Pope's name being brought up when any of the Sacraments are celebrated save for a brief mention of him in the Mass.

That's it. Outside of the Patriarchate of the West and the pontifical DL, i.e. ones served by the Patriarchs of Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch, the Archbishop of Cyprus, the Catholicoi of Armenia, Georgia, Albania (Caucasian), etc. i.e. his autocephalous peers, the name of no Pope of Rome was commemorated in any  DL during the first millenium of the Church. When Isodore the Apostate of Kiev, coming back from Florence, commemorated his supreme pontiff during DL he was arrested and then expelled from the see.  All the "unions" require his commemoration. I recall in the late 80's, a crypto-Ultramontanist in Ukraine, assigned to a brand new Church (so no question of it being "stolen) commemorated supreme pontiff John Paul II and the Orthodox of the congregation immediately rose up while the other ultramontanists went on to seize the Church properties.

We can go more into that, but I don't think it necessary, e.g.
http://www.legionofmarytidewater.com/faith/ECUM12.HTM#5
Quote
Lateran IV c. 5. The dignity of the patriarchal sees

Renewing the ancient privileges of the patriarchal sees, we decree, with the approval of this sacred universal synod, that after the Roman church, which through the Lord's disposition has a primacy of ordinary power over all other churches inasmuch as it is the mother and mistress of all Christ's faithful, the church of Constantinople shall have the first place, the church of Alexandria the second place, the church of Antioch the third place, and the church of Jerusalem the fourth place, each maintaining its own rank. Thus after their pontiffs have received from the Roman pontiff the pallium, which is the sign of the fullness of the pontifical office, and have taken an oath of fidelity and obedience to him they may lawfully confer the pallium on their own suffragans, receiving from them for themselves canonical profession and for the Roman church the promise of obedience. They may have a standard of the Lord's cross carried before them anywhere except in the city of Rome or wherever there is present the supreme pontiff or his legate wearing the insignia of the apostolic dignity. In all the provinces subject to their jurisdiction let appeal be made to them, when it is necessary, except for appeals made to the apostolic see, to which all must humbly defer.
The early Church knew nothing of any of this. No patriarch EVER received his "pallium" nor his pontifical office from the Pope of Rome, nor did ANY patriarch have to swear an oath of fidelity and obedience to the same.

Quote
I know of no Sacrament that is rendered illicit by the Pope's name not being invoked.
Neither do we, but the Vatican claims otherwise.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,124



« Reply #144 on: November 16, 2010, 03:40:05 PM »


No, we're not. Ya'll and the Vatican are on your own.
There you go referring to that city state again.  Grin
Whose flag is in your parish, or do you deny that?
What does that have to do with the price of tea in china?
LOL. In China, the "Catholic Patriotic Church" does not recognize the supreme pontiff, nor fly his flag.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #145 on: November 16, 2010, 03:41:32 PM »

No, we're not. Ya'll and the Vatican are on your own.

Yes.  We are the Body of Christ and all that is given unto us through his Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity is of utmost sufficiency.
Logged

Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,166


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #146 on: November 16, 2010, 03:45:03 PM »


No, we're not. Ya'll and the Vatican are on your own.
There you go referring to that city state again.  Grin
Whose flag is in your parish, or do you deny that?
What does that have to do with the price of tea in china?
LOL. In China, the "Catholic Patriotic Church" does not recognize the supreme pontiff, nor fly his flag.
I am aware of the Patriotic Church of China
Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,124



« Reply #147 on: November 16, 2010, 03:45:27 PM »

^ So then Isa, you don't have a meaningful answer to Wyatt's question? That's what I thought.
Ultramontanism: the heresy that holds that the Church is one because all its bishops receive their authority by submission to the "supreme pontiff," that the Churhc is holy because the "Vicar of Christ" can speak infallibly ex cathedra and sacraments are licit by being done in his name, that the Church is Catholic because its "pope" has jursidiction throughout the world, and that the Church is Apostolic because its "visible head" alone calls and approves Ecumenical Councils.
Oh so you don't think that those of us in communion with Rome are ultramontanits then. cool
I'm curious as to when and by whom is the Holy Eucharist offered in the name of the Pope. What does that happen?
To take as an example, the DL that the Melkites in submission to the Vatican use:
Dear LBK,

Thank you for responding to my query. I find the topic to be very interesting.

Fr Anastasios, you wrote:

When I was an Eastern Rite Roman Catholic, our parish did not alter the liturgical texts that we lifted from Orthodoxy when we schismed.  So I think we have to be real careful where we draw the line lest the Eastern Rite Roman Catholics turn your argument right back on you.

That's easy to refute, Father. The definitive sign of an Eastern Rite Catholic is liturgical commemoration of the Pope of Rome as Supreme Pontiff. Last time I checked, this is heresy in the Orthodox Church.

While I would agree with you that such commemoration is heretical, I don't believe you can deduce that just from the liturgical deposit; the main reason we know that Roman Catholics are heretics is because they were condemned by several councils and the Fathers wrote against their false doctrines.

No, actually it is heretical on the face of it.
Quote
First, Lord, remember our Father N. Pope of Rome, our Most Blessed Patriarch N., our Father and (Arch)bishop N.  Graciously bestow them to Your Holy Churches in peace, safty, honor, health, long life, rightly dispensing the word of Your truth.
http://www.melkite.org/PDF/LITURGY2009.pdf

Now, the (arch)bishop is there because the parish exists only antimens.  The Patriarch is there, because of the Church's canonical order, of the synod of the local Church having a primate.

But the mere mention of the pope of Rome, first of all, on the face of it is an intrusion of ultramontanism, the idea that someone is above the Local Church.  Both "Rome" and "Pope" point to that:if you are not in the Patriarchate of Rome, there is no reason to be commorating him over any other primate in the diptych.  And "Pope" breaks the Word "Call no one Father," the Orthodox not falling for the Protestant trap on denying to anyone (otherwise they could not Honor your father as the commandment says, and would have to condemn scripture 1 Cor. 4:15 where St. Paul claims to be their father), but neither the error of the Vatican in claiming the title the Father, arrogating the title "pope" "dad" only to himself. In fact, since I got this from the Melkite Web site, their is the problem that the Melkite patriarch claims, and is installed by Rome to be, the patriarch of Alexandria, upon whom was bestowed the title, long before Rome took it, of "Pope."  Yet the Vatican, because of the heresies of Vatican I, denies him this title, and it doesn't appear in their liturgy.

There is a dogmatic basis for the commemoration, and the liturgical commemoration of the Vatican breaks it, making it clear that it is heresy.[/size]
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,166


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #148 on: November 16, 2010, 03:47:25 PM »

^ So then Isa, you don't have a meaningful answer to Wyatt's question? That's what I thought.
Ultramontanism: the heresy that holds that the Church is one because all its bishops receive their authority by submission to the "supreme pontiff," that the Churhc is holy because the "Vicar of Christ" can speak infallibly ex cathedra and sacraments are licit by being done in his name, that the Church is Catholic because its "pope" has jursidiction throughout the world, and that the Church is Apostolic because its "visible head" alone calls and approves Ecumenical Councils.
Oh so you don't think that those of us in communion with Rome are ultramontanits then. cool
I'm curious as to when and by whom is the Holy Eucharist offered in the name of the Pope. What does that happen?
To take as an example, the DL that the Melkites in submission to the Vatican use:
Dear LBK,

Thank you for responding to my query. I find the topic to be very interesting.

Fr Anastasios, you wrote:

When I was an Eastern Rite Roman Catholic, our parish did not alter the liturgical texts that we lifted from Orthodoxy when we schismed.  So I think we have to be real careful where we draw the line lest the Eastern Rite Roman Catholics turn your argument right back on you.

That's easy to refute, Father. The definitive sign of an Eastern Rite Catholic is liturgical commemoration of the Pope of Rome as Supreme Pontiff. Last time I checked, this is heresy in the Orthodox Church.

While I would agree with you that such commemoration is heretical, I don't believe you can deduce that just from the liturgical deposit; the main reason we know that Roman Catholics are heretics is because they were condemned by several councils and the Fathers wrote against their false doctrines.

No, actually it is heretical on the face of it.
Quote
First, Lord, remember our Father N. Pope of Rome, our Most Blessed Patriarch N., our Father and (Arch)bishop N.  Graciously bestow them to Your Holy Churches in peace, safty, honor, health, long life, rightly dispensing the word of Your truth.
http://www.melkite.org/PDF/LITURGY2009.pdf

Now, the (arch)bishop is there because the parish exists only antimens.  The Patriarch is there, because of the Church's canonical order, of the synod of the local Church having a primate.

But the mere mention of the pope of Rome, first of all, on the face of it is an intrusion of ultramontanism, the idea that someone is above the Local Church.  Both "Rome" and "Pope" point to that:if you are not in the Patriarchate of Rome, there is no reason to be commorating him over any other primate in the diptych.  And "Pope" breaks the Word "Call no one Father," the Orthodox not falling for the Protestant trap on denying to anyone (otherwise they could not Honor your father as the commandment says, and would have to condemn scripture 1 Cor. 4:15 where St. Paul claims to be their father), but neither the error of the Vatican in claiming the title the Father, arrogating the title "pope" "dad" only to himself. In fact, since I got this from the Melkite Web site, their is the problem that the Melkite patriarch claims, and is installed by Rome to be, the patriarch of Alexandria, upon whom was bestowed the title, long before Rome took it, of "Pope."  Yet the Vatican, because of the heresies of Vatican I, denies him this title, and it doesn't appear in their liturgy.

There is a dogmatic basis for the commemoration, and the liturgical commemoration of the Vatican breaks it, making it clear that it is heresy.[/size]
^ So then Isa, you don't have a meaningful answer to Wyatt's question? That's what I thought.
Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,124



« Reply #149 on: November 16, 2010, 04:19:46 PM »

^ So then Isa, you don't have a meaningful answer to Wyatt's question? That's what I thought.
How silly of me! I had forgot that the lex orandi lex credendi doesn't apply to those with the supreme pontiff, so those who commemorate his name need not say the filioque in their creed. I'm used to the Orthodox way of professing what we belief and believing what we profess.

So for you all:

Can.  838 §1. The direction of the sacred liturgy depends solely on the authority of the Church which resides in the Apostolic See and, according to the norm of law, the diocesan bishop.

§2. It is for the Apostolic See to order the sacred liturgy of the universal Church, publish liturgical books and review their translations in vernacular languages, and exercise vigilance that liturgical regulations are observed faithfully everywhere.

§3. It pertains to the conferences of bishops to prepare and publish, after the prior review of the Holy See, translations of liturgical books in vernacular languages, adapted appropriately within the limits defined in the liturgical books themselves.

§4. Within the limits of his competence, it pertains to the diocesan bishop in the Church entrusted to him to issue liturgical norms which bind everyone.

Can.  841 Since the sacraments are the same for the whole Church and belong to the divine deposit, it is only for the supreme authority of the Church to approve or define the requirements for their validity; it is for the same or another competent authority according to the norm of ⇒ can. 838 §§3 and 4 to decide what pertains to their licit celebration, administration, and reception and to the order to be observed in their celebration.

Can. 381 §1. A diocesan bishop in the diocese entrusted to him has all ordinary, proper, and immediate power which is required for the exercise of his pastoral function except for cases which the law or a decree of the Supreme Pontiff reserves to the supreme authority or to another ecclesiastical authority.

§3. A bishop takes canonical possession of a diocese when he personally or through a proxy has shown the apostolic letter in the same diocese to the college of consultors in the presence of the chancellor of the curia, who records the event. In newly erected dioceses, he takes canonical possession when he has seen to the communication of the same letter to the clergy and people present in the cathedral church, with the senior presbyter among those present recording the event.

§4. It is strongly recommended that the taking of canonical possession be done within a liturgical act in the cathedral church with the clergy and people gathered together.

Can. 399 §1. Every Five years a diocesan bishop is bound to make a report to the Supreme Pontiff on the state of the diocese entrusted to him, according to the form and time determined by the Apostolic See.

Can. 400 §1. Unless the Apostolic See has established otherwise, during the year in which he is bound to submit a report to the Supreme Pontiff, a diocesan bishop is to go to Rome to venerate the tombs of the Blessed Apostles Peter and Paul and to present himself to the Roman Pontiff.

Can. 375 §1. Bishops, who by divine institution succeed to the place of the Apostles through the Holy Spirit who has been given to them, are constituted pastors in the Church, so that they are teachers of doctrine, priests of sacred worship, and ministers of governance.

§2. Through episcopal consecration itself, bishops receive with the function of sanctifying also the functions of teaching and governing; by their nature, however, these can only be exercised in hierarchical communion with the head and members of the college.

Can. 377 §1. The Supreme Pontiff freely appoints bishops or confirms those legitimately elected.

http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/_INDEX.HTM
« Last Edit: November 16, 2010, 04:20:26 PM by ialmisry » Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,166


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #150 on: November 16, 2010, 05:01:03 PM »

Still don't see how this means that the Euchrist is "offered in the name of the Pope."

But hey, why bother with the facts, right? You have Latins to bash. lol


So once moe: So then Isa, you don't have a meaningful answer to Wyatt's question? That's what I thought.
Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,124



« Reply #151 on: November 16, 2010, 05:57:49 PM »

Still don't see how this means that the Euchrist is "offered in the name of the Pope."
I'm sure you don't.

Quote
Answered by Father Edward McNamara, professor of liturgy at the Regina Apostolorum Pontifical University

In acting in the person of Christ the priest makes it possible for the present assembly to exercise the common priesthood of the faithful and thus to unite themselves in heart and mind to Christ, as he offers his perfect sacrifice to the Father and who allows us to share in this sacrifice.

Yet this priesthood cannot be genuinely exercised except in communion with the ministerial priesthood acting in the person of Christ and the Church. And indeed, one of the primary purposes of the ministerial priesthood is to facilitate the exercise of the common priesthood.

Without this communion the liturgy ceases, in a way, to be an act of the Church, for the concrete assembly is a manifestation of the Church, but is not the Church itself.

Thus the priest, in saying the Eucharistic Prayer alone, but in always using the first person plural, expresses this double aspect of acting in the person of Christ and of the Church. Through the priest's acting in the person of Christ, in a way Christ himself acts in the person of the Church in saying the Eucharistic Prayer.

In other words, Christ himself, as head of his body, the Church, says the Eucharistic Prayer, and says it in first person plural because while, on the one hand, only he can offer the Eucharist, he associates his whole body — all the faithful — with him in doing so.

Another consequence of this communion in the whole Church is that we are all engaged in every Mass said anywhere.

This can be seen in some elements of the prayer itself. For example, the intercessions of the first two Eucharistic Prayers contain the expression "una cum" — "together with N. our Pope and N. our Bishop" (although the same Latin expression is translated differently in the two prayers).

This "together with" is not just a praying-for but a praying-with by which we are united through the celebrating priest to the bishop and through him to the Pope and the universal Church.

The General Instruction of the Roman Missal, No. 149, addresses this point:

"If the celebrant is a Bishop, in the Prayers, after the words 'Papa nostro N.' (N., our Pope), he adds, 'et me, indigno famulo tuo' (and me, your unworthy servant). If, however, the Bishop is celebrating outside his own diocese, after the words 'Papa nostro N.' (N., our Pope), he adds, 'et me indigno famulo tuo, et fratre meo N., Episcopo huius Ecclesiae N.' (me, your unworthy servant, and my brother N., the Bishop of this Church of N.).

"The diocesan Bishop or anyone equivalent to him in law must be mentioned by means of this formula: 'una cum famulo tuo Papa nostro N. et Episcopo (or Vicario, Prelato, Praefecto, Abbate)' (together with your servant N., our Pope, and N., our Bishop [or Vicar, Prelate, Prefect, Abbot]).

Because ecclesial unity is formed through the pope and the bishop it is not correct to extend the prayer by specifically naming priests such as "N. our pastor."
http://www.ewtn.com/library/liturgy/zlitur40.htm

For a Traditionalist take on this "Should I Assist at a Mass That Names Benedict XVI in the Canon?"
http://www.traditionalmass.org/images/articles/B16inCanon.pdf

anyone further interested, look up "Una cum Mass"

Take a look at your missal. Tell me if it is approved by someone other than your supreme pontiff Benedict XVI, either directly or indirectly per those canons I posted from http:/ /www.vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/_INDEX.HTM


Quote
But hey, why bother with the facts, right?
You don't seem bothered by the facts, and the fact that I am right.

Quote
You have Latins to bash. lol
Can. 838 — § 1. Sacrae liturgiae moderatio ab Ecclesiae auctoritate unice pendet: quae quidem est penes Apostolicam Sedem et, ad normam iuris, penes Episcopum dioecesanum.

 § 2. Apostolicae Sedis est sacram liturgiam Ecclesiae universae ordinare, libros liturgicos edere eorumque versiones in linguas vernaculas recognoscere, necnon advigilare ut ordinationes liturgicae ubique fideliter observentur.

 § 3. Ad Episcoporum conferentias spectat versiones librorum liturgicorum in linguas vernaculas, convenienter intra limites in ipsis libris liturgicis definitos aptatas, parare, easque edere, praevia recognitione Sanctae Sedis.

§ 4. Ad Episcopum dioecesanum in Ecclesia sibi commissa pertinet, intra limites suae competentiae, normas de re liturgica dare, quibus omnes tenentur.

Can. 841 — Cum sacramenta eadem sint pro universa Ecclesia et ad divinum depositum pertineant, unius supremae Ecclesiae auctoritatis est probare et definire quae ad eorum validitatem sunt requisita, atque eiusdem aliusve auctoritatis competentis, ad normam can. 838, §§ 3 et 4, est decernere quae ad eorum celebrationem, administrationem et receptionem licitam necnon ad ordinem in eorum celebratione servandum spectant.

Can. 381 — § 1. Episcopo dioecesano in dioecesi ipsi commissa omnis competit potestas ordinaria, propria et immediata, quae ad exercitium eius muneris pastoralis requiritur, exceptis causis quae iure aut Summi Pontificis decreto supremae aut alii auctoritati ecclesiasticae reserventur.

§ 3. Canonicam dioecesis possessionem capit Episcopus simul ac in ipsa dioecesi, per se vel per procuratorem, apostolicas litteras collegio consultorum ostenderit, praesente curiae cancellario, qui rem in acta referat, aut, in dioecesibus noviter erectis, simul ac clero populoque in ecclesia cathedrali praesenti earundem litterarum communicationem procuraverit, presbytero inter praesentes seniore in acta referente.

§ 4. Valde commendatur ut captio canonicae possessionis cum actu liturgico in ecclesia cathedrali fiat, clero et populo adstantibus.

Can. 399 — § 1. Episcopus dioecesanus tenetur singulis quinquenniis relationem Summo Pontifici exhibere super statu dioecesis sibi commissae, secundum formam et tempus ab Apostolica Sede definita.

Can. 400 — § 1. Episcopus dioecesanus, eo anno quo relationem Summo Pontifici exhibere tenetur, nisi aliter ab Apostolica Sede statutum fuerit, ad Urbem, Beatorum Apostolorum Petri et Pauli sepulcra veneraturus, accedat et Romano Pontifici se sistat.

Can. 375 — § 1. Episcopi, qui ex divina institutione in Apostolorum locum succedunt per Spiritum Sanctum qui datus est eis, in Ecclesia Pastores constituuntur, ut sint et ipsi doctrinae magistri, sacri cultus sacerdotes et gubernationis ministri.

§ 2. Episcopi ipsa consecratione episcopali recipiunt cum munere sanctificandi munera quoque docendi et regendi, quae tamen natura sua nonnisi in hierarchica communione cum Collegii capite et membris exercere possunt.

Can. 377 — § 1. Episcopos libere Summus Pontifex nominat, aut legitime electos confirmat.

Quote
So once moe: So then Isa, you don't have a meaningful answer to Wyatt's question? That's what I thought.
Hold that thought.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,166


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #152 on: November 16, 2010, 06:54:01 PM »

Commemorating the Pope does not mean that the Eucharist is being offered in his name. Another swing and a miss for you Isa.

So, I have to ask once more: So then Isa, you don't have a meaningful answer to Wyatt's question? That's what I thought.

Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #153 on: November 16, 2010, 07:00:53 PM »

Commemorating the Pope does not mean that the Eucharist is being offered in his name. Another swing and a miss for you Isa.

That's ok.  Orthodoxy offers the Eucharist in the name of the Metropolitan or Patriarch, and priests are bishop-drones.

Why crash and burn over such things?
Logged

ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,124



« Reply #154 on: November 16, 2010, 07:30:28 PM »

Commemorating the Pope does not mean that the Eucharist is being offered in his name. Another swing and a miss for you Isa.
So, I have to ask once more: So then Isa, you don't have a meaningful answer to Wyatt's question? That's what I thought.
Quote
Answered by Father Edward McNamara, professor of liturgy at the Regina Apostolorum Pontifical University

I came across something interesting:
Quote
The priest prays first for the Church, then for the pope and diocesan ordinary by name...At the pope's name a slight inclination is made. When the Roman See is vacant, the mention of the pope is left out. In Rome the bishop's name is left out; the pope is local bishop there. The bishop must be canonically appointed and confirmed, otherwise he is not mentioned. But he need not yet be consecrated...The mention of the pope always occurs at this place. Otherwise in the Middle Ages there was a great variety in the names.
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03255c.htm

This is interesting as it means someone not yet consecrated but appointed and confirmed-as canons state, by the Vatican-is commemorated, as Fr. McMamara points out ""This "together with" is not just a praying-for but a praying-with by which we are united through the celebrating priest to the bishop and through him to the Pope and the universal Church."" IOW, the Vatican's fiat that the bishop elect is bishop alone links his future diocese to the Body of Christ. This contrasts starkly with the ecclesiology of Patriarch St. Ignatius, where the Catholic Church gathers around its consecrated successors to the Apostles and effect the unity of the Catholic Church through the Orthodox episcopate.

You're getting a new missal in English. In whose name is it promulgated, to "define the requirements for their validity;... competent authority...to decide what pertains to their licit celebration, administration, and reception and to the order to be observed in their celebration"?
« Last Edit: November 16, 2010, 07:32:53 PM by ialmisry » Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,166


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #155 on: November 16, 2010, 07:42:25 PM »

keep trying Isa.
Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,124



« Reply #156 on: November 16, 2010, 08:21:52 PM »

keep trying Isa.
Found it:
http://www.nccbuscc.org/romanmissal/
Quote
Vatican issues final text of the Roman Missal, Third Edition, for the Dioceses of the United States of America
Funny, I've been to Vatican City, and I've lived in the United States of America, and the Vatican isn't any where near the USA.
Quote
The Roman Missal, Third Edition, the ritual text containing prayers and instructions for the celebration of the Mass, has been approved by the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments.  First use of the new text of the new Roman Missal will be on the First Sunday of Advent, November 27, 2011.
Pope John Paul II announced a revised version of the Missale Romanum during the Jubilee Year 2000.

Quote
1. Why was there a need for a new translation?
The Missale Romanum (Roman Missal), the ritual text for the celebration of the Mass, was promulgated by Pope Paul VI in 1970 as the definitive text of the reformed liturgy of the Second Vatican Council.  That Latin text, the editio typica (typical edition), was translated into various languages for use around the world; the English edition was published in the United States in 1973.  The Holy See issued a revised text, the editio typica altera, in 1975.  Pope John Paul II promulgated the third edition (editio typica tertia) of the Missale Romanum during the Jubilee Year in 2000.

Quote
Mandate, Responsibilities, and Relationships
of the USCCB Committee on Divine Worship



Mandate and Goals of the Committee on Divine Worship
The committee assists the bishops of the Latin Church, both collectively and individually, in fulfilling their roles as priests and leaders of the worshiping community, especially with the translation of liturgical text and the development of guidelines for the celebration of the Mass and the sacraments. The committee addresses in a particular way prayer and worship within culturally diverse communities.

This mandate includes the following areas of responsibility:
For the Latin Church, liturgical practice within the United States, translation and adaptation of liturgical texts, sacred music, charismatic renewal, and national shrines.

Key Mission Responsibilities

Translating, adapting, reviewing, and promoting liturgical texts, especially for the Mass and the celebration of the sacraments;
Developing pastoral practices and guidelines for various liturgical questions and issues, including musical settings and adaptations for use in culturally diverse communities of the Church in the United States;
Reviewing liturgical participation aids and musical settings;
Responding to specific questions from bishops and providing information when requested to bishops and diocesan offices; and
Collaborating with USCCB Publishing in the publications of liturgical text and rituals.
Key Mission Relationships
With related committees and offices of the USCCB, especially the Committees on Doctrine and Cultural Diversity in the Church;
With dioceses and national liturgical groups with regard to guidelines and consultation;
With the Holy See;
With the body of bishops in regard to the relationship with ICEL; and
With other USCCB committees and offices that request review and consultation.
http://www.usccb.org/liturgy/mandate.shtml
Quote
This is the third edition of the of the Roman Missal, which the Supreme Pontiff JOHN PAUL II  on 10 the day of the month of April 2000 on his own authority, approved, and the congregation of Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, and now edited and declared published.
http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=la&tl=en&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.clerus.org%2Fbibliaclerusonline%2Fen%2Femi.htm%23bao

Unforunately, I still don't have the imprimatur of your new edition, but no doubt, it will be in the name of your supreme pontiff Benedict XVI.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #157 on: November 16, 2010, 08:40:13 PM »

What does any of this prove to you?

What do you think to demonstrate?

Are all of your liturgical books idiosyncratic? 

Do you offer the Eucharist in the name of the Synod?

It goes beyond absurd with you.



keep trying Isa.
Found it:
http://www.nccbuscc.org/romanmissal/
Quote
Vatican issues final text of the Roman Missal, Third Edition, for the Dioceses of the United States of America
Funny, I've been to Vatican City, and I've lived in the United States of America, and the Vatican isn't any where near the USA.
Quote
The Roman Missal, Third Edition, the ritual text containing prayers and instructions for the celebration of the Mass, has been approved by the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments.  First use of the new text of the new Roman Missal will be on the First Sunday of Advent, November 27, 2011.
Pope John Paul II announced a revised version of the Missale Romanum during the Jubilee Year 2000.

Quote
1. Why was there a need for a new translation?
The Missale Romanum (Roman Missal), the ritual text for the celebration of the Mass, was promulgated by Pope Paul VI in 1970 as the definitive text of the reformed liturgy of the Second Vatican Council.  That Latin text, the editio typica (typical edition), was translated into various languages for use around the world; the English edition was published in the United States in 1973.  The Holy See issued a revised text, the editio typica altera, in 1975.  Pope John Paul II promulgated the third edition (editio typica tertia) of the Missale Romanum during the Jubilee Year in 2000.

Quote
Mandate, Responsibilities, and Relationships
of the USCCB Committee on Divine Worship



Mandate and Goals of the Committee on Divine Worship
The committee assists the bishops of the Latin Church, both collectively and individually, in fulfilling their roles as priests and leaders of the worshiping community, especially with the translation of liturgical text and the development of guidelines for the celebration of the Mass and the sacraments. The committee addresses in a particular way prayer and worship within culturally diverse communities.

This mandate includes the following areas of responsibility:
For the Latin Church, liturgical practice within the United States, translation and adaptation of liturgical texts, sacred music, charismatic renewal, and national shrines.

Key Mission Responsibilities

Translating, adapting, reviewing, and promoting liturgical texts, especially for the Mass and the celebration of the sacraments;
Developing pastoral practices and guidelines for various liturgical questions and issues, including musical settings and adaptations for use in culturally diverse communities of the Church in the United States;
Reviewing liturgical participation aids and musical settings;
Responding to specific questions from bishops and providing information when requested to bishops and diocesan offices; and
Collaborating with USCCB Publishing in the publications of liturgical text and rituals.
Key Mission Relationships
With related committees and offices of the USCCB, especially the Committees on Doctrine and Cultural Diversity in the Church;
With dioceses and national liturgical groups with regard to guidelines and consultation;
With the Holy See;
With the body of bishops in regard to the relationship with ICEL; and
With other USCCB committees and offices that request review and consultation.
http://www.usccb.org/liturgy/mandate.shtml
Quote
This is the third edition of the of the Roman Missal, which the Supreme Pontiff JOHN PAUL II  on 10 the day of the month of April 2000 on his own authority, approved, and the congregation of Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, and now edited and declared published.
http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=la&tl=en&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.clerus.org%2Fbibliaclerusonline%2Fen%2Femi.htm%23bao

Unforunately, I still don't have the imprimatur of your new edition, but no doubt, it will be in the name of your supreme pontiff Benedict XVI.
Logged

Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,166


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #158 on: November 16, 2010, 09:28:08 PM »

What does any of this prove to you?

What do you think to demonstrate?

Are all of your liturgical books idiosyncratic?  

Do you offer the Eucharist in the name of the Synod?

It goes beyond absurd with you.



For some reason Isa wants us to be ultramontanists. I am not sure as to why.
« Last Edit: November 16, 2010, 09:28:58 PM by Papist » Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
Rafa999
Warned
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Roman Catholic
Jurisdiction: Latin Rite
Posts: 1,600


« Reply #159 on: November 16, 2010, 09:50:39 PM »

As the most Ancient and Orthodox of Churches (the Acoe's third Patriarch Mar Abris was a relative of Jesus, it was custodian of the most ancient Icon of Christendom the one you constructed all your icons from , Peter came to it first in Seleukia according to King Abgar's letters to Narses, and built the first physical building of a church for it, and Saint Thaddeus evangelized it first than anybody else, the Assyrian Queen Helena of Adiabene ruled all Jews outside Jerusalem which were the first Christians, ie: apostle of the circumcised) the Assyrian Church of the East believes that it is against the command "Let the little Children come to me" not to give the Eucharist to other Christians baptized in the name of Trinity and thinks this argumentation is all flawed and minimalistic, if only you all would read a book on the state of the Church prior to the first council of Ephesus and all the groups in a phone book which appeared after that date you would see what I am talking about.

I am profoundly troubled by reading the things Orthodox are saying on Roman Catholics here - unleavened bread...then why don't you use Holy Malka which was given by Saint John to all the Churches as the proper form of leavening? Why did you allow tyrants to say this was superstition and not preserve this tradition? You accuse the Latins of doing this, apply the same standard. "Ultramontanism"...then why does your "ecumenical Patriarch" call himself first among equals and tried to take over or hand over to his subjects foreign churches as "canonical territories"  (ie: the ROC managed to convince one small Assyrian Church to join it and bulldozed the oldest liturgy in the world and subsituted it for Saint John Chrysostom's liturgy, that is wrong). Your Bishops also changed the definition of what a Bishop is! According to your reasoning you cannot consecrate the Host or perform sacraments as well (not that I believe this)! The whole talk on "the Greek says this" in particular makes me troubled, the most ancient semitic Churches (Syriac Orthodox, Maronites, ACOE) hold as their canonical text the Aramaic which our Lord spoke. You think this text was lost, you are wrong and the refusal to give up on this text by the said Church's proves my point (it was by the way forbidden to teach Greek in first century palestine to pious Jews). Purgatory...then why did Mark of Ephesus according to Fr. Popovich supposedly teach that God placed you in Hell until prayers and liturgy being celebrated for the deceased fished you, payed you out (sounds like purgatory to me, and I haven't even gone into tollhouses and such which emphasize even more the pay aspect). The True belief of the ancient Church (making use of the ancient language and culture of our Lord) we have preserved can be read in the last few chapters of the Book of the Bee by Mar Shleimon of Basra. You call the RCC heterodox for having 21 councils it calls ecumenical but you have 7 and the Oriental Orthodox have only 3, and the ACOE only agreed to Nicea, Constantinople I (2). You say those who prevented their beliefs from being corrupted are "Nestorian" but you give the benefit of a doubt on so called heresy to those who's "Pope" gave you a Saint (Flavian). Ylou know what I'm talking about. Is this not wrong? Why do you blame others for the same mistakes you commit ? Pull the plank out of your own eyes O Pharisees ! Thank God your hierarchs can see all this and decide prudently.
« Last Edit: November 16, 2010, 09:52:53 PM by Rafa999 » Logged

I am NOT a representative of the ACOE. Ignore my posts
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #160 on: November 16, 2010, 09:58:47 PM »

As the most Ancient and Orthodox of Churches (the Acoe's third Patriarch Mar Abris was a relative of Jesus, it was custodian of the most ancient Icon of Christendom the one you constructed all your icons from , Peter came to it first in Seleukia according to King Abgar's letters to Narses, and built the first physical building of a church for it, and Saint Thaddeus evangelized it first than anybody else, the Assyrian Queen Helena of Adiabene ruled all Jews outside Jerusalem which were the first Christians, ie: apostle of the circumcised) the Assyrian Church of the East believes that it is against the command "Let the little Children come to me" not to give the Eucharist to other Christians baptized in the name of Trinity and thinks this argumentation is all flawed and minimalistic, if only you all would read a book on the state of the Church prior to the first council of Ephesus and all the groups in a phone book which appeared after that date you would see what I am talking about.

I am profoundly troubled by reading the things Orthodox are saying on Roman Catholics here - unleavened bread...then why don't you use Holy Malka which was given by Saint John to all the Churches as the proper form of leavening? Why did you allow tyrants to say this was superstition and not preserve this tradition? You accuse the Latins of doing this, apply the same standard. "Ultramontanism"...then why does your "ecumenical Patriarch" call himself first among equals and tried to take over or hand over to his subjects foreign churches as "canonical territories"  (ie: the ROC managed to convince one small Assyrian Church to join it and bulldozed the oldest liturgy in the world and subsituted it for Saint John Chrysostom's liturgy, that is wrong). Your Bishops also changed the definition of what a Bishop is! According to your reasoning you cannot consecrate the Host or perform sacraments as well (not that I believe this)! The whole talk on "the Greek says this" in particular makes me troubled, the most ancient semitic Churches (Syriac Orthodox, Maronites, ACOE) hold as their canonical text the Aramaic which our Lord spoke. You think this text was lost, you are wrong and the refusal to give up on this text by the said Church's proves my point (it was by the way forbidden to teach Greek in first century palestine to pious Jews). Purgatory...then why did Mark of Ephesus according to Fr. Popovich supposedly teach that God placed you in Hell until prayers and liturgy being celebrated for the deceased fished you, payed you out (sounds like purgatory to me, and I haven't even gone into tollhouses and such which emphasize even more the pay aspect). The True belief of the ancient Church (making use of the ancient language and culture of our Lord) we have preserved can be read in the last few chapters of the Book of the Bee by Mar Shleimon of Basra. You call the RCC heterodox for having 21 councils it calls ecumenical but you have 7 and the Oriental Orthodox have only 3, and the ACOE only agreed to Nicea, Constantinople I (2). You say those who prevented their beliefs from being corrupted are "Nestorian" but you give the benefit of a doubt on so called heresy to those who's "Pope" gave you a Saint (Flavian). Ylou know what I'm talking about. Is this not wrong? Why do you blame others for the same mistakes you commit ? Pull the plank out of your own eyes O Pharisees ! Thank God your hierarchs can see all this and decide prudently.

Indeed. 

And thank you for this perspective.

Mary
Logged

ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,124



« Reply #161 on: November 16, 2010, 10:12:02 PM »

What does any of this prove to you?
Nothing I didn't already know.

Quote
What do you think to demonstrate?
Ultramontanism: the heresy that holds that the Church is one because all its bishops receive their authority by submission to the "supreme pontiff," that the Churhc is holy because the "Vicar of Christ" can speak infallibly ex cathedra and sacraments are licit by being done in his name, that the Church is Catholic because its "pope" has jursidiction throughout the world, and that the Church is Apostolic because its "visible head" alone calls and approves Ecumenical Councils.

Quote
Are all of your liturgical books idiosyncratic?
No, they promulgated on authority of the local Holy Synod.  

Quote
Do you offer the Eucharist in the name of the Synod?
Right now in the name of the Metropolitan (Philip). Until his realease and the vacancy of the Diocese, our bishop (Mark) also.

No antimens with the required signature of the bishop, NO Eucharist.

Quote
It goes beyond absurd with you.

What is absurd is denying the obvious.  The Vatican's canons explicitly put the power "to approve or define the requirements for their validity" of the sacraments" into the lap of your supreme pontiff.  The Roman missal (and the Byzantine, etc. equivalents) are promulgated on his authority. As a sedevantist puts it very well:
Quote
In the many discussions which have taken place over the past fifteen years about the vacancy of the papal see since the time of the Vatican II “popes,” there has always been a “bottom line” which occurs in the Te Igitur of the Mass, which is the first prayer of the Canon. It is the passage in this prayer which requires the priest to pray for the reigning pope and bishop of the diocese in which the Mass if offered. If you pick up your missal, and turn to the Canon, you will see the phrase we are presently talking about: “...which in the first place we offer up to Thee for Thy holy Catholic Church, that it may please Thee to grant her peace, to protect, unite and govern throughout the world, together with Thy servant N. our Pope, N. our Bishop, and all true believers and professors of the Catholic and Apostolic Faith.” In Latin the phrase together with is rendered by una cum. Because the rubrics instruct the priest to leave out the name of the pope or bishop if the see is vacant, i.e., when a pope dies and the new pope is not elected, the mention or non-mention of the name by the priest is a litmus test for the priest’s position about John Paul II and the New Church. If he thinks that John Paul II is the true Pope, successor of Saint Peter, then he must place his name in the Canon. If, on the other hand, he does not hold him to be a true Pope, but a false one, then the priest must not mention his name in the Canon. So this little phrase in the Mass, una cum, says it all: is he or isn’t he the Pope?

The position of the Society of Saint Pius X is quite clear: he is, and if you do not agree, then get out. If I am not mistaken, they take an omission of the name to be a schismatic act. This they maintain despite the fact that they seem to admit a gray area in the speculative order; many of them openly speak about doubt concerning John Paul II’s papacy. Fr. Schmidberger even stated that the Fraternity was not in communion with the ConciliarChurch which identifies itself with the Novus Ordo Missæ. How such non-communion would not include John Paul II is mysterious. How can they be so emphatic about breaking communion with the conciliarists, and yet at the same time insist that priests declare themselves in communion with the head of the conciliarists?

Actions speak louder than words, and the appearance of the odious name in the Canon of the Mass is an action which clearly states that the Fraternity is in communion with the ConciliarChurch.

What if, however, you are not in communion with the NewChurch, but the only traditional Mass available to you is one in which a public declaration of communion with the Heresiarch is made? Is it licit to attend such a Mass?
http://www.traditionalmass.org/articles/article.php?id=46&catname=12

you might want to argue with his holiness:
Quote
Pope Benedict XIV

“But whatever can be said about this controverted point of ecclesiastical learning, it is sufficient for us to be able to affirm that the commemoration of the Roman Pontiff in the Mass as well as the prayers said for him in the Sacrifice are considered to be, and are a certain declarative sign, by which the same Pontiff is recognized as the head of the Church, the Vicar of Christ, and the Successor of Saint Peter, and becomes of profession of a mind and will firmly adhering to Catholic unity; as Christian Lupus correctly indicates, writing on the councils (Tom. 4. Editionis Bruxell. pag. 422): This commemoration is the supreme and most distinguished kind of communion.” Nor is this any less proven by the authority of Ivo Flaviniacensis (in Chronicle, p. 228) where it reads: “Let him know that he separates himself from the communion of the whole world, whoever does not mention the name of the Pope in the Canon, for whatever reason of dissension; nor [by the authority of] the well-known Alcuin, who, in his book De Divinis Officiis (chap. 12) wrote this: “ It is certain, as Blessed Pelagius teaches, that those who, for whatever reason of dissension, do not observe the custom of mentioning the name of the Apostolic Pontiff in the sacred mysteries, are separated from the communion of the whole world.” This fact is further proven by a more severe statement of the Supreme Pontiff Pelagius II, who held the Apostolic throne in the sixth century of the Church, and who in his letter contained in the Labbeana Collectio Conciliorum (Tome 5, col 794 sq. and col 810)left this in writing concerning our subject: I am shocked at your separation from the whole Church, which I cannot tolerate; for when blessed Augustine, mindful of Our Lord’s words which placed the foundation of the Church in Apostolic Sees, says that he is in schism whosoever shall separate himself from the authority of or communion with those who preside in these same Sees, and who does not publicly profess that there is no other Church than that which is established in the pontifical roots of the Apostolic Sees, how can you not esteem yourselves to be cut off from the communion of the whole world, if you withhold the mention of my name in the sacred mysteries, as is the custom, in whom, though unworthy, you see at the present time the strength of the Apostolic See through the succession of the episcopate?”
The last part is actually how it works, the Orthodox diptychs, as it seems even the Vatican's authorities admit:
Quote
Fr. William J. O’Shea, S.S., D.D.

ˆ”There is one official who symbolizes and represents the unity of the Church in each diocese, and who has been placed there by the Holy Spirit to rule the Church of God: that is the bishop. Originally only the local bishop was mentioned: papa once meant any bishop, but was later restricted to the pope. Outside Rome the words “et antistite nostro N.” were added to avoid confusion; our Canon now prays both for the symbol and center of unity in the Church at large and in each diocese in particular. “Et omnibus...fidei cultoribus” is an ancient addition which refers not to the faithful but to the other bishops throughout the world, who are real “cultores fidei”: “maintainers of the catholic, apostolic and orthodox faith.” The faith is designated by its ancient titles: it is catholic, for the whole world; apostolic, coming from them and resting upon their teaching; orthodox, the true faith.[
William J.O’Shea, S.S., D.D.,The Worship of the Church (Westminster, Maryland: The Newman Press, 1958) p. 393.

I got the above quotes from the sedevantist site, but least you dismiss on that basis, here is the fuller version of your supreme pontiffs' words, taken from EWTN
http://www.ewtn.com/library/ENCYC/B14EXQUO.HTM
Quote
EX QUO (On the Euchologion)  
Pope Benedict
 
Encyclical of Pope Benedict XIV promulgated on 1 March 1756.
To the Archbishops, Bishops and Other Clerics, Secular and Regular, of the Greek Rite Who Enjoy Favor and Communion with the Apostolic See.

Venerable Brothers and Beloved Sons, We Give You Greeting and Our Apostolic Blessing.

Ever since We first became Pope, We have proven Our fatherly love in embracing in Christ Our beloved eastern clergy and people, the Uniates as they are called, who are in agreement with Us and are free from the stain of schism. We have made every attempt to induce the schismatics to abandon their errors and join Us in Catholic unity. We do not intend to recall here all the measures We took for this purpose since the records of the Congregation for the Propagation of the Faith are filled with Our decrees on this subject and everyone can refer to Our apostolic letters and constitutions on eastern affairs in the volumes of Our Bullarium. Our present purpose is to inform you that the work of correcting the Greek Euchologion is now completed. It has already been printed by the press of the Congregation for the Propagation of the Faith following a lengthy scrutiny of every detail and most careful correction.

Consequently We exhort you to set aside previous editions which have been found to contain too many different errors, and to use this edition in sacred rites...

Four Admonitions

8. At the beginning of this most recent edition four admonitions are to be found. We want to explain briefly to you in this letter the reasons for the presence of these remarks.

First Admonition-Commemoration of Pontiff in the Mass

9. The first admonition is thus expressed: "It must be known that the priests who will use the Euchologion should be acquainted with the ecclesiastical canons of the holy Fathers and the Constitutions of the Catholic Church in order that they may avoid obvious mistakes in administering the divine Sacraments and performing their other duties. Therefore where commemorations are customarily made in the sacred liturgy, the Roman Pontiff should be first commemorated, then one's own bishop and patriarch, provided they are Catholic. But if either or both of them are schismatic or heretic they should by no means be commemorated." Certainly this is in full agreement with the decrees passed at the meeting of the Congregation on May 1, 1746, which We approved and confirmed. The following question was raised at that meeting: "whether the name of the supreme pontiff should be put into the prayers said by priest and deacon at the Offertory as well as in the other prayers, that is, For the supreme pontiff N." This response was given to that question: "In the instruction which is to be added at the start of the Euchologion, Greek priests should be advised to make a commemoration of the supreme pontiff and of their bishop or archbishop if he is in union with the Roman Catholic Church, and moreover a rubric should be put in the margin of the Liturgy referring them to the instruction." For it seemed best to add in this manner such matter as was missed in the text of the Euchologion itself.

This Practice is Long-Standing

10. We have Ourselves dealt with the commemoration of the Roman pontiff in the sacrifice of the Mass, and with the antiquity of this practice in Our treatise De Sacrificio Missae, sect. I, n. 219. But since the publication of this book, the same subject has been treated with many extraordinary observations by Dominicus Georgius (who in his lifetime was Our dear sacristan) in his De Liturgia Romani Pontificis, vol. 3, chap. 3, no. 14, where he writes: "It has ever been customary in the Catholic Church to recite the name of the Roman pontiff during the sacred mysteries." In no. 22 he adds: "All the ancient testimonies and the oldest copies of the sacred canon agree concerning the name of the supreme pontiff." Indeed, that such a commemoration had been made in the Mass is shown by the Ambrosian Liturgy, the Mozarabic Mass, and the Latin Mass which the Lutheran Flaccus Illyricus copied from one ancient manuscript and published. So also does the most ancient Liturgy which is found in the old manuscript on the Sacraments of the Roman Church which was published by Venerable Cardinal Thomasius. Finally, this is also shown in all the sacred canons of the Mass, whether printed or written by hand, as the prelate Niccolo Antonelli amply shows in the long and learned dissertation which he wrote as a necessary part of his duty as Secretary of the Congregation for the Correction of the Euchologion; he had it printed when a dispute on this subject arose among the Cardinals and Consultors. A reprint of this can also be I found in the Appendix to the old Lateran Monastic Missal in the Collectio Liturgica, vol. 1, made by Fr. Emanuele de Azevedo.

11. So far the testimonies mentioned relate to the Latin Church. As regards the Greek Church, Cardinal Bona says that it is not known whether in the early centuries it recalled the Roman pontiff in the sacrifice of the Mass: "But whether in the first centuries Orthodox Greece commemorated the Roman pontiff is unclear" (Rer. Liturgicar, bk. 2, chap. 11, no. 3). Moreover Isaac Habertus admits that among the records of the early age, he has found none to establish that it was customary in the Oriental Church to commemorate the Roman pontiff during the celebration of Mass: "I could wish it was done and if it had been done I would approve of it, but even so I do not read that it was done." But he says that the name of the Roman Pontiff had been added to that of the Patriarch in the time of Pope Nicholas I, that is about 858, since the following words are found in several ancient copies of the Holy Liturgy of John Chrysostom: "Long be the days of most holy Nicholas the universal pope" (Observationes ad Pontificale Graecorum, pt. 8, observ. 12).

But Antonelli, whom We have praised, argues in his dissertation that it was customary in the Greek Church to commemorate the Roman Pontiff during Mass long before the period assigned by Habertus. He proves his point especially by the fact reported by Nicephorus in his in Historia Ecclesiast., bk. 16, chap. 17, where he depends on the testimony of a more ancient and serious historian, Basilius Cilix. Acacius, bishop of Constantinople, a supporter of the Eutychian heresy, prevailed on the emperor Zeno to publish his ill-fated edict, the Henoticon, which rendered void the definition of the holy Council of Chalcedon which opposed the heresy of Eutyches. When Pope Felix III could not ignore this and therefore deprived Acacius of communion, he had the audacity in the year of the Lord 484 to erase the name of the Roman pontiff Felix from the sacred diptychs in a new and hitherto unheard-of excess of rashness. For this reason the memory of Acacius was then condemned. The Greek church accepted this condemnation in the time of Pope Hormisdas and Emperor Justin, although the two predecessors of Hormisdas, Anastasius 11 and Symmachus, had failed to win this acceptance. So in the great church of Constantinople (whose example was doubtless followed by the other lesser churches of the east) the name of the Roman pontiff was in the sacred diptychs; therefore it must be asserted that he was prayed for by name during the celebration of Masses. Acacius is described as the first to erase this name and his deed was on this account particularly punished since, without any precedent, he committed a new sort of outrage till then unheard of, even though in former times there had been no lack of offense and disagreements between the Roman pontiffs and the bishops of the imperial city. It is thus abundantly proved that long before the time of Acacius and so in the early centuries, the name of the Roman pontiff was written in the sacred diptychs of the Greeks and thus it was customary to pray for him during the celebration of Mass.
Then, as now, the names of all the autocephalous bishops are commorated in the ditpychs of their peers: despite what he goes on to say, the four patriarchs were commemorated by the Pope of Rome.
Quote
But however it may be with this disputed point of ecclesiastical learning, it suffices Us to be able to state that a commemoration of the supreme pontiff and prayers offered for him during the sacrifice of the Mass is considered, and really is, an affirmative indication which recognizes him as the head of the Church, the vicar of Christ, and the successor of blessed Peter, and is the profession of a mind and will which firmly espouses Catholic unity. This was rightly noticed by Christianus Lupus in his work on the Councils: "This commemoration is the chief and most glorious form of communion" (tome 4, p. 422, Brussels edition). This view is not merely approved by the authority of Ivo of Flaviniaca who writes: "Whosoever does not pronounce the name of the Apostolic one in the canon for whatever reason should realize that he is separated from the communion of the whole world" (Chronicle, p. 228); or by the authority of the famous Alcuin: "It is generally agreed that those who do not for any reason recall the memory of the Apostolic pontiff in the course of the sacred mysteries according to custom are, as the blessed Pelagius teaches, separated from the communion of the entire world" (de Divinis Officiis, bk. 1, chap. 12).

Pope Pelagius II who held the Apostolic See in the sixth century of the Church gives this weightier statement on Our present subject in his letter: "I am greatly astonished at your separation from the rest of the Church and I cannot equably endure it. For Augustine, mindful that the Lord established the foundation of the Church on the Apostolic sees, says that whosoever removes himself from the authority and communion of the prelates of those sees is in schism. He states plainly that there is no church apart from one which is firmly established on the pontifical bases of the Apostolic sees. Thus how can you believe that you are not separated from the communion of the whole world if you do not commemorate my name during the sacred mysteries, according to custom? For you see that the strength of the Apostolic See resides in me, despite my unworthiness, through episcopal succession at the present time" (Labbe, Conciliorum Collectione, vol. 5, col. 794f and 810). This letter of Pelagius has also been used by St. Agobard, the great archbishop of Lyons, in his treatise De comparatione utriusque regiminis. This is printed in the in Magna Bibliotheca Patrum (vol. 14, p. 315, no. 21, Lyons) and was reissued by Balutius with other writings of this saint (col. 2, p. 49).

13. Moreover it suffices Us to be able to affirm without peril that at whatever time the practice of praying by name for the Roman pontiff at Mass was finally accepted by the Greek Church, this practice was definitely in force in Greek churches many centuries before schism broke out, and was only broken off after the fatal separation. A letter dated 1053 of Peter, patriarch of Antioch, to Michael Cerularius, the well-known reviver of the Photian schism, survives. This letter is published in Greek and Latin by Joannes Baptista Cotelerius in the second volume of his Monument. Eccles. Graec. Michael had said that he was surprised that Peter of Antioch himself as well as the bishops of Alexandria and Jerusalem mentioned the Roman pontiff in the sacred diptychs (p. 140 of the above-mentioned volume). But Peter most sharply rebuked the rashness of the maddened man in showing that both at Antioch and at Constantinople, the commemoration of the Roman pontiff had never been omitted up to his time: "Of these matters I too am an unexceptionable witness, as are the many others who with me hold high office in the Church, that in the time of Lord John (patriarch of Antioch), the Pope at Rome, also called John, was included in the sacred diptychs. Furthermore, when I came to Constantinople forty-five years ago I found that under Patriarch Sergius the Pope was mentioned at holy Mass along with the other Patriarchs."

It is said in addition that no discussions on restoring unity were ever begun without the acceptance of the prior condition that the commemoration of the Roman pontiff should be included in the sacred liturgy, nor was a union which had been agreed on regarded as complete until the previous condition had actually been put into effect. The clear result of all this is that the Latin and Greek churches agree in recognizing and affirming that the commemoration implies a profession of due subjection to the Roman pontiff as head of the Church, and of a willingness to remain in the unity of the Church. On the other hand the omission of this commemoration signifies the intention of steadfastly espousing schism.

14. When Michael Palaeologus, Emperor of Constantinople, in 1263 and thereafter, affirmed his desire to return in company with his Greek subjects to unity and concord with the Roman Church, Urban IV aptly proposed the condition "that in sacred ceremonies from the diptychs, the name of the Pope should be commemorated together with the four patriarchs" (Nicetas, bk. 5, chap. 2). And when thereafter the negotiation of this union was again undertaken by Emperor Michael and Patriarch Giovanni Vecco and was seriously debated at the General Council of Lyons held in the year of the Lord 1274, the Pope, Blessed Gregory X, with the agreement of the assembled council fathers, first proposed several indispensable conditions for the effective negotiation of union. The first of these was "that the Pope be included in the diptych with the other four patriarchs and commemorated during the holy services" (Nicetas, as above). And Pachymeres (bk. 5, chap. 22) testifies that this condition was accepted by the Greeks and carried out in practice: "There were two immediate results of this arrival of the ambassadors who brought back word that peace had been made on the strength of the previous agreements: the deposition of the Patriarch and the public commemoration of the Pope in holy services."

15. His son Andronicus succeeded Michael Palaeologus as emperor, and was so extreme a supporter of the schism which had been condemned that he allowed his father's body to be buried beyond the sacred precinct because he had attempted to establish a union of the Greek Church with the Latin. Because the emperor could hardly hope for success in his intended revival of the schism while the Catholic patriarch, Giovanni Vecco, was leader of the church at Constantinople, he imposed as patriarch a certain Joseph who was tainted with the stain of heresy. As a result affairs began to deteriorate and a sincere reconciliation of the churches was no longer possible. Finally, at the meeting of the General Council of Ferrara, later transferred to Florence, in the year 1434, after proper deliberations of the issues by the Greek and Latin fathers, the wall of division was cast down which had for so long kept the one church apart from the other. To attest to everyone the reality of the enacted union John Palaeologus, emperor of the Greeks, gave orders that the name of the Pope be replaced in the sacred diptychs, as is testified even by the schismatic author Sylvester Sguropolus in his Historia Concilii Flor., sess. 10. chap. 2. Afterwards when the decree of established union had been brought to Philotheus, patriarch of Alexandria, he was careful to state in his answer to Pope Eugenius IV that he had also decided that the commemoration of the Roman pontiff in the sacrifice of the Mass should be placed before that of the other patriarchs: "Hence in company with our Egyptian bishops and other clergy, we decided that everywhere in all of Christ's churches during the sacrifice of the Mass, we should commemorate Your Blessedness before the other Patriarchs, as is provided for in the sacred canons." This passage may be found in the collection of the transactions of the Council of Florence made by Cardinal Justinianus (pt. 2, collect. 22, p. 323).

16. Constantine was the Greek emperor after John Palaeologus. When he sent ambassadors to Nicholas V to beseech help for his faltering fortunes, he was careful to profess that he would make every effort to implement as fully as could be desired the harmony which was agreed on at Florence, and that consequently he would see to it that the name of the Roman pontiff was restored to the sacred diptychs. This is attested by Ducas in his Historia Byzantina: The emperor had already sent to Rome to request reinforcements with the additional purpose of strengthening the harmony achieved at Florence and of having the Pope's name proclaimed from the sacred diptychs during the liturgies of the great church." The Pope showed himself ready to give him as much aid as he could and continued at the same time to exhort him to promulgate the decree of the union which had been agreed on at the Council of Florence. He urged him to see to it that the name of the Roman pontiff "was proclaimed in the diptychs and that the whole Greek church prayed for him expressly and by name, as was the former practice of men who were pleasing to God, both patriarchs of Constantinople and emperors" (Raynaldus, Annales, 1451 A.D., no. 2).

17. This is all We want to say on the first part of the first Admonition which deals with the obligation of celebrants to pray for the pope in the sacrifice of the Mass. Nothing further is to be added except that even before this Admonition, Catholic Greek Oriental bishops were careful to decree this very measure in their synods. We Ourselves did not neglect the publication of such suitable decrees for Italian Greeks. In 1720, a provincial synod was held at Zamoscia on the order of Pope Clement XI, under the presidency of Hieronymus Grimaldus. He was then the archbishop of Edessa and nuncio of the Apostolic See in the kingdom of Poland; later, he was raised to the honor of the Cardinalate by Pope Clement XII. In the decrees of this synod, which were confirmed after proper investigation by Pope Benedict XIII, the following words are found under the heading de fide Catholica: "For the same reason" - that is, to remove all suspicion of schism - "and to show a sincere union of the members with their head, it has decided and commanded under penalties to be applied at the judgment of the Ordinary that wherever a Roman pontiff is to be commemorated, especially at the Offertory of the Mass, it should be made in clear and definite words which can signify none other than the universal Bishop of Rome."

In agreement with this view are the fathers of the Synod of Lebanon which occurred in 1736 under the presidency of Joseph Simonius Assemanus, a prelate of the Roman curia and an Apostolic envoy. In the decrees of this council too, under the heading de Symbolo Fidei, ejusque professione, no. 12, these words are found: "Let us not neglect to repeat the commemoration of the most holy Roman pontiff, both in Masses and in the divine services, before the name of the most reverend lord patriarch, as has hitherto been our custom." After the strictest investigation, We confirmed this council with Apostolic authority, as may be seen in Our constitution Singularis (Bullarium, vol. I, no. 31). Peter Arcudius in his work de Concordia Ecclesiae Occidentalis et Orientalis, bk. 2, chap. 39, offers an admonition for Latin bishops with Greeks living in their dioceses to zealously impel them to commemorate the Roman pontiff in the Mass, to banish the last shade of suspicion of any inclination to schism: "The Latin bishops should see to it that the Greek priests subject to them are in Catholic unity and recognize the Supreme Pastor, and according to the ancient custom solemnly pray for him" in the sacrifice of the Mass - the subject under discussion in this passage. In agreement with this most just admonition, the following provision was made in Our constitution issued for the Italian Greeks, Etsi Pastoralis (Bullarium, vol. 1, 57, sect. 9, no. 4): "Next a commemoration should be made of the Supreme Roman Pontiff and of the Local Ordinary in Masses and divine services."
and, in contrast to the unconsecrated bishop elect confirmed by the Vatican's fiat, no consecrated bishop is to be commemorated if he does not submitt to the Vatican (called 'schismatic') or teach the Vatican's dogmas (called 'heretical'):
Quote
First Admonition-Commemoration of Bishop and Patriarch

18. Now follows the second part of this first admonition which, as was mentioned above, obliges the Greek priest during Mass, after praying for the Roman pontiff, to pray for his own bishop and his patriarch if they are Catholic. For if either is or both are schismatic or heretic, a commemoration should not be made.

21. Turning now to the Greeks, We consider first the Italian Greeks. These are entirely subject to the jurisdiction of the Latin bishop in whose diocese they live, in accordance with constitution 74, Romanus Pontifex, of Our predecessor, Pope Pius IV. This is to be found in volume two of the Bullar. Rom. and We have discussed it at length in Our treatise De Synodo Dioecesana, bk. 2, chap. 12, of the most recent Roman edition. Therefore these Italian Greek priests, in offering the sacrifice of the Mass, are required to follow the Latin practice and commemorate the Roman Pontiff and the local bishop. They should never commemorate eastern bishops or patriarchs even if they are Catholic, since these possess no jurisdiction in Italy and the adjacent islands, as has been discussed in Our constitution Etsi Pastoralis (Bullarium, vol. 1, const. 57, sect. 9 no. 4).

Of course in the Dictatus of Pope St. Gregory VII (can. 10) we find the dictum: "That the name of the Pope alone be pronounced in the church." This Dictatus is included in the collections of the councils (Royal Parisian, vol. 26; Labbe, vol. 6, pt. 1). Still We are well aware that there is a vigorous debate among scholars as to whether this is an authentic work of the holy pontiff or rather a forgery. Indeed Fr. Mabillon in his treatise De Studiis Monasticis has ranked this among the more difficult questions which professors of Church history can engage in solving. But laying aside this problem also - as to whether the Dictatus Papae is an authentic work of St. Gregory VII - the real and pertinent meaning of the Canon quoted is not that in the Latin Church the name of the diocesan bishop be removed from the Canon of the Mass, but that the name of Oriental Patriarchs should not be included there.

The Patriarchs indeed professed their agreement with the condition, that the name of the Roman Pontiff should be replaced in the Liturgy and that prayers should be offered for him in all the churches of the east, if in turn the Pope would consent to their names being pronounced in the Canon of the Mass by Latin priests of the Roman Church and of the other churches in the Patriarchate of Rome. Lupus wisely notes: "Purposing to abandon his schism, Michael (Cerularius, Patriarch of Constantinople) tried to have his name inscribed on the Roman tablets and he promised to restore the name of the Pope to the tablets of all of his churches. But Leo (Pope Leo IX) would not consent: for the reciprocal pronouncement of the names of Patriarchs was practiced only among the equal sister sees of the eastern patriarchs, but never by the Roman see. For this see is not only sister but also mother and head of the eastern sees and so has never pronounced any other name than the bishops" (ad Concilia, pt. 4, p. 437, Brussels edition). He continues in this way on the following page: "The names of the eastern patriarchs have never been pronounced by the Roman church nor for that matter by any Latin church."
An outright contradiction of himself, let alone a lie.
Quote
22. The foregoing discussion relates to the Italian Greeks. But as regards the rest of the Greeks and Orientals, the admonition in the preface of the Euchologion, which We are now considering, by no means prevents them from commemorating their metropolitans and patriarchs during the Mass, but merely forbids this if they should be schismatic or heretic. It is beyond dispute that the commemoration of patriarchs in the prayers of the Mass is an ancient custom in the Greek church. Theodorus Balsamon in his de Patriarcharum juribus has written: "It is established that in every church of God, whether on the Euphrates or on the edge of the Ocean, the names of the patriarchs are mentioned together." Goarius cites this as the established practice that in the Greek liturgy the priest prays for all the bishops and for the metropolitan (in Notis ad Rituale Graecorum, p. 63). Meratus, after establishing the fact that We mentioned earlier, that in the Latin church a commemoration of the archbishop is not made in the Mass even during a vacancy in a suffragan church, adds that: "This however is not the practice of the Greeks and other Orientals. These name the patriarch and the metropolitan" (in notis ad Gavantum, vol. 1, p. 539, Roman edition).

This practice is not absolutely forbidden to them in the admonition in question, but only in the cases when the metropolitan or patriarch is schismatic or heretic. This is in accordance with rules which were established and accepted before the correction of the Euchologion was undertaken. When this practice was dealt with in the Congregation of the Holy Office in 1673, the following decree was published: "At the General Congregation of the Holy Office on June 7, 1673, the question was posed whether a priest in the town of Lebanon during Mass might name the patriarch of the Armenians, who is schismatic, with the purpose of praying for him. The petition for this concession was made with great urgency in order by this means to attract that people to a greater friendship for the Latins. The Sacred Congregation responded that it could not be done and should be utterly forbidden. In the same Congregation on June 20, 1674, there was read a letter of the nuncio at Florence written on April 10, 1674, sent to the Sacred Congregation for the Propagation of the Faith and forwarded by this Congregation to the Sacred Congregation of the Holy Office. It was decided that a reply should be sent to the nuncio informing him that on the subject of prayer in the liturgy for the patriarch of the Armenians, the Sacred Congregation abided by its decrees published in 1673, that is, that it could not be done and should be utterly forbidden."

23. In harmony with this decision is another very similar decree of the Congregation on the corrected edition of the Coptic Missal made in 1732. Among other disputed questions the following was proposed: "Whether, and in what way, the words in which the priest commemorates the patriarch, bishop, etc. are to be corrected." This was the answer which was given: "A rubric should be placed at the beginning of the missal to advise and inform the priest on points relating to the celebration of Mass. Here should be placed a special rubric on the commemoration of the Roman pontiff as well as of the patriarch and bishop, provided that they are in union with the Roman Church. This rubric should be consulted in its own place." Moreover heretics and schismatics are subject to the censure of major excommunication by the law of Can. de Ligur. 23, quest. 5, and Can. Nulli, 5, dist. 19. But the sacred canons of the Church forbid public prayer for the excommunicated as can be seen in chap. A nobis, 2, and chap. Sacris on the sentence of excommunication. Though this does not forbid prayer for their conversion, still such prayer must not take the form of proclaiming their names in the solemn prayer during the sacrifice of the Mass. This fully accords with the ancient practice, as may be seen in Estius in 4. Sententiar., dist. 12, sec. 15. For that purpose it is sufficient to beseech to lead back the wanderers to the way of salvation and to the bosom of holy Mother Church, as is expounded by Sylvius, in 3. part. D. Thomae, vol. 4, quest. 83, art. 1, qu. 9.

Here is the teaching of St. Thomas himself in 4. Sent., dist. 18, quest. 2, art. 1, in answer to the first difficulty: "Prayer can be offered for the excommunicated, although this should be done apart from prayers which are offered for members of the Church." This does not necessarily involve a confusion of the Church's laws which exclude from the roster of its faithful followers the names of those who have cut themselves off from it. In forbidding public prayers to be offered for them, the Church definitely rules out commemorating them in the celebration of Mass. Very relevant is the view of Ven. Card. Bellarmine: "Someone will ask whether at the present time it is permissible to offer the sacrifice of the Mass for the conversion of heretics or the infidels. The reason for doubt is that the entire liturgy of the Latin church, as it is now performed, relates to the faithful, as is clear from the prayers of the offertory both before and during the canon. I answer that I consider it permissible, provided that no addition is made to the Mass, but the sacrifice is applied to the conversion of the infidels or heretics only by the intention of the priest. For this is the practice of pious and learned men, with whom we cannot disagree, and it is not forbidden by the Church" (Controversarium, vol. 3, bk. 6, de Missae, chap. 6).
contrast this with the commemoration of infidel rulers:
Quote
27. But among the Oriental peoples this practice of commemorating the king in the sacred liturgy is common, as may be seen in the Liturgies of the Armenians, Copts, Ethiopians and Syrians. But if it should be asked how it can be endured where it is certain that the kings for whom they pray and whom they commemorate in the liturgy are infidels, Ven. Card. Bellarmine would reply (as in fact he replied in the chapter quoted above) that it is by no means forbidden by the nature of the object, as theologians say, to pray during Mass even for infidels since the sacrifice of the Cross has been offered for all men. And of course St. Thomas teaches that although St. Augustine wrote in his work de origine Animae that the sacrifice is offered only for those who are members of Christ, his statement must be understood to include both those who are already members of Christ and those who are able to become such (in 4. Sentent., dist. 12, quest. 2, art. 2, quest. 2, to the fourth). Therefore, the Cardinal adds that the whole question should be assessed in terms of what the Church has forbidden: "It is certain from the nature of the object that if the Church has not prohibited it, it is permissible to offer prayers for those men (i.e., the infidels)." Although there is such a prohibition against the excommunicated and so against heretics and schismatics, there is none against infidels and these are not bound by excommunication. This is enough, he says, to allow commemoration of them during Mass and even the offering of the sacrifice for them in accordance with the evident tradition in this matter and with the apostolic constitution. "But someone may ask whether it is permissible if the king is an infidel as in Greece, where the Turk is ruler, and as in India, Japan and China where pagans rule, for priests there to offer prayers expressly for the king. I answer that I consider it permissible provided that the king is not excommunicated as are heretic kings, but is a pagan. For this tradition, this constitution, is apostolic, as I showed just above. To my knowledge there is no clear prohibition of this by the Church." A useful addition to the present discussion is the text of Tertullian: "We offer sacrifice for the health of the Emperor but we offer it to our God and his in the prayerful way commanded by God. For God the Creator of the whole world has no need of honor or of anyone's blood" (ad Scapulam, chap. 2).

« Last Edit: November 16, 2010, 10:28:31 PM by ialmisry » Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
Rafa999
Warned
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Roman Catholic
Jurisdiction: Latin Rite
Posts: 1,600


« Reply #162 on: November 16, 2010, 10:25:33 PM »

"Vanity of vanities, all is vanity."
-Ecclesiastes 1:2
Logged

I am NOT a representative of the ACOE. Ignore my posts
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #163 on: November 16, 2010, 10:27:34 PM »

The Catholic Church offers the Eucharistic sacrifice to the Father, through the Son, by the power of the Holy Spirit.


« Last Edit: November 16, 2010, 10:28:09 PM by elijahmaria » Logged

ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,124



« Reply #164 on: November 16, 2010, 11:04:21 PM »

Welcome back Rafa!
As the most Ancient
That would be Jerusalem, followed by Antioch, followed by Cyprus.

Quote
and Orthodox of Churches

Ephesus decided otherwise.

Quote
(the Acoe's third Patriarch Mar Abris was a relative of Jesus, it was custodian of the most ancient Icon of Christendom the one you constructed all your icons from , Peter came to it first in Seleukia according to King Abgar's letters to Narses, and built the first physical building of a church for it, and Saint Thaddeus evangelized it first than anybody else, the Assyrian Queen Helena of Adiabene ruled all Jews outside Jerusalem which were the first Christians, ie: apostle of the circumcised) the Assyrian Church of the East believes that it is against the command "Let the little Children come to me" not to give the Eucharist to other Christians baptized in the name of Trinity and thinks this argumentation is all flawed and minimalistic, if only you all would read a book on the state of the Church prior to the first council of Ephesus and all the groups in a phone book which appeared after that date you would see what I am talking about.
The Assyrian Church of the East is wrong.

"And this food is called among us Εὐχαριστία [the Eucharist], of which no one is allowed to partake but the man who believes that the things which we teach are true, and who has been washed with the washing that is for the remission of sins, and unto regeneration, and who is so living as Christ has enjoined. For not as common bread and common drink do we receive these; but in like manner as Jesus Christ our Saviour, having been made flesh by the Word of God, had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so likewise have we been taught that the food which is blessed by the prayer of His word, and from which our blood and flesh by transmutation are nourished, is the flesh and blood of that Jesus who was made flesh. For the apostles, in the memoirs composed by them, which are called Gospels, have thus delivered unto us what was enjoined upon them;"-St. Justin Martyr, 1st Apology, 66.

Quote
I am profoundly troubled by reading the things Orthodox are saying on Roman Catholics here - unleavened bread...then why don't you use Holy Malka which was given by Saint John to all the Churches as the proper form of leavening? Why did you allow tyrants to say this was superstition and not preserve this tradition?

Can you be more specific on whom you are calling "tyrants"?

And no, St. John gave noting to the gnostic ecclesiastical communities, nor the Ebionites,etc.

Quote
You accuse the Latins of doing this, apply the same standard. "Ultramontanism"...then why does your "ecumenical Patriarch" call himself first among equals and tried to take over or hand over to his subjects foreign churches as "canonical territories"  (ie: the ROC managed to convince one small Assyrian Church to join it and bulldozed the oldest liturgy in the world and subsituted it for Saint John Chrysostom's liturgy, that is wrong).
The EP had nothing to do with that, and the Assyrians were repenting of Nestorius' error. But as for myself I would have preferred the Liturgy of Mari and Addai (which, btw, as we have gone over before, is old but not the oldest DL) to be corrected and continued in use.

Quote
Your Bishops also changed the definition of what a Bishop is!

You refering to the antics in North America in the Sole Ruled Archdiocese?  It won't stand: it's not standing now. Otherwise I don't know what you are talking about.

Quote
According to your reasoning you cannot consecrate the Host or perform sacraments as well (not that I believe this)!
You mean the laity? Of course we can't consecrate the Eucharist etc. without an Orthodox bishop or a priest he sends.

Quote
The whole talk on "the Greek says this" in particular makes me troubled, the most ancient semitic Churches (Syriac Orthodox, Maronites, ACOE) hold as their canonical text the Aramaic which our Lord spoke.

No, they use the Syriac Peshitta. Our Lord spoke the related Aramaic We've been over this too.

Quote
You think this text was lost, you are wrong and the refusal to give up on this text by the said Church's proves my point (it was by the way forbidden to teach Greek in first century palestine to pious Jews).

The Talmud has plenty of Greek loans in it, the Dead Sea Scrolls include Greek scrolls, many synagogues, including Palestine have Greek inscriptions etc.. We went over that. You are adapting the late Jewish polemics against the LXX, when the Church was baptizing myriads of Hebrews.

Quote
Purgatory...then why did Mark of Ephesus according to Fr. Popovich supposedly teach that God placed you in Hell until prayers and liturgy being celebrated for the deceased fished you, payed you out (sounds like purgatory to me, and I haven't even gone into tollhouses and such which emphasize even more the pay aspect). The True belief of the ancient Church (making use of the ancient language and culture of our Lord) we have preserved can be read in the last few chapters of the Book of the Bee by Mar Shleimon of Basra. You call the RCC heterodox for having 21 councils it calls ecumenical but you have 7 and the Oriental Orthodox have only 3, and the ACOE only agreed to Nicea, Constantinople I (2).

Because you took the deposed heretic Nestorius as your doctor.

Quote
You say those who prevented their beliefs from being corrupted are "Nestorian" but you give the benefit of a doubt on so called heresy to those who's "Pope" gave you a Saint (Flavian). Ylou know what I'm talking about. Is this not wrong?
No.
Quote
Why do you blame others for the same mistakes you commit ? Pull the plank out of your own eyes O Pharisees ! Thank God your hierarchs can see all this and decide prudently.
yes, we have been over the decision of the Romanian Orthodox Church concerning Met. Nicolaie Corneau
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,124



« Reply #165 on: November 16, 2010, 11:05:45 PM »

What does any of this prove to you?

What do you think to demonstrate?

Are all of your liturgical books idiosyncratic?  

Do you offer the Eucharist in the name of the Synod?

It goes beyond absurd with you.



For some reason Isa wants us to be ultramontanists. I am not sure as to why.
just calling a spade a spade, so it doesn't act like a fish hook.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
Rafa999
Warned
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Roman Catholic
Jurisdiction: Latin Rite
Posts: 1,600


« Reply #166 on: November 16, 2010, 11:08:24 PM »

no matter the disagreements....always good to see my old pal Isa!!!!  Grin
Logged

I am NOT a representative of the ACOE. Ignore my posts
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #167 on: November 16, 2010, 11:13:29 PM »

What does any of this prove to you?

What do you think to demonstrate?

Are all of your liturgical books idiosyncratic?  

Do you offer the Eucharist in the name of the Synod?

It goes beyond absurd with you.



For some reason Isa wants us to be ultramontanists. I am not sure as to why.
just calling a spade a spade, so it doesn't act like a fish hook.

Your twisted understanding of Catholic teaching is the barb...not the teachings themselves.

You want to put fear in the heart of anyone who has any desire to see the Catholic Church as something other than a blood curdling monstrosity.

You present a disembodied arm and call it the Body.

It is the worst kind of false witness.  I call it as I see it: It is evil.
Logged

ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,124



« Reply #168 on: November 16, 2010, 11:57:01 PM »

What does any of this prove to you?

What do you think to demonstrate?

Are all of your liturgical books idiosyncratic?  

Do you offer the Eucharist in the name of the Synod?

It goes beyond absurd with you.



For some reason Isa wants us to be ultramontanists. I am not sure as to why.
just calling a spade a spade, so it doesn't act like a fish hook.

Your twisted understanding of Catholic teaching is the barb...not the teachings themselves.

You want to put fear in the heart of anyone who has any desire to see the Catholic Church as something other than a blood curdling monstrosity.

You present a disembodied arm and call it the Body.

It is the worst kind of false witness.  I call it as I see it: It is evil.
It is interesting on how we are told how much superior the Vatican is because it has a "magisterium," but then hue and cry is raised when we quote the documents that "magisterium" produces.  All the while we are told that only the "magisterium" can speak with authority, by those who continue to refuse to offer anything but their personal spin.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
Rafa999
Warned
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Roman Catholic
Jurisdiction: Latin Rite
Posts: 1,600


« Reply #169 on: November 17, 2010, 12:03:12 AM »

Quote
The Assyrian Church of the East is wrong.

Impossible!!!

The Holy ACOE had Jesus's relative Mar Abris as it's third Patriarch. Can a good tree bear bad fruit? Respect our Lord's relative in the flesh at the very least and cease these vanities of attempting to say the oldest Church in the world (that of Persia and Babylon, Jerusalem's line was broken and only re-established later by Greek Bishops who colonized the area, Antioch was severed after Ephesus and influenced in it's theology by Western Churches, Cyprus Greek) is somehow wrong. Peshitta is used by all Middle East semitic Churches, not Greek which tried to supplant it under Rabbulah and Philoxenus the forgers. The Gates of Hell shall never triumph over the Church established by Christ, the darkness which can be felt of certain heresies and doctrines of demons never approached it in the East where all Salvation proceeds from !
« Last Edit: November 17, 2010, 12:07:52 AM by Rafa999 » Logged

I am NOT a representative of the ACOE. Ignore my posts
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,124



« Reply #170 on: November 17, 2010, 12:23:09 AM »

Quote
The Assyrian Church of the East is wrong.

Impossible!!!

The Holy ACOE had Jesus's relative Mar Abris as it's third Patriarch.
He is not the present patriarch.

Quote
Can a good tree bear bad fruit?
We're not talking about that tree, nor its fruit.

Quote
Respect our Lord's relative in the flesh at the very least

Matthew 12:46 While He was still speaking to the people, behold, His mother and His brothers stood outside, asking to speak to Him. 47 Someone said to Him, "Behold, Your mother and Your brothers are standing outside seeking to speak to You." 48 But He replied to the man who told Him, "Who is My mother, and who are My brothers?" 49 And stretching out His hand toward His disciples, He said, "Here are My mother and My brothers! 50 For whoever does the will of My Father in heaven is My brother, and sister, and mother."

Quote
and cease these vanities of attempting to say the oldest Church in the world (that of Persia and Babylon, Jerusalem's line was broken and only re-established later by Greek Bishops who colonized the area,
No, they went to Pella.
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,19811.msg334770/topicseen.html#msg334770
The throne of St. James, the Brother of God, remains forever, in fullment of the covenant to the ancestor of God, David.

Quote
Antioch was severed after Ephesus and influenced in it's theology by Western Churches,
Antioch is still Orrthodox. I've been to the Patriarch's own Cathedral.

Quote
Cyprus Greek) is somehow wrong.
Age doesn't bring infallibility, and the ACE isn't the oldest church.  It is the oldest one to be anathematized which still survives.

Quote
Peshitta is used by all Middle East semitic Churches,

That's not even true of the Syriac ones, let alone the Arab and Ethiopian.

Quote
not Greek which tried to supplant it under Rabbulah and Philoxenus the forgers.

We have plenty of Greek texts centuries before St. Rabbulah and Philoxenus. In fact, all the oldest manuscripts are all in Greek.

Quote
The Gates of Hell shall never triumph over the Church established by Christ,

Indeed it hasn't and we aim to keep it that way.

Quote
the darkness which can be felt of certain heresies and doctrines of demons never approached it in the East where all Salvation proceeds from !
The far east was infested with Nestorianism, not to mention gnostics.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
Rafa999
Warned
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Roman Catholic
Jurisdiction: Latin Rite
Posts: 1,600


« Reply #171 on: November 17, 2010, 12:44:50 AM »

Mar Abraham (5th Patriarch after Mar Abris who was actually 4th forgive me) was a relative of the Virgin, and Mar Yaʿqob after him descended from Mar Yosip the Carpenter (Joseph, Jesus's adoptive father on earth). Obey Christ's relatives in the flesh our Orthodox Assyrian Patriarchs when they say you stray! Obey the Blessed Virgin :



Donot trust in the darkness of Egypt which made you a saint (Flavian) ! Donot obey false history !

Quote
We have plenty of Greek texts centuries before St. Rabbulah and Philoxenus. In fact, all the oldest manuscripts are all in Greek.

The most corrupt! Made when Arianism was the "orthodoxy"! Under the standar bearer of the Arians Eusebius of Caesarea! Witness this abomination :



Quote
No, they went to Pella.

Say that to King Abgar who wrote to the King of Persia Narses his relative to receive Peter. We have physical proof that the oldest "Church" is in Seleukia-Ctsephon. Indisputable. Of course the first Church was with Adam and Eve, I merely refer to the building we call a church.

 
Quote
Antioch is still Orrthodox. I've been to the Patriarch's own Cathedral.

Greek "Rum" Cathedral. The Vatican also has 4 or so Patriarchs in Antioch.

Quote
That's not even true of the Syriac ones, let alone the Arab and Ethiopian.

Try snatching that Peshitta away from the SOC, Maronites, or the ACOE. Just try...

Quote
The far east was infested with Nestorianism, not to mention gnostics.

Salvation proceeds from the East. Your gnosticism is a sacrament (Holy Malka) and the Heroic Nestorius was falsely condemned for defending the immutability of the Divine nature.

Quote
Age doesn't bring infallibility, and the ACE isn't the oldest church.  It is the oldest one to be anathematized which still survives.

No authority to anathematize Christ. Oldest Church, please prove me to the contrary. Abgar wrote while Christ the bridegroom was still with us and Edessa was the first evangelistic center after Jerusalem (and Christ's relatives ruled the Holy ACOE).
« Last Edit: November 17, 2010, 12:58:11 AM by Rafa999 » Logged

I am NOT a representative of the ACOE. Ignore my posts
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,166


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #172 on: November 17, 2010, 12:58:07 AM »

Rafa,
Good to see you back my brother.
Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
Rafa999
Warned
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Roman Catholic
Jurisdiction: Latin Rite
Posts: 1,600


« Reply #173 on: November 17, 2010, 12:59:35 AM »

Good to see you papist! Hope I can chat with all of you some more if possible...
Logged

I am NOT a representative of the ACOE. Ignore my posts
Salpy
Section Moderator
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Armenian Church
Posts: 12,447


Pray for the Christians of Iraq and Syria.


« Reply #174 on: November 17, 2010, 01:01:11 AM »

Welcome back, Rafa.   Smiley
Logged

Rafa999
Warned
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Roman Catholic
Jurisdiction: Latin Rite
Posts: 1,600


« Reply #175 on: November 17, 2010, 01:11:38 AM »

Good to see you Salpy!
Logged

I am NOT a representative of the ACOE. Ignore my posts
katherineofdixie
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 3,202



« Reply #176 on: November 17, 2010, 10:38:03 AM »

You want to put fear in the heart of anyone who has any desire to see the Catholic Church as something other than a blood curdling monstrosity.

You present a disembodied arm and call it the Body.

It is the worst kind of false witness.  I call it as I see it: It is evil.

Oh, puh-leeeeze.

Get over yourselves. I say this with love.
 Wink

Logged

"If but ten of us lead a holy life, we shall kindle a fire which shall light up the entire city."

 St. John Chrysostom
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,124



« Reply #177 on: November 17, 2010, 11:21:59 AM »

Mar Abraham (5th Patriarch after Mar Abris who was actually 4th forgive me) was a relative of the Virgin, and Mar Yaʿqob after him descended from Mar Yosip the Carpenter (Joseph, Jesus's adoptive father on earth). Obey Christ's relatives in the flesh our Orthodox Assyrian Patriarchs when they say you stray! Obey the Blessed Virgin :


I do, and confess her as Theotokos and Mother of God.

It is odd, given the Nestorianism of the ACE, to place such emphasis on the Desposynoi, the Lord's Brethren according to the Flesh, who put the Patriarchate of Jerusalem on the solid basis on which it stands.

Quote
Donot trust in the darkness of Egypt which made you a saint (Flavian) !
"Out of Egypt I have called My Son...Blessed be Egypt My People"

The Lighthouse of Pharos, has fallen, but the Divine Light of Popes SS. Athanasius and Cyril still shines forth from Alexandria.

Quote
Donot obey false history !

Never do.

Quote
We have plenty of Greek texts centuries before St. Rabbulah and Philoxenus. In fact, all the oldest manuscripts are all in Greek.

The most corrupt! Made when Arianism was the "orthodoxy"! Under the standar bearer of the Arians Eusebius of Caesarea! Witness this abomination :

We went over that.
Isa, entire libraries exist on the Jacobite "God has blood" versus the "Messiah has" blood argument of the COE.

Its not a "Jacobite" argument.  It's an Orthodox one, based on the texts the Apostles gave us, in Greek.

Quote
This one went on for a LONG time before the COE won the argument.

360 (the latest date of Sinaiticus) doesn't give you that much time, particularly as the Peshitta postdates it.

Quote
The priests of the COE are more qualified to debate this. If I can't appeal to Eastern Syriac which was untampered by the  Monophysites (nobody here is a monophysite hopefully before I am warned) this will be difficult. Its like debating someone on the bible but only being able to cite the Quran. I already showed that someone tampered with Hebrews 1:3 in Vaticanus,

No, someone made a mistake in it, and it was corrected.

You have made it rather difficult, as your text has no history that you claim, and hence no corroboration that isn't cherry picked.

Quote
I see no reason why the same people who tried doing that wouldn't try to doctor Hebrews 2:9 and Acts 20:28. Also Sinaiticus had a story of a saint scribbled on its back. To this day the COE doesn't throw out books with its holy symbol on it or recycle manuscripts, it places them in libraries or burns them.

Thereby destroying the "evidence."

I don't recall ever seeing such a claim that books aren't recycled, as I've seen the opposite in ancient manuscripts.  I don't have specifics on the Nestorian case, as I wouldn't have thought, until now, worth noticing.  I'll look around.

Quote
No, they went to Pella.

Say that to King Abgar who wrote to the King of Persia Narses his relative to receive Peter. We have physical proof that the oldest "Church" is in Seleukia-Ctsephon. Indisputable. Of course the first Church was with Adam and Eve, I merely refer to the building we call a church.
Read Acts.

Refresh my about this "physical proof."

Quote
Antioch is still Orrthodox. I've been to the Patriarch's own Cathedral.
Greek "Rum" Cathedral.
"In Christ there is neither Jew nor Greek..."

Quote
The Vatican also has 4 or so Patriarchs in Antioch.
And a Chaldean Catholicos in Iraq.

Quote
That's not even true of the Syriac ones, let alone the Arab and Ethiopian.
Try snatching that Peshitta away from the SOC, Maronites, or the ACOE. Just try...
Why would I? They use the Arabic, as do those in the parts of Syria which still speak Aramaic (Aramaic, not Syriac:Malula etc.)

Quote
The far east was infested with Nestorianism, not to mention gnostics.
Salvation proceeds from the East.
From the Virgin of Jerusalem, not the Whore of Babylon.

Quote
Your gnosticism is a sacrament (Holy Malka)
Apostolic yeast has nothing to do with gnosticism as far as I know.

Quote
and the Heroic Nestorius was falsely condemned for defending the immutability of the Divine nature.

He was justly deposed for denying the Incarnation.

Quote
Age doesn't bring infallibility, and the ACE isn't the oldest church.  It is the oldest one to be anathematized which still survives.

No authority to anathematize Christ.
Christ anathematized Nestorius.

Quote
Oldest Church, please prove me to the contrary.

Read Acts. Chapter 1.

Quote
Abgar wrote while Christ the bridegroom was still with us and Edessa was the first evangelistic center after Jerusalem
No, that would be Antioch.

Quote
(and Christ's relatives ruled the Holy ACOE).
His relatives according to the flesh died out before the ACOE came into existence with its Nestorian creed.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,166


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #178 on: November 17, 2010, 12:12:26 PM »

You want to put fear in the heart of anyone who has any desire to see the Catholic Church as something other than a blood curdling monstrosity.

You present a disembodied arm and call it the Body.

It is the worst kind of false witness.  I call it as I see it: It is evil.

Oh, puh-leeeeze.

Get over yourselves. I say this with love.
 Wink


Oh, puh-leeeeeze
Get off your high horse. "I say this with love"
Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #179 on: November 17, 2010, 12:14:41 PM »

You want to put fear in the heart of anyone who has any desire to see the Catholic Church as something other than a blood curdling monstrosity.

You present a disembodied arm and call it the Body.

It is the worst kind of false witness.  I call it as I see it: It is evil.

Oh, puh-leeeeze.

Get over yourselves. I say this with love.
 Wink



I recognize that Orthodox moral teaching is relative, but for us ALL false witness is evil.

So forget it!!  with love.... Wink
Logged

Tags:
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 »  All   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.18 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.28 seconds with 73 queries.