OrthodoxChristianity.net

Moderated Forums => Orthodox-Other Christian Discussion => Orthodox-Catholic Discussion => Topic started by: Big Chris on April 20, 2012, 09:00:08 PM

Title: Why
Post by: Big Chris on April 20, 2012, 09:00:08 PM
Yesterday, I was watching a video entitled "Moving Art - Gratitude," which contained a beautiful, meditative narration by Brother David Steindl-Rast, and I thought to myself, 'This is the true beauty of Christ; this is the essence of Christian spirituality; this would convert billions.'  Brother David Steindl-Rast is a Catholic monk - and I found myself thinking, again, 'If such a wise, spiritually awake man is satisfied with remaining as a Catholic, why can't I?'  Then, moments later, I was reading about how the Vatican is cracking down on American feminist nuns - and oh, the comments that followed were egregious.  I realized then why I have had so much trouble remaining Catholic:  "Catholicism" has become more of a political position than it has as spiritual body of believers; there's so much negativity happening in the Catholic Church, and millions upon millions of Catholics from the faithful to the dissident are angry about something; even the monks are confused, many of them becoming Zen masters in addition to priests in the wake of Merton; there is such a dearth of priests that the ones we have are spread like too little butter over bread so that the 99 sheep rather the one which remains faithful are left to wander aimlessly; and there is NOTHING going on in my own parish or any other parish near me…and trust me, as someone who has been part of RCIA, the Knights of Columbus and the Stewardship Commission I should know.  There's very little good going on in the Catholic Church.  Sure, there are good-hearted souls who feed the hungry, who help destitute in the Phillipines, who act in the name of environmentalism and social justice, who live the words of Jesus and do their best to live holy, fulfilling lives - but this isn't any indication of the truth of the Catholic Church as I have seen and read reports of Orthodox, Jews, Muslims and Buddhists doing the same.

People like David Steindl-Rast, Richard Rohr, and Thomas Keating inspire me, but the political authoritarianism of the USCCB and the Vatican is such a let down.  Orthodoxy seems to present the nature of the Christian faith without all the Bull. 
Title: Re: Why
Post by: Big Chris on April 20, 2012, 09:44:39 PM
I don't know why this was moved.  If I wanted Catholics to respond to this thread, I would have posted it at Catholic Answers Forum.
Title: Re: Why
Post by: elijahmaria on April 20, 2012, 09:46:14 PM

People like David Steindl-Rast, Richard Rohr, and Thomas Keating inspire me, but the political authoritarianism of the USCCB and the Vatican is such a let down.  Orthodoxy seems to present the nature of the Christian faith without all the Bull. 

I am happy as a Catholic.  I've lived the faith and learned the doctrine and trust all sinfulness in the members of the Church to the healing peace of Christ and the counsels of the Holy Spirit.

I read the lives of the saints and the histories of the various periods in the Church and I am enriched as a person and as a member of the Body.

I know that there are millions of Catholics around the world who are third order Carmelites, Dominicans, and Franciscans and all kinds of lay associates of various other orders, so that when I pray the hours at home, I know that there are millions of men and women around the globe praying the holy hours with me.

I love so much of what makes the Catholic Church what she is.  I am proud of her members who have not succumbed to sin and to modernisms.  So however much I love Orthodox liturgical practice, as an eastern Catholic, I won't simply succumb to the negatives and participate in the schism.  

I hope you have a good life.  And I'll be interested to see how you treat the Catholic Church once you've walked away.

M.
Title: Re: Why
Post by: dzheremi on April 20, 2012, 11:00:33 PM
As someone who has already done the "walk of shame" (so to speak) away from the Vatican to the Orthodox Church, I would caution you that the grass is not necessarily greener on the other side when it comes to political argument. While I have yet to see any "Coptic Voter's Guides" (and I doubt that I will), it is not all that unusual for political arguing to go on. I'm sure it's a cultural thing when it comes to the Egyptians, as I (a non-Egyptian) was raised with the idea that political arguing is best kept off the dinner menu (and I suppose we can add "away from the altar", at least in theory). And yet not a day goes by among us when someone doesn't bring up "Roomney" or "Ubama". ::) This does not infect the liturgy or approach to the faith in the way that it does in the RCC, thanks be to God, but it is still out there. Maybe it's better in other jurisdictions that have more converts/a longer history in the West, but still...I'd like to hope that the true Church of God is identifiable by its right worship, not necessarily by and absence of political argument among its members. Rome, of course, would like to have you think that it is above such human concerns, but its history and current struggles say otherwise. Lord have mercy on those who struggle to remain within it. I've been there. It's really not something I would recommend to anyone.
Title: Re: Why
Post by: Big Chris on April 21, 2012, 08:09:34 AM
As someone who has already done the "walk of shame" (so to speak) away from the Vatican to the Orthodox Church, I would caution you that the grass is not necessarily greener on the other side when it comes to political argument. While I have yet to see any "Coptic Voter's Guides" (and I doubt that I will), it is not all that unusual for political arguing to go on. I'm sure it's a cultural thing when it comes to the Egyptians, as I (a non-Egyptian) was raised with the idea that political arguing is best kept off the dinner menu (and I suppose we can add "away from the altar", at least in theory). And yet not a day goes by among us when someone doesn't bring up "Roomney" or "Ubama". ::) This does not infect the liturgy or approach to the faith in the way that it does in the RCC, thanks be to God, but it is still out there. Maybe it's better in other jurisdictions that have more converts/a longer history in the West, but still...I'd like to hope that the true Church of God is identifiable by its right worship, not necessarily by and absence of political argument among its members. Rome, of course, would like to have you think that it is above such human concerns, but its history and current struggles say otherwise. Lord have mercy on those who struggle to remain within it. I've been there. It's really not something I would recommend to anyone.

I know the Orthodox Church isn't the greenest, but, as you say, at least we don't have to worry about being morally obligated to vote for future President Dolan.
Title: Re: Why
Post by: Aindriú on April 21, 2012, 08:15:15 AM
Right....
Title: Re: Why
Post by: elijahmaria on April 21, 2012, 09:57:37 AM

I know the Orthodox Church isn't the greenest, but, as you say, at least we don't have to worry about being morally obligated to vote for future President Dolan.

I hope you did not mistake my note to you as a CAF put down...oh my no!  I am more than happy to see you convert to Orthodoxy.  Your reasoning makes you a natural for moving.

Christ is Risen!

M.
Title: Re: Why
Post by: sainthieu on April 21, 2012, 10:23:57 AM
Orthodoxy seems to present the nature of the Christian faith without all the Bull.

It's full of Bull, believe me. Notwithstanding, it still represents the fullness of the faith, and I wouldn't change denominations at the point of a gun.

Gratuitous, off topic commentary on American politics removed from post by moderator  -PtA

The reason for the confusion in the Catholic church has been well documented by Michael Voris: The CCHD and Saul Alinsky (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=481bgi5Du0s)
(http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/Themes/Pascha2010/images/warnwarn.gif)
You are receiving this warning to last for the next two weeks for discussing politics on the Public Forum. If you wish to appeal this action, please send me a private message.

- PeterTheAleut
Title: Re: Why
Post by: Cavaradossi on April 21, 2012, 04:56:15 PM
As someone who has already done the "walk of shame" (so to speak) away from the Vatican to the Orthodox Church, I would caution you that the grass is not necessarily greener on the other side when it comes to political argument. While I have yet to see any "Coptic Voter's Guides" (and I doubt that I will), it is not all that unusual for political arguing to go on. I'm sure it's a cultural thing when it comes to the Egyptians, as I (a non-Egyptian) was raised with the idea that political arguing is best kept off the dinner menu (and I suppose we can add "away from the altar", at least in theory). And yet not a day goes by among us when someone doesn't bring up "Roomney" or "Ubama". ::) This does not infect the liturgy or approach to the faith in the way that it does in the RCC, thanks be to God, but it is still out there. Maybe it's better in other jurisdictions that have more converts/a longer history in the West, but still...I'd like to hope that the true Church of God is identifiable by its right worship, not necessarily by and absence of political argument among its members. Rome, of course, would like to have you think that it is above such human concerns, but its history and current struggles say otherwise. Lord have mercy on those who struggle to remain within it. I've been there. It's really not something I would recommend to anyone.

You forgot "Boosh", though I suppose he's less relevant these days. :P
Title: Re: Why
Post by: dzheremi on April 21, 2012, 05:20:44 PM
Yeah, he's just on the car bumper stickers (in Spanish, for some reason). Nobody actually talks about him anymore.
Title: Re: Why
Post by: Peter J on April 22, 2012, 08:03:34 PM
Rome, of course, would like to have you think that it is above such human concerns, but its history and current struggles say otherwise.

You think Rome wants us to believe that?  ???
Title: Re: Why
Post by: lovesupreme on April 22, 2012, 09:51:52 PM
I am not, nor was I ever, a Catholic, but I ask the OP: is it not possible to divorce the secular side from the spiritual? Cannot you enjoy the writings of your spiritual teachers and consider that the essence of Catholicism, not politics?

When I was an Orthodox Jew, I had serious disagreements about Israel with the majority of Jews (Orthodox or otherwise). It was uncomfortable having to remain silent during the "preaching the choir" conversations guests would have at the Shabbat table, but I made an effort not to make politics a part of my practice. I got my inspiration from reading the old teachers, who, while not entirely separate from the secular world, certainly placed more emphasis on god than allegiance to a nation.

I understand that having a support structure is a huge part of practicing a faith, and you can weaken that structure by choosing not to vote with the block. Unless you want to live as an ascetic, you have to deal with other people who may share the same beliefs but choose to express them in very different ways. It's a trite saying, but focus on what unites you.
Title: Re: Why
Post by: Peter J on April 23, 2012, 11:54:52 AM

I know the Orthodox Church isn't the greenest, but, as you say, at least we don't have to worry about being morally obligated to vote for future President Dolan.

I hope you did not mistake my note to you as a CAF put down...oh my no!  I am more than happy to see you convert to Orthodoxy.  Your reasoning makes you a natural for moving.

Christ is Risen!

M.

This kind of happy-to-see-you-convert statement is, from my own experience talking with fellow Catholics, surprisingly common among Catholics.

Even Dr. Anthony Dragani said (http://www.byzcath.org/forums/ubbthreads.php/topics/83161/Death%20of%20Byzantine%20Catholicism):

Quote
What saddens me is the statement that we are making to others. Among so many Byzantine Catholics, the following premises now seem to dominate:

1. Rome has a messed up ecclesiology, and is wrong to micromanage so much. (I have to agree with this one, at least to some extent).

2. Orthodox ecclesiology is the right model.

3. The claims of the Pope to infallibility in specific instances are false.

4. There is no substantial benefit to being Byzantine Catholic as opposed to being Eastern Orthodox.

Anyone who follows these premises to their logical conclusion would - and should become Eastern Orthodox. It would be senseless to stay in a situation where a false ecclesiology dominates.

(I should mention that he said this in the context of trying to get ECs to have a more positive attitude toward being EC. Nevertheless, the fact that he said "Anyone who follows these premises to their logical conclusion would - and should become Eastern Orthodox" amazes me. I should also mention that this was more than a decade ago, and I don't know whether his current views are the same or not.)
Title: Re: Why
Post by: podkarpatska on April 23, 2012, 12:01:59 PM

I know the Orthodox Church isn't the greenest, but, as you say, at least we don't have to worry about being morally obligated to vote for future President Dolan.

I hope you did not mistake my note to you as a CAF put down...oh my no!  I am more than happy to see you convert to Orthodoxy.  Your reasoning makes you a natural for moving.

Christ is Risen!

M.

This kind of happy-to-see-you-convert statement is, from my own experience talking with fellow Catholics, surprisingly common among Catholics.

Even Dr. Anthony Dragani said (http://www.byzcath.org/forums/ubbthreads.php/topics/83161/Death%20of%20Byzantine%20Catholicism):

Quote
What saddens me is the statement that we are making to others. Among so many Byzantine Catholics, the following premises now seem to dominate:

1. Rome has a messed up ecclesiology, and is wrong to micromanage so much. (I have to agree with this one, at least to some extent).

2. Orthodox ecclesiology is the right model.

3. The claims of the Pope to infallibility in specific instances are false.

4. There is no substantial benefit to being Byzantine Catholic as opposed to being Eastern Orthodox.

Anyone who follows these premises to their logical conclusion would - and should become Eastern Orthodox. It would be senseless to stay in a situation where a false ecclesiology dominates.

(I should mention that he said this in the context of trying to get ECs to have a more positive attitude toward being EC. Nevertheless, the fact that he said "Anyone who follows these premises to their logical conclusion would - and should become Eastern Orthodox" amazes me. I should also mention that this was more than a decade ago, and I don't know whether his current views are the same or not.)

Why does that 'amaze' you?

The experiences of thousands of folks I have been honored to run into over my life teaches me that there is nothing 'amazing' about that advice. Likewise, as to those thousands who reconciled themselves to the inconsistencies that have to be dealt with in terms of their relationship with the Latin church in order to remain loyal Eastern Catholics, their loyalty does not 'amaze' me either.
Title: Re: Why
Post by: Azul on April 23, 2012, 12:04:00 PM
Orthodoxy seems to present the nature of the Christian faith without all the Bull.

It's full of Bull, believe me. Notwithstanding, it still represents the fullness of the faith, and I wouldn't change denominations at the point of a gun.


Agreed.It is full of Bull..
Title: Re: Why
Post by: elijahmaria on April 23, 2012, 12:24:12 PM

I know the Orthodox Church isn't the greenest, but, as you say, at least we don't have to worry about being morally obligated to vote for future President Dolan.

I hope you did not mistake my note to you as a CAF put down...oh my no!  I am more than happy to see you convert to Orthodoxy.  Your reasoning makes you a natural for moving.

Christ is Risen!

M.

This kind of happy-to-see-you-convert statement is, from my own experience talking with fellow Catholics, surprisingly common among Catholics.

I am more than happy to see people move on, when they demonstrate a clear dislike and disdain for the Catholic Church.  I wish we could push more of the dissenting hangers-on along a little more rapidly.

Mary
Title: Re: Why
Post by: Peter J on April 23, 2012, 12:25:39 PM
I wish we could push more of the dissenting hangers-on along a little more rapidly.

I believe you.
Title: Re: Why
Post by: Peter J on April 23, 2012, 12:25:56 PM

I know the Orthodox Church isn't the greenest, but, as you say, at least we don't have to worry about being morally obligated to vote for future President Dolan.

I hope you did not mistake my note to you as a CAF put down...oh my no!  I am more than happy to see you convert to Orthodoxy.  Your reasoning makes you a natural for moving.

Christ is Risen!

M.

This kind of happy-to-see-you-convert statement is, from my own experience talking with fellow Catholics, surprisingly common among Catholics.

Even Dr. Anthony Dragani said (http://www.byzcath.org/forums/ubbthreads.php/topics/83161/Death%20of%20Byzantine%20Catholicism):

Quote
What saddens me is the statement that we are making to others. Among so many Byzantine Catholics, the following premises now seem to dominate:

1. Rome has a messed up ecclesiology, and is wrong to micromanage so much. (I have to agree with this one, at least to some extent).

2. Orthodox ecclesiology is the right model.

3. The claims of the Pope to infallibility in specific instances are false.

4. There is no substantial benefit to being Byzantine Catholic as opposed to being Eastern Orthodox.

Anyone who follows these premises to their logical conclusion would - and should become Eastern Orthodox. It would be senseless to stay in a situation where a false ecclesiology dominates.

(I should mention that he said this in the context of trying to get ECs to have a more positive attitude toward being EC. Nevertheless, the fact that he said "Anyone who follows these premises to their logical conclusion would - and should become Eastern Orthodox" amazes me. I should also mention that this was more than a decade ago, and I don't know whether his current views are the same or not.)

Why does that 'amaze' you?

The experiences of thousands of folks I have been honored to run into over my life teaches me that there is nothing 'amazing' about that advice. Likewise, as to those thousands who reconciled themselves to the inconsistencies that have to be dealt with in terms of their relationship with the Latin church in order to remain loyal Eastern Catholics, their loyalty does not 'amaze' me either.

I don't 'expect' that you would 'understand'.
Title: Re: Why
Post by: elijahmaria on April 23, 2012, 12:31:19 PM
I wish we could push more of the dissenting hangers-on along a little more rapidly.

I believe you.

Given the fact that more often than not you mis-take some of the subtleties of my comments, I have to take this assertion with a grain of salt... ;)  You may believe me but you'd not be able to guess where I'd land on any given case nor would you be able to guess why.

M.
Title: Re: Why
Post by: Peter J on April 23, 2012, 12:39:19 PM
I wish we could push more of the dissenting hangers-on along a little more rapidly.

I believe you.

Given the fact that more often than not you mis-take some of the subtleties of my comments, I have to take this assertion with a grain of salt... ;)  You may believe me but you'd not be able to guess where I'd land on any given case nor would you be able to guess why.

M.

Thank you teacher. May I have another?  :-[
Title: Re: Why
Post by: elijahmaria on April 23, 2012, 01:01:40 PM
I wish we could push more of the dissenting hangers-on along a little more rapidly.

I believe you.

Given the fact that more often than not you mis-take some of the subtleties of my comments, I have to take this assertion with a grain of salt... ;)  You may believe me but you'd not be able to guess where I'd land on any given case nor would you be able to guess why.

M.

Thank you teacher. May I have another?  :-[

Oh Peter, I am sorry.  That was much harsher than I meant it to be.  Please forgive me...\

Sometimes I think of you as harsher than you are...Sometimes you are difficult to read and I do to you what I cry over, when it is done to me.  Drat!!  I wish I could take it back.

Fondly,

M.
Title: Re: Why
Post by: Papist on April 23, 2012, 01:27:01 PM
Yesterday, I was watching a video entitled "Moving Art - Gratitude," which contained a beautiful, meditative narration by Brother David Steindl-Rast, and I thought to myself, 'This is the true beauty of Christ; this is the essence of Christian spirituality; this would convert billions.'  Brother David Steindl-Rast is a Catholic monk - and I found myself thinking, again, 'If such a wise, spiritually awake man is satisfied with remaining as a Catholic, why can't I?'  Then, moments later, I was reading about how the Vatican is cracking down on American feminist nuns - and oh, the comments that followed were egregious.  I realized then why I have had so much trouble remaining Catholic:  "Catholicism" has become more of a political position than it has as spiritual body of believers; there's so much negativity happening in the Catholic Church, and millions upon millions of Catholics from the faithful to the dissident are angry about something; even the monks are confused, many of them becoming Zen masters in addition to priests in the wake of Merton; there is such a dearth of priests that the ones we have are spread like too little butter over bread so that the 99 sheep rather the one which remains faithful are left to wander aimlessly; and there is NOTHING going on in my own parish or any other parish near me…and trust me, as someone who has been part of RCIA, the Knights of Columbus and the Stewardship Commission I should know.  There's very little good going on in the Catholic Church.  Sure, there are good-hearted souls who feed the hungry, who help destitute in the Phillipines, who act in the name of environmentalism and social justice, who live the words of Jesus and do their best to live holy, fulfilling lives - but this isn't any indication of the truth of the Catholic Church as I have seen and read reports of Orthodox, Jews, Muslims and Buddhists doing the same.

People like David Steindl-Rast, Richard Rohr, and Thomas Keating inspire me, but the political authoritarianism of the USCCB and the Vatican is such a let down.  Orthodoxy seems to present the nature of the Christian faith without all the Bull. 
I guess I don't understand your objection. How can your faith life not affect your voting? Our relationship with Jesus Christ should inform everything we do.
Title: Re: Why
Post by: Peter J on April 23, 2012, 01:29:01 PM
I wish we could push more of the dissenting hangers-on along a little more rapidly.

I believe you.

Given the fact that more often than not you mis-take some of the subtleties of my comments, I have to take this assertion with a grain of salt... ;)  You may believe me but you'd not be able to guess where I'd land on any given case nor would you be able to guess why.

M.

Thank you teacher. May I have another?  :-[

Oh Peter, I am sorry.  That was much harsher than I meant it to be.  Please forgive me...\

Sometimes I think of you as harsher than you are...Sometimes you are difficult to read and I do to you what I cry over, when it is done to me.  Drat!!  I wish I could take it back.

Fondly,

M.

No need for such sentiments. Your good or bad opinion doesn't influence how I think of myself any more than it influences my remaining Catholic. I am who I am.
Title: Re: Why
Post by: orthonorm on April 23, 2012, 01:34:07 PM
I wish we could push more of the dissenting hangers-on along a little more rapidly.

I believe you.

Given the fact that more often than not you mis-take some of the subtleties of my comments, I have to take this assertion with a grain of salt... ;)  You may believe me but you'd not be able to guess where I'd land on any given case nor would you be able to guess why.

M.

Thank you teacher. May I have another?  :-[

Oh Peter, I am sorry.  That was much harsher than I meant it to be.  Please forgive me...\

Sometimes I think of you as harsher than you are...Sometimes you are difficult to read and I do to you what I cry over, when it is done to me.  Drat!!  I wish I could take it back.

Fondly,

M.

No need for such sentiments. Your good or bad opinion doesn't influence how I think of myself any more than it influences my remaining Catholic. I am who I am.

From BS to blasphemy.
Title: Re: Why
Post by: J Michael on April 23, 2012, 01:42:54 PM
I wish we could push more of the dissenting hangers-on along a little more rapidly.

I believe you.

Given the fact that more often than not you mis-take some of the subtleties of my comments, I have to take this assertion with a grain of salt... ;)  You may believe me but you'd not be able to guess where I'd land on any given case nor would you be able to guess why.

M.

Thank you teacher. May I have another?  :-[

Oh Peter, I am sorry.  That was much harsher than I meant it to be.  Please forgive me...\

Sometimes I think of you as harsher than you are...Sometimes you are difficult to read and I do to you what I cry over, when it is done to me.  Drat!!  I wish I could take it back.

Fondly,

M.

No need for such sentiments. Your good or bad opinion doesn't influence how I think of myself any more than it influences my remaining Catholic. I am who I am.

From BS to blasphemy.

 ::) ::)

Oh, please......
Title: Re: Why
Post by: elijahmaria on April 23, 2012, 01:48:14 PM
I wish we could push more of the dissenting hangers-on along a little more rapidly.

I believe you.

Given the fact that more often than not you mis-take some of the subtleties of my comments, I have to take this assertion with a grain of salt... ;)  You may believe me but you'd not be able to guess where I'd land on any given case nor would you be able to guess why.

M.

Thank you teacher. May I have another?  :-[

Oh Peter, I am sorry.  That was much harsher than I meant it to be.  Please forgive me...\

Sometimes I think of you as harsher than you are...Sometimes you are difficult to read and I do to you what I cry over, when it is done to me.  Drat!!  I wish I could take it back.

Fondly,

M.

No need for such sentiments. Your good or bad opinion doesn't influence how I think of myself any more than it influences my remaining Catholic. I am who I am.

Thank you teacher.
Title: Re: Why
Post by: Peter J on April 23, 2012, 02:25:20 PM
I wish we could push more of the dissenting hangers-on along a little more rapidly.

I believe you.

Given the fact that more often than not you mis-take some of the subtleties of my comments, I have to take this assertion with a grain of salt... ;)  You may believe me but you'd not be able to guess where I'd land on any given case nor would you be able to guess why.

M.

Thank you teacher. May I have another?  :-[

Oh Peter, I am sorry.  That was much harsher than I meant it to be.  Please forgive me...\

Sometimes I think of you as harsher than you are...Sometimes you are difficult to read and I do to you what I cry over, when it is done to me.  Drat!!  I wish I could take it back.

Fondly,

M.

No need for such sentiments. Your good or bad opinion doesn't influence how I think of myself any more than it influences my remaining Catholic. I am who I am.

Thank you teacher.

Wow. Your attitude towards me seems to switch with every post you make.
Title: Re: Why
Post by: Peter J on April 23, 2012, 02:26:38 PM
I wish we could push more of the dissenting hangers-on along a little more rapidly.

I believe you.

Given the fact that more often than not you mis-take some of the subtleties of my comments, I have to take this assertion with a grain of salt... ;)  You may believe me but you'd not be able to guess where I'd land on any given case nor would you be able to guess why.

M.

Thank you teacher. May I have another?  :-[

Oh Peter, I am sorry.  That was much harsher than I meant it to be.  Please forgive me...\

Sometimes I think of you as harsher than you are...Sometimes you are difficult to read and I do to you what I cry over, when it is done to me.  Drat!!  I wish I could take it back.

Fondly,

M.

No need for such sentiments. Your good or bad opinion doesn't influence how I think of myself any more than it influences my remaining Catholic. I am who I am.

From BS to blasphemy.

You should look in the mirror.
Title: Re: Why
Post by: Peter J on April 23, 2012, 02:37:34 PM
Oh Peter, I am sorry.  That was much harsher than I meant it to be.  Please forgive me...\

Sometimes I think of you as harsher than you are...Sometimes you are difficult to read and I do to you what I cry over, when it is done to me.  Drat!!  I wish I could take it back.

Fondly,

M.

Please note that in my previously response to this ^^ post I assumed that you meant it seriously. If you meant it sarcastically, which seems entirely plausible in view of post #25, then please disregard my response.
Title: Re: Why
Post by: elijahmaria on April 23, 2012, 02:53:26 PM
Oh Peter, I am sorry.  That was much harsher than I meant it to be.  Please forgive me...\

Sometimes I think of you as harsher than you are...Sometimes you are difficult to read and I do to you what I cry over, when it is done to me.  Drat!!  I wish I could take it back.

Fondly,

M.

Please note that in my previously response to this ^^ post I assumed that you meant it seriously. If you meant it sarcastically, which seems entirely plausible in view of post #25, then please disregard my response.

Your response looked very much like a rejection of my silly note.  I won't be back for more.
Title: Re: Why
Post by: Peter J on April 23, 2012, 03:10:54 PM
Your response looked very much like a rejection of my silly note.  I won't be back for more.

Whether you post or not is up to you. It shouldn't depend on me.
Title: Re: Why
Post by: podkarpatska on April 23, 2012, 03:26:04 PM

I know the Orthodox Church isn't the greenest, but, as you say, at least we don't have to worry about being morally obligated to vote for future President Dolan.

I hope you did not mistake my note to you as a CAF put down...oh my no!  I am more than happy to see you convert to Orthodoxy.  Your reasoning makes you a natural for moving.

Christ is Risen!

M.

This kind of happy-to-see-you-convert statement is, from my own experience talking with fellow Catholics, surprisingly common among Catholics.

Even Dr. Anthony Dragani said (http://www.byzcath.org/forums/ubbthreads.php/topics/83161/Death%20of%20Byzantine%20Catholicism):

Quote
What saddens me is the statement that we are making to others. Among so many Byzantine Catholics, the following premises now seem to dominate:

1. Rome has a messed up ecclesiology, and is wrong to micromanage so much. (I have to agree with this one, at least to some extent).

2. Orthodox ecclesiology is the right model.

3. The claims of the Pope to infallibility in specific instances are false.

4. There is no substantial benefit to being Byzantine Catholic as opposed to being Eastern Orthodox.

Anyone who follows these premises to their logical conclusion would - and should become Eastern Orthodox. It would be senseless to stay in a situation where a false ecclesiology dominates.

(I should mention that he said this in the context of trying to get ECs to have a more positive attitude toward being EC. Nevertheless, the fact that he said "Anyone who follows these premises to their logical conclusion would - and should become Eastern Orthodox" amazes me. I should also mention that this was more than a decade ago, and I don't know whether his current views are the same or not.)

Why does that 'amaze' you?

The experiences of thousands of folks I have been honored to run into over my life teaches me that there is nothing 'amazing' about that advice. Likewise, as to those thousands who reconciled themselves to the inconsistencies that have to be dealt with in terms of their relationship with the Latin church in order to remain loyal Eastern Catholics, their loyalty does not 'amaze' me either.

I don't 'expect' that you would 'understand'.

I fully  expected you to react in such a manner when  I posted my response.

Truth be told, no matter how sympathetic I may be to Greek Catholicism as a whole and to the position Greek Catholics find themselves in today- and no matter how much I may object to the disdain in which they are held by most Latin Catholics and by most Orthodox - I can not understand how, if one possesses a correct, Eastern understanding of eccelesiology and Church history - just how one can construct a justification for remaining in union with Rome at the present time while at the same time professing acceptance of Orthodox Patristics and doctrine.

I understand that some of it is simply custom, some of it is anti-Russianism, some of it is reactive to the disdain from the Orthodox to which I referred- but, when really tries to remove the emotionalism from one's analysis  I don't get it.

I know that my family left the Greek Catholic Church NOT because of any great theological epiphany but rather over property rights and small 't' issues,  but that was nearly eighty years ago. For three generations we have been Orthodox Christians and as time passes and the Greek Catholic past recedes deeper into the mists of time, I really can not understand their 'raison d'etre.' (I love them anyway, but that is another, probably cultural, story.)
Title: Re: Why
Post by: Peter J on April 23, 2012, 03:49:21 PM

I know the Orthodox Church isn't the greenest, but, as you say, at least we don't have to worry about being morally obligated to vote for future President Dolan.

I hope you did not mistake my note to you as a CAF put down...oh my no!  I am more than happy to see you convert to Orthodoxy.  Your reasoning makes you a natural for moving.

Christ is Risen!

M.

This kind of happy-to-see-you-convert statement is, from my own experience talking with fellow Catholics, surprisingly common among Catholics.

Even Dr. Anthony Dragani said (http://www.byzcath.org/forums/ubbthreads.php/topics/83161/Death%20of%20Byzantine%20Catholicism):

Quote
What saddens me is the statement that we are making to others. Among so many Byzantine Catholics, the following premises now seem to dominate:

1. Rome has a messed up ecclesiology, and is wrong to micromanage so much. (I have to agree with this one, at least to some extent).

2. Orthodox ecclesiology is the right model.

3. The claims of the Pope to infallibility in specific instances are false.

4. There is no substantial benefit to being Byzantine Catholic as opposed to being Eastern Orthodox.

Anyone who follows these premises to their logical conclusion would - and should become Eastern Orthodox. It would be senseless to stay in a situation where a false ecclesiology dominates.

(I should mention that he said this in the context of trying to get ECs to have a more positive attitude toward being EC. Nevertheless, the fact that he said "Anyone who follows these premises to their logical conclusion would - and should become Eastern Orthodox" amazes me. I should also mention that this was more than a decade ago, and I don't know whether his current views are the same or not.)

Why does that 'amaze' you?

The experiences of thousands of folks I have been honored to run into over my life teaches me that there is nothing 'amazing' about that advice. Likewise, as to those thousands who reconciled themselves to the inconsistencies that have to be dealt with in terms of their relationship with the Latin church in order to remain loyal Eastern Catholics, their loyalty does not 'amaze' me either.

I don't 'expect' that you would 'understand'.

I fully  expected you to react in such a manner when  I posted my response.

Truth be told, no matter how sympathetic I may be to Greek Catholicism as a whole and to the position Greek Catholics find themselves in today- and no matter how much I may object to the disdain in which they are held by most Latin Catholics and by most Orthodox - I can not understand how, if one possesses a correct, Eastern understanding of eccelesiology and Church history - just how one can construct a justification for remaining in union with Rome at the present time while at the same time professing acceptance of Orthodox Patristics and doctrine.

I understand that some of it is simply custom, some of it is anti-Russianism, some of it is reactive to the disdain from the Orthodox to which I referred- but, when really tries to remove the emotionalism from one's analysis  I don't get it.

I know that my family left the Greek Catholic Church NOT because of any great theological epiphany but rather over property rights and small 't' issues,  but that was nearly eighty years ago. For three generations we have been Orthodox Christians and as time passes and the Greek Catholic past recedes deeper into the mists of time, I really can not understand their 'raison d'etre.' (I love them anyway, but that is another, probably cultural, story.)

Hi again. First, I sincerely appreciate the conciliatory way you wrote this post. I'm not really sure why the rest of us have been butting heads so much this afternoon -- other that the fact that we're human. :)

I'm not going to try to fully answer your question at the moment, but here's a couple thoughts. For one thing, you have to keep in mind that I was baptized into Catholicism when I was a baby. I can't entirely relate to why some choose to join the Roman Communion over the Orthodox Communion -- in fact, when speaking with someone (an Anglican let's say) who is debating which of the 2 to join, I don't specifically encourage them to choose Catholicism. I just encourage consideration of both before deciding.

Also, I do certainly understand how you as an Orthodox Christian would want Catholics to swim the Bosphorus. But that, to me, is completely different than what Dr. Dragani was saying, speaking as a Catholic.

That's all for now, but maybe more later.
Title: Re: Why
Post by: elijahmaria on April 23, 2012, 04:00:08 PM

I know the Orthodox Church isn't the greenest, but, as you say, at least we don't have to worry about being morally obligated to vote for future President Dolan.

I hope you did not mistake my note to you as a CAF put down...oh my no!  I am more than happy to see you convert to Orthodoxy.  Your reasoning makes you a natural for moving.

Christ is Risen!

M.

This kind of happy-to-see-you-convert statement is, from my own experience talking with fellow Catholics, surprisingly common among Catholics.

Even Dr. Anthony Dragani said (http://www.byzcath.org/forums/ubbthreads.php/topics/83161/Death%20of%20Byzantine%20Catholicism):

Quote
What saddens me is the statement that we are making to others. Among so many Byzantine Catholics, the following premises now seem to dominate:

1. Rome has a messed up ecclesiology, and is wrong to micromanage so much. (I have to agree with this one, at least to some extent).

2. Orthodox ecclesiology is the right model.

3. The claims of the Pope to infallibility in specific instances are false.

4. There is no substantial benefit to being Byzantine Catholic as opposed to being Eastern Orthodox.

Anyone who follows these premises to their logical conclusion would - and should become Eastern Orthodox. It would be senseless to stay in a situation where a false ecclesiology dominates.

(I should mention that he said this in the context of trying to get ECs to have a more positive attitude toward being EC. Nevertheless, the fact that he said "Anyone who follows these premises to their logical conclusion would - and should become Eastern Orthodox" amazes me. I should also mention that this was more than a decade ago, and I don't know whether his current views are the same or not.)

Why does that 'amaze' you?

The experiences of thousands of folks I have been honored to run into over my life teaches me that there is nothing 'amazing' about that advice. Likewise, as to those thousands who reconciled themselves to the inconsistencies that have to be dealt with in terms of their relationship with the Latin church in order to remain loyal Eastern Catholics, their loyalty does not 'amaze' me either.

I don't 'expect' that you would 'understand'.

I fully  expected you to react in such a manner when  I posted my response.

Truth be told, no matter how sympathetic I may be to Greek Catholicism as a whole and to the position Greek Catholics find themselves in today- and no matter how much I may object to the disdain in which they are held by most Latin Catholics and by most Orthodox - I can not understand how, if one possesses a correct, Eastern understanding of eccelesiology and Church history - just how one can construct a justification for remaining in union with Rome at the present time while at the same time professing acceptance of Orthodox Patristics and doctrine.

I understand that some of it is simply custom, some of it is anti-Russianism, some of it is reactive to the disdain from the Orthodox to which I referred- but, when really tries to remove the emotionalism from one's analysis  I don't get it.

I know that my family left the Greek Catholic Church NOT because of any great theological epiphany but rather over property rights and small 't' issues,  but that was nearly eighty years ago. For three generations we have been Orthodox Christians and as time passes and the Greek Catholic past recedes deeper into the mists of time, I really can not understand their 'raison d'etre.' (I love them anyway, but that is another, probably cultural, story.)

I don't come because I don't accept the Orthodox attack against Catholic doctrine.  I don't believe the doctrine of the Catholic Church is inherently and fatally contradictory to Orthodox patrimony and tradition.  In fact we share that patrimony.  We share the patristic root.  The Catholic Church does not begin with the western fathers.

I believe that there is a way that we can accept one another fully without changing much beyond the way we do certain kinds of things independently of one another in terms of jurisdictional issues.  In other words, I think that there has to be some common ground turned on the issues of primatial power and authority, but I don't think that means either one of us needs to change internally...just in the way that we would interact with one another.

So I am not coming because I refuse to participate actively in the schism.

Mary
Title: Re: Why
Post by: podkarpatska on April 23, 2012, 04:32:11 PM
Thank you both, I was sort of hoping to turn the discussion around a bit and I appreciate it. EM - your answer is honest and I respect that. Actually, I have issues with an EC who will tell me that they accept union with Rome but not all of the teachings of the Magesterium as if 'union' were somehow divorced from the differences - real and exaggerated - which have divided east from west these many centuries. I remember many a now-departed soul from my grandparents' generation would could tell you with a straight face - yes, we were 'under the Pope' and we prayed for him until he started telling us what to do. Sort of a fingers crossed with a wink type of unity.
Title: Re: Why
Post by: Cavaradossi on April 23, 2012, 04:59:44 PM
I wish we could push more of the dissenting hangers-on along a little more rapidly.

I believe you.

Given the fact that more often than not you mis-take some of the subtleties of my comments, I have to take this assertion with a grain of salt... ;)  You may believe me but you'd not be able to guess where I'd land on any given case nor would you be able to guess why.

M.

Thank you teacher. May I have another?  :-[

Oh Peter, I am sorry.  That was much harsher than I meant it to be.  Please forgive me...\

Sometimes I think of you as harsher than you are...Sometimes you are difficult to read and I do to you what I cry over, when it is done to me.  Drat!!  I wish I could take it back.

Fondly,

M.

No need for such sentiments. Your good or bad opinion doesn't influence how I think of myself any more than it influences my remaining Catholic. I am who I am.

From BS to blasphemy.

You should look in the mirror.

He knows where he stands. I think he's just sending out invitations for others to join him. :laugh:
Title: Re: Why
Post by: Peter J on April 23, 2012, 05:12:41 PM
I wish we could push more of the dissenting hangers-on along a little more rapidly.

I believe you.

Given the fact that more often than not you mis-take some of the subtleties of my comments, I have to take this assertion with a grain of salt... ;)  You may believe me but you'd not be able to guess where I'd land on any given case nor would you be able to guess why.

M.

Thank you teacher. May I have another?  :-[

Oh Peter, I am sorry.  That was much harsher than I meant it to be.  Please forgive me...\

Sometimes I think of you as harsher than you are...Sometimes you are difficult to read and I do to you what I cry over, when it is done to me.  Drat!!  I wish I could take it back.

Fondly,

M.

No need for such sentiments. Your good or bad opinion doesn't influence how I think of myself any more than it influences my remaining Catholic. I am who I am.

From BS to blasphemy.

You should look in the mirror.

He knows where he stands. I think he's just sending out invitations for others to join him. :laugh:

I try to be good humored, but frankly I felt the "From BS to blasphemy" comment (obviously comparing my post to Exodus 3:14, "I Am Who Am") was a little over the top.
Title: Re: Why
Post by: J Michael on April 23, 2012, 05:17:20 PM
I wish we could push more of the dissenting hangers-on along a little more rapidly.

I believe you.

Given the fact that more often than not you mis-take some of the subtleties of my comments, I have to take this assertion with a grain of salt... ;)  You may believe me but you'd not be able to guess where I'd land on any given case nor would you be able to guess why.

M.

Thank you teacher. May I have another?  :-[

Oh Peter, I am sorry.  That was much harsher than I meant it to be.  Please forgive me...\

Sometimes I think of you as harsher than you are...Sometimes you are difficult to read and I do to you what I cry over, when it is done to me.  Drat!!  I wish I could take it back.

Fondly,

M.

No need for such sentiments. Your good or bad opinion doesn't influence how I think of myself any more than it influences my remaining Catholic. I am who I am.

From BS to blasphemy.

You should look in the mirror.

He knows where he stands. I think he's just sending out invitations for others to join him. :laugh:

I try to be good humored, but frankly I felt the "From BS to blasphemy" comment (obviously comparing my post to Exodus 3:14, "I Am Who Am") was a little over the top.

+1
Title: Re: Why
Post by: Asteriktos on April 23, 2012, 05:24:59 PM
You should have went with "I yam who I yam"  :police:
Title: Re: Why
Post by: elijahmaria on April 23, 2012, 05:31:04 PM
Thank you both, I was sort of hoping to turn the discussion around a bit and I appreciate it. EM - your answer is honest and I respect that. Actually, I have issues with an EC who will tell me that they accept union with Rome but not all of the teachings of the Magesterium as if 'union' were somehow divorced from the differences - real and exaggerated - which have divided east from west these many centuries. I remember many a now-departed soul from my grandparents' generation would could tell you with a straight face - yes, we were 'under the Pope' and we prayed for him until he started telling us what to do. Sort of a fingers crossed with a wink type of unity.

There's something going on when I, as a catechist, can pick up the catechetical text "The Mystery of Faith" by the then Bishop Hilarion, read it and know that I could use it to catechize either Roman rite adults or eastern Catholic adults...with very minor adjustments.  That tells me something that I think is important.   He thinks it is important too but he is now slightly more constrained in the public sphere than he was earlier in his ministry...at least for now.  The doctrinal and theological differences among all Catholics is very slight.

Praxis [fasting and devotions] and liturgy and jurisdictional issues are very distinct in some cases, even within the Catholic Church or within Orthodoxy, and moral issues concerning marriage and human sexuality are managed a good bit differently as well.

If I am talking to a group of Roman rite Catholics on doctrinal issues, I am able to speak to them out of their tradition.   When I speak to eastern Catholics, there are some doctrinal issues that are important in the west that might get no more than honorable mention as doctrine of the western tradition, if that much, simply because they are not an integral part of the eastern Catholic tradition.  

Talking to Orthodox believers is a mixed bag.  Some places that I have to go are very fruitful but they tend to be with friends and people who spend their lives in prayer and study.  Other places are a little better than this forum but this forum is difficult.

But the more I do and the more I experience the more I am convinced that today, in this age of instant communication and broad availability of text translations from the fathers, the schism is more a contrivance than anything else.  I could say that it has reached a point where it would be impossible to convince me otherwise.

Mary

Title: Re: Why
Post by: Peter J on April 23, 2012, 07:23:44 PM
I wish we could push more of the dissenting hangers-on along a little more rapidly.

I believe you.

Given the fact that more often than not you mis-take some of the subtleties of my comments, I have to take this assertion with a grain of salt... ;)  You may believe me but you'd not be able to guess where I'd land on any given case nor would you be able to guess why.

M.

Thank you teacher. May I have another?  :-[

Oh Peter, I am sorry.  That was much harsher than I meant it to be.  Please forgive me...\

Sometimes I think of you as harsher than you are...Sometimes you are difficult to read and I do to you what I cry over, when it is done to me.  Drat!!  I wish I could take it back.

Fondly,

M.

No need for such sentiments. Your good or bad opinion doesn't influence how I think of myself any more than it influences my remaining Catholic. I am who I am.

From BS to blasphemy.

You should look in the mirror.

He knows where he stands. I think he's just sending out invitations for others to join him. :laugh:

I try to be good humored, but frankly I felt the "From BS to blasphemy" comment (obviously comparing my post to Exodus 3:14, "I Am Who Am") was a little over the top.

+1

Thanks.
Title: Re: Why
Post by: Peter J on April 23, 2012, 07:27:59 PM

I know the Orthodox Church isn't the greenest, but, as you say, at least we don't have to worry about being morally obligated to vote for future President Dolan.

I hope you did not mistake my note to you as a CAF put down...oh my no!  I am more than happy to see you convert to Orthodoxy.  Your reasoning makes you a natural for moving.

Christ is Risen!

M.

This kind of happy-to-see-you-convert statement is, from my own experience talking with fellow Catholics, surprisingly common among Catholics.

Even Dr. Anthony Dragani said (http://www.byzcath.org/forums/ubbthreads.php/topics/83161/Death%20of%20Byzantine%20Catholicism):

Quote
What saddens me is the statement that we are making to others. Among so many Byzantine Catholics, the following premises now seem to dominate:

1. Rome has a messed up ecclesiology, and is wrong to micromanage so much. (I have to agree with this one, at least to some extent).

2. Orthodox ecclesiology is the right model.

3. The claims of the Pope to infallibility in specific instances are false.

4. There is no substantial benefit to being Byzantine Catholic as opposed to being Eastern Orthodox.

Anyone who follows these premises to their logical conclusion would - and should become Eastern Orthodox. It would be senseless to stay in a situation where a false ecclesiology dominates.

(I should mention that he said this in the context of trying to get ECs to have a more positive attitude toward being EC. Nevertheless, the fact that he said "Anyone who follows these premises to their logical conclusion would - and should become Eastern Orthodox" amazes me. I should also mention that this was more than a decade ago, and I don't know whether his current views are the same or not.)

Another example I could have given is Fr J. Steele -- although, unlike Dr. Dragani, he isn't someone I respect (I did, in fact, know and respect him about 10 years ago) -- who said:

Quote
The OICWR crowd is a tiny but vocal minority resident mostly online at ByzCath. They are not representative of the countless good Eastern Catholics one finds in church on Sunday.

I would beg to differ that these malcontents do not display a toxic anti-Westernism. That is pretty much all they are about, save a tenuous and virtually meaningless communion with Rome.

Most dox. And they should, in the interest of honesty.

(emphasis added) OICWR is "Orthodox in communion with Rome".

-http://ad-orientem.blogspot.com/2009/07/orthodox-in-communion-with-rome.html
Title: Re: Why
Post by: podkarpatska on April 23, 2012, 07:40:21 PM

I know the Orthodox Church isn't the greenest, but, as you say, at least we don't have to worry about being morally obligated to vote for future President Dolan.

I hope you did not mistake my note to you as a CAF put down...oh my no!  I am more than happy to see you convert to Orthodoxy.  Your reasoning makes you a natural for moving.

Christ is Risen!

M.

This kind of happy-to-see-you-convert statement is, from my own experience talking with fellow Catholics, surprisingly common among Catholics.

Even Dr. Anthony Dragani said (http://www.byzcath.org/forums/ubbthreads.php/topics/83161/Death%20of%20Byzantine%20Catholicism):

Quote
What saddens me is the statement that we are making to others. Among so many Byzantine Catholics, the following premises now seem to dominate:

1. Rome has a messed up ecclesiology, and is wrong to micromanage so much. (I have to agree with this one, at least to some extent).

2. Orthodox ecclesiology is the right model.

3. The claims of the Pope to infallibility in specific instances are false.

4. There is no substantial benefit to being Byzantine Catholic as opposed to being Eastern Orthodox.

Anyone who follows these premises to their logical conclusion would - and should become Eastern Orthodox. It would be senseless to stay in a situation where a false ecclesiology dominates.

(I should mention that he said this in the context of trying to get ECs to have a more positive attitude toward being EC. Nevertheless, the fact that he said "Anyone who follows these premises to their logical conclusion would - and should become Eastern Orthodox" amazes me. I should also mention that this was more than a decade ago, and I don't know whether his current views are the same or not.)

Another example I could have given is Fr J. Steele -- although, unlike Dr. Dragani, he isn't someone I respect (I did, in fact, know and respect him about 10 years ago) -- who said:

Quote
The OICWR crowd is a tiny but vocal minority resident mostly online at ByzCath. They are not representative of the countless good Eastern Catholics one finds in church on Sunday.

I would beg to differ that these malcontents do not display a toxic anti-Westernism. That is pretty much all they are about, save a tenuous and virtually meaningless communion with Rome.

Most dox. And they should, in the interest of honesty.

(emphasis added) OICWR is "Orthodox in communion with Rome".

-http://ad-orientem.blogspot.com/2009/07/orthodox-in-communion-with-rome.html

Seriously though, that wouldn't suit the Vatican as Cardinal Lubomir Huzar was a leading proponent of the OICWR argument while he was Major Archbishop of the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church - by far the largest of the Eastern Churches in Communion with Rome. The whole matter is most confusing to me, I must confess.
Title: Re: Why
Post by: orthonorm on April 23, 2012, 08:17:48 PM
I wish we could push more of the dissenting hangers-on along a little more rapidly.

I believe you.

Given the fact that more often than not you mis-take some of the subtleties of my comments, I have to take this assertion with a grain of salt... ;)  You may believe me but you'd not be able to guess where I'd land on any given case nor would you be able to guess why.

M.

Thank you teacher. May I have another?  :-[

Oh Peter, I am sorry.  That was much harsher than I meant it to be.  Please forgive me...\

Sometimes I think of you as harsher than you are...Sometimes you are difficult to read and I do to you what I cry over, when it is done to me.  Drat!!  I wish I could take it back.

Fondly,

M.

No need for such sentiments. Your good or bad opinion doesn't influence how I think of myself any more than it influences my remaining Catholic. I am who I am.

From BS to blasphemy.

You should look in the mirror.

He knows where he stands. I think he's just sending out invitations for others to join him. :laugh:

I try to be good humored, but frankly I felt the "From BS to blasphemy" comment (obviously comparing my post to Exodus 3:14, "I Am Who Am") was a little over the top.

+1

Get a room then a sense of humor. In whatever order.
Title: Re: Why
Post by: Peter J on April 23, 2012, 09:09:19 PM

I know the Orthodox Church isn't the greenest, but, as you say, at least we don't have to worry about being morally obligated to vote for future President Dolan.

I hope you did not mistake my note to you as a CAF put down...oh my no!  I am more than happy to see you convert to Orthodoxy.  Your reasoning makes you a natural for moving.

Christ is Risen!

M.

This kind of happy-to-see-you-convert statement is, from my own experience talking with fellow Catholics, surprisingly common among Catholics.

Even Dr. Anthony Dragani said (http://www.byzcath.org/forums/ubbthreads.php/topics/83161/Death%20of%20Byzantine%20Catholicism):

Quote
What saddens me is the statement that we are making to others. Among so many Byzantine Catholics, the following premises now seem to dominate:

1. Rome has a messed up ecclesiology, and is wrong to micromanage so much. (I have to agree with this one, at least to some extent).

2. Orthodox ecclesiology is the right model.

3. The claims of the Pope to infallibility in specific instances are false.

4. There is no substantial benefit to being Byzantine Catholic as opposed to being Eastern Orthodox.

Anyone who follows these premises to their logical conclusion would - and should become Eastern Orthodox. It would be senseless to stay in a situation where a false ecclesiology dominates.

(I should mention that he said this in the context of trying to get ECs to have a more positive attitude toward being EC. Nevertheless, the fact that he said "Anyone who follows these premises to their logical conclusion would - and should become Eastern Orthodox" amazes me. I should also mention that this was more than a decade ago, and I don't know whether his current views are the same or not.)

Another example I could have given is Fr J. Steele -- although, unlike Dr. Dragani, he isn't someone I respect (I did, in fact, know and respect him about 10 years ago) -- who said:

Quote
The OICWR crowd is a tiny but vocal minority resident mostly online at ByzCath. They are not representative of the countless good Eastern Catholics one finds in church on Sunday.

I would beg to differ that these malcontents do not display a toxic anti-Westernism. That is pretty much all they are about, save a tenuous and virtually meaningless communion with Rome.

Most dox. And they should, in the interest of honesty.

(emphasis added) OICWR is "Orthodox in communion with Rome".

-http://ad-orientem.blogspot.com/2009/07/orthodox-in-communion-with-rome.html

Seriously though, that wouldn't suit the Vatican as Cardinal Lubomir Huzar was a leading proponent of the OICWR argument while he was Major Archbishop of the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church - by far the largest of the Eastern Churches in Communion with Rome. The whole matter is most confusing to me, I must confess.

It's definitely a tricky issue.

On the hand, Catholicism isn't anything-goes, nor should it be. Excommunication is still a possibility (although I'm glad that they aren't handed out as easily as they were in Martin Luther's day). Fr Feeney comes to mind for example.

On the other hand, I think many Catholics nowadays feel far too empowered to politely encourage fellow Catholics (the ones they disagree with to be specific) to leave Catholicism. Few of them would phrase it the way Fr. Steele did, but it's extremely common* nevertheless.

* You'll recall I said earlier that I was amazed by what Dr. Dragani said. I should have said I was amazed that he said it. If it had been a Catholic I had just met on CAF, it would have been no surprise.
Title: Re: Why
Post by: elijahmaria on April 23, 2012, 09:21:42 PM

I know the Orthodox Church isn't the greenest, but, as you say, at least we don't have to worry about being morally obligated to vote for future President Dolan.

I hope you did not mistake my note to you as a CAF put down...oh my no!  I am more than happy to see you convert to Orthodoxy.  Your reasoning makes you a natural for moving.

Christ is Risen!

M.

This kind of happy-to-see-you-convert statement is, from my own experience talking with fellow Catholics, surprisingly common among Catholics.

Even Dr. Anthony Dragani said (http://www.byzcath.org/forums/ubbthreads.php/topics/83161/Death%20of%20Byzantine%20Catholicism):

Quote
What saddens me is the statement that we are making to others. Among so many Byzantine Catholics, the following premises now seem to dominate:

1. Rome has a messed up ecclesiology, and is wrong to micromanage so much. (I have to agree with this one, at least to some extent).

2. Orthodox ecclesiology is the right model.

3. The claims of the Pope to infallibility in specific instances are false.

4. There is no substantial benefit to being Byzantine Catholic as opposed to being Eastern Orthodox.

Anyone who follows these premises to their logical conclusion would - and should become Eastern Orthodox. It would be senseless to stay in a situation where a false ecclesiology dominates.

(I should mention that he said this in the context of trying to get ECs to have a more positive attitude toward being EC. Nevertheless, the fact that he said "Anyone who follows these premises to their logical conclusion would - and should become Eastern Orthodox" amazes me. I should also mention that this was more than a decade ago, and I don't know whether his current views are the same or not.)

Another example I could have given is Fr J. Steele -- although, unlike Dr. Dragani, he isn't someone I respect (I did, in fact, know and respect him about 10 years ago) -- who said:

Quote
The OICWR crowd is a tiny but vocal minority resident mostly online at ByzCath. They are not representative of the countless good Eastern Catholics one finds in church on Sunday.

I would beg to differ that these malcontents do not display a toxic anti-Westernism. That is pretty much all they are about, save a tenuous and virtually meaningless communion with Rome.

Most dox. And they should, in the interest of honesty.

(emphasis added) OICWR is "Orthodox in communion with Rome".

-http://ad-orientem.blogspot.com/2009/07/orthodox-in-communion-with-rome.html

Seriously though, that wouldn't suit the Vatican as Cardinal Lubomir Huzar was a leading proponent of the OICWR argument while he was Major Archbishop of the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church - by far the largest of the Eastern Churches in Communion with Rome. The whole matter is most confusing to me, I must confess.

It's definitely a tricky issue.

On the hand, Catholicism isn't anything-goes, nor should it be. Excommunication is still a possibility (although I'm glad that they aren't handed out as easily as they were in Martin Luther's day). Fr Feeney comes to mind for example.

On the other hand, I think many Catholics nowadays feel far too empowered to politely encourage fellow Catholics (the ones they disagree with to be specific) to leave Catholicism. Few of them would phrase it the way Fr. Steele did, but it's extremely common* nevertheless.

* You'll recall I said earlier that I was amazed by what Dr. Dragani said. I should have said I was amazed that he said it. If it had been a Catholic I had just met on CAF, it would have been no surprise.

I think there is some value to the commentary that anyone who is in a constant state of dissent, and publicly attacking the Church, has ALREADY ex-communicated themselves and so they remain and commune in a state, at least, of objective unworthiness.  We cannot speak of their personal guilt at all, but we can point to the fact that they are tearing away at the Church, with purpose and forethought.  To suggest that they move along is NOT such a far stretch of good will for the good order of the Body of Christ.  IF you believe that Orthodoxy is a sister Church then there is every good reason to wish someone well when they move from the Catholic Church to the Orthodox Church. 
Title: Re: Why
Post by: Peter J on April 23, 2012, 09:39:38 PM

I know the Orthodox Church isn't the greenest, but, as you say, at least we don't have to worry about being morally obligated to vote for future President Dolan.

I hope you did not mistake my note to you as a CAF put down...oh my no!  I am more than happy to see you convert to Orthodoxy.  Your reasoning makes you a natural for moving.

Christ is Risen!

M.

This kind of happy-to-see-you-convert statement is, from my own experience talking with fellow Catholics, surprisingly common among Catholics.

Even Dr. Anthony Dragani said (http://www.byzcath.org/forums/ubbthreads.php/topics/83161/Death%20of%20Byzantine%20Catholicism):

Quote
What saddens me is the statement that we are making to others. Among so many Byzantine Catholics, the following premises now seem to dominate:

1. Rome has a messed up ecclesiology, and is wrong to micromanage so much. (I have to agree with this one, at least to some extent).

2. Orthodox ecclesiology is the right model.

3. The claims of the Pope to infallibility in specific instances are false.

4. There is no substantial benefit to being Byzantine Catholic as opposed to being Eastern Orthodox.

Anyone who follows these premises to their logical conclusion would - and should become Eastern Orthodox. It would be senseless to stay in a situation where a false ecclesiology dominates.

(I should mention that he said this in the context of trying to get ECs to have a more positive attitude toward being EC. Nevertheless, the fact that he said "Anyone who follows these premises to their logical conclusion would - and should become Eastern Orthodox" amazes me. I should also mention that this was more than a decade ago, and I don't know whether his current views are the same or not.)

Another example I could have given is Fr J. Steele -- although, unlike Dr. Dragani, he isn't someone I respect (I did, in fact, know and respect him about 10 years ago) -- who said:

Quote
The OICWR crowd is a tiny but vocal minority resident mostly online at ByzCath. They are not representative of the countless good Eastern Catholics one finds in church on Sunday.

I would beg to differ that these malcontents do not display a toxic anti-Westernism. That is pretty much all they are about, save a tenuous and virtually meaningless communion with Rome.

Most dox. And they should, in the interest of honesty.

(emphasis added) OICWR is "Orthodox in communion with Rome".

-http://ad-orientem.blogspot.com/2009/07/orthodox-in-communion-with-rome.html

Seriously though, that wouldn't suit the Vatican as Cardinal Lubomir Huzar was a leading proponent of the OICWR argument while he was Major Archbishop of the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church - by far the largest of the Eastern Churches in Communion with Rome. The whole matter is most confusing to me, I must confess.

It's definitely a tricky issue.

On the hand, Catholicism isn't anything-goes, nor should it be. Excommunication is still a possibility (although I'm glad that they aren't handed out as easily as they were in Martin Luther's day). Fr Feeney comes to mind for example.

On the other hand, I think many Catholics nowadays feel far too empowered to politely encourage fellow Catholics (the ones they disagree with to be specific) to leave Catholicism. Few of them would phrase it the way Fr. Steele did, but it's extremely common* nevertheless.

* You'll recall I said earlier that I was amazed by what Dr. Dragani said. I should have said I was amazed that he said it. If it had been a Catholic I had just met on CAF, it would have been no surprise.

I think there is some value to the commentary that anyone who is in a constant state of dissent, and publicly attacking the Church, has ALREADY ex-communicated themselves and so they remain and commune in a state, at least, of objective unworthiness.

I agree that there such a thing as automatic excommunication; but the term dissent has multiple meanings. For example, Melkites are often called dissenters. (I could come up with other examples, but I choose the Melkite Church because it is especially dear to me, having gone to Melkite liturgies weekly since 2002.)
Title: Re: Why
Post by: MarkosC on April 23, 2012, 10:48:15 PM
I agree that there such a thing as automatic excommunication; but the term dissent has multiple meanings. For example, Melkites are often called dissenters. (I could come up with other examples, but I choose the Melkite Church because it is especially dear to me, having gone to Melkite liturgies weekly since 2002.)

?????????

Interesting, i've never heard this one.  

Who says this? Have they ever taken an introductory graduate theology course at a decent Catholic university?  (some dude who's picked up a Catechism - or worse gotten their theology from the internet- doesn't count). How would they account Patriarch Gregorios' statments (which are fairly average among Melkites IMO) and the fact that he concelebrated to the right of Pope Benedict at the latter's enthronement Mass?
Title: Re: Why
Post by: Peter J on April 23, 2012, 10:58:40 PM
I agree that there such a thing as automatic excommunication; but the term dissent has multiple meanings. For example, Melkites are often called dissenters. (I could come up with other examples, but I choose the Melkite Church because it is especially dear to me, having gone to Melkite liturgies weekly since 2002.)

?????????

Interesting, i've never heard this one.  

Who says this?

That's a good question. I don't have a good answer at the moment -- although that could just be because it's late. :) I'll try to get back to you tomorrow.
Title: Re: Why
Post by: Peter J on April 24, 2012, 07:34:44 AM
I agree that there such a thing as automatic excommunication; but the term dissent has multiple meanings. For example, Melkites are often called dissenters. (I could come up with other examples, but I choose the Melkite Church because it is especially dear to me, having gone to Melkite liturgies weekly since 2002.)

?????????

Interesting, i've never heard this one.  

Who says this? Have they ever taken an introductory graduate theology course at a decent Catholic university?  (some dude who's picked up a Catechism - or worse gotten their theology from the internet- doesn't count).

I quite take your point that, just because some people say it, doesn't necessarily "count". That was kind of my point too: there are people who throw the word around pretty freely.
Title: Re: Why
Post by: Papist on April 24, 2012, 10:00:17 AM
I agree that there such a thing as automatic excommunication; but the term dissent has multiple meanings. For example, Melkites are often called dissenters. (I could come up with other examples, but I choose the Melkite Church because it is especially dear to me, having gone to Melkite liturgies weekly since 2002.)

?????????

Interesting, i've never heard this one.  

Who says this? Have they ever taken an introductory graduate theology course at a decent Catholic university?  (some dude who's picked up a Catechism - or worse gotten their theology from the internet- doesn't count). How would they account Patriarch Gregorios' statments (which are fairly average among Melkites IMO) and the fact that he concelebrated to the right of Pope Benedict at the latter's enthronement Mass?
The Zohgby (spelling?) initiative is evidence of serious problems in the Melkite church.
Title: Re: Why
Post by: Peter J on April 24, 2012, 10:18:11 AM
Politely-encouraging-Catholics-to-leave is alright, I suppose, as long as it's limited to those already implicitly excommunicated. The problem is that it is rarely so limited.

Are supporters of the Zoghby Initiative automatically excommunicated? I should certainly think they aren't.
Title: Re: Why
Post by: J Michael on April 24, 2012, 10:27:09 AM
I agree that there such a thing as automatic excommunication; but the term dissent has multiple meanings. For example, Melkites are often called dissenters. (I could come up with other examples, but I choose the Melkite Church because it is especially dear to me, having gone to Melkite liturgies weekly since 2002.)

?????????

Interesting, i've never heard this one.  

Who says this? Have they ever taken an introductory graduate theology course at a decent Catholic university?  (some dude who's picked up a Catechism - or worse gotten their theology from the internet- doesn't count). How would they account Patriarch Gregorios' statments (which are fairly average among Melkites IMO) and the fact that he concelebrated to the right of Pope Benedict at the latter's enthronement Mass?
The Zohgby (spelling?) initiative is evidence of serious problems in the Melkite church.

Can you elaborate on that?  I thought (incorrectly?) the Zoghby (sp?) initiative was dead in the water.
Title: Re: Why
Post by: Papist on April 24, 2012, 10:57:28 AM
I agree that there such a thing as automatic excommunication; but the term dissent has multiple meanings. For example, Melkites are often called dissenters. (I could come up with other examples, but I choose the Melkite Church because it is especially dear to me, having gone to Melkite liturgies weekly since 2002.)

?????????

Interesting, i've never heard this one.  

Who says this? Have they ever taken an introductory graduate theology course at a decent Catholic university?  (some dude who's picked up a Catechism - or worse gotten their theology from the internet- doesn't count). How would they account Patriarch Gregorios' statments (which are fairly average among Melkites IMO) and the fact that he concelebrated to the right of Pope Benedict at the latter's enthronement Mass?
The Zohgby (spelling?) initiative is evidence of serious problems in the Melkite church.

Can you elaborate on that?  I thought (incorrectly?) the Zoghby (sp?) initiative was dead in the water.
It is dead in the water. But its acceptance by so many Melkite bishops shows that there is a serious problem in the Melkite's understanding of the faith. From what I can tell, their actions make it clear that they don't really accept the the teachings of Vatican I. That being said, the Melkites have never made this statement explicitliy, so it's difficult to pin down exactly where they stand on the matter.
Title: Re: Why
Post by: J Michael on April 24, 2012, 11:01:12 AM
I agree that there such a thing as automatic excommunication; but the term dissent has multiple meanings. For example, Melkites are often called dissenters. (I could come up with other examples, but I choose the Melkite Church because it is especially dear to me, having gone to Melkite liturgies weekly since 2002.)

?????????

Interesting, i've never heard this one.  

Who says this? Have they ever taken an introductory graduate theology course at a decent Catholic university?  (some dude who's picked up a Catechism - or worse gotten their theology from the internet- doesn't count). How would they account Patriarch Gregorios' statments (which are fairly average among Melkites IMO) and the fact that he concelebrated to the right of Pope Benedict at the latter's enthronement Mass?
The Zohgby (spelling?) initiative is evidence of serious problems in the Melkite church.

Can you elaborate on that?  I thought (incorrectly?) the Zoghby (sp?) initiative was dead in the water.
It is dead in the water. But its acceptance by so many Melkite bishops shows that there is a serious problem in the Melkite's understanding of the faith. From what I can tell, their actions make it clear that they don't really accept the the teachings of Vatican I. That being said, the Melkites have never made this statement explicitliy, so it's difficult to pin down exactly where they stand on the matter.

Interesting.  Thanks.
Title: Re: Why
Post by: Papist on April 24, 2012, 11:03:20 AM
I agree that there such a thing as automatic excommunication; but the term dissent has multiple meanings. For example, Melkites are often called dissenters. (I could come up with other examples, but I choose the Melkite Church because it is especially dear to me, having gone to Melkite liturgies weekly since 2002.)

?????????

Interesting, i've never heard this one.  

Who says this? Have they ever taken an introductory graduate theology course at a decent Catholic university?  (some dude who's picked up a Catechism - or worse gotten their theology from the internet- doesn't count). How would they account Patriarch Gregorios' statments (which are fairly average among Melkites IMO) and the fact that he concelebrated to the right of Pope Benedict at the latter's enthronement Mass?
The Zohgby (spelling?) initiative is evidence of serious problems in the Melkite church.

Can you elaborate on that?  I thought (incorrectly?) the Zoghby (sp?) initiative was dead in the water.
It is dead in the water. But its acceptance by so many Melkite bishops shows that there is a serious problem in the Melkite's understanding of the faith. From what I can tell, their actions make it clear that they don't really accept the the teachings of Vatican I. That being said, the Melkites have never made this statement explicitliy, so it's difficult to pin down exactly where they stand on the matter.

Interesting.  Thanks.
In my view this is on par with modernist, dissenting, latin bishops.
Title: Re: Why
Post by: J Michael on April 24, 2012, 11:17:22 AM
I agree that there such a thing as automatic excommunication; but the term dissent has multiple meanings. For example, Melkites are often called dissenters. (I could come up with other examples, but I choose the Melkite Church because it is especially dear to me, having gone to Melkite liturgies weekly since 2002.)

?????????

Interesting, i've never heard this one. 

Who says this? Have they ever taken an introductory graduate theology course at a decent Catholic university?  (some dude who's picked up a Catechism - or worse gotten their theology from the internet- doesn't count). How would they account Patriarch Gregorios' statments (which are fairly average among Melkites IMO) and the fact that he concelebrated to the right of Pope Benedict at the latter's enthronement Mass?
The Zohgby (spelling?) initiative is evidence of serious problems in the Melkite church.

Can you elaborate on that?  I thought (incorrectly?) the Zoghby (sp?) initiative was dead in the water.
It is dead in the water. But its acceptance by so many Melkite bishops shows that there is a serious problem in the Melkite's understanding of the faith. From what I can tell, their actions make it clear that they don't really accept the the teachings of Vatican I. That being said, the Melkites have never made this statement explicitliy, so it's difficult to pin down exactly where they stand on the matter.

Interesting.  Thanks.
In my view this is on par with modernist, dissenting, latin bishops.

I'll take your word for that.  I have little familiarity with the Melkites, their understanding of the faith, and what they do and do not "accept" or reject of Vatican I or anything else regarding their relationship with Rome.  In fact, they are barely on my radar at all, unfortunately.  The nearest Melkite parish to me is probably at least 2 hours away making it, for all intents and purposes, inaccessible.
Title: Re: Why
Post by: Peter J on April 24, 2012, 11:20:54 AM
I agree that there such a thing as automatic excommunication; but the term dissent has multiple meanings. For example, Melkites are often called dissenters. (I could come up with other examples, but I choose the Melkite Church because it is especially dear to me, having gone to Melkite liturgies weekly since 2002.)

?????????

Interesting, i've never heard this one.  

Who says this? Have they ever taken an introductory graduate theology course at a decent Catholic university?  (some dude who's picked up a Catechism - or worse gotten their theology from the internet- doesn't count). How would they account Patriarch Gregorios' statments (which are fairly average among Melkites IMO) and the fact that he concelebrated to the right of Pope Benedict at the latter's enthronement Mass?
The Zohgby (spelling?) initiative is evidence of serious problems in the Melkite church.

Can you elaborate on that?  I thought (incorrectly?) the Zoghby (sp?) initiative was dead in the water.
It is dead in the water. But its acceptance by so many Melkite bishops shows that there is a serious problem in the Melkite's understanding of the faith. From what I can tell, their actions make it clear that they don't really accept the the teachings of Vatican I. That being said, the Melkites have never made this statement explicitliy, so it's difficult to pin down exactly where they stand on the matter.

I didn't really mean to start a new branch of this thread to talk about Melkites and/or the Zoghby Initiative; but now that we are talking about them ... My understanding of the Zoghby Initiative is that they don't consider Rome heretical for believing Papal Supremacy, nor do they consider the Orthodox heretical for not believing it. Hence they would have no problem being in communion with both.
Title: Re: Why
Post by: J Michael on April 24, 2012, 11:25:06 AM
I agree that there such a thing as automatic excommunication; but the term dissent has multiple meanings. For example, Melkites are often called dissenters. (I could come up with other examples, but I choose the Melkite Church because it is especially dear to me, having gone to Melkite liturgies weekly since 2002.)

?????????

Interesting, i've never heard this one.  

Who says this? Have they ever taken an introductory graduate theology course at a decent Catholic university?  (some dude who's picked up a Catechism - or worse gotten their theology from the internet- doesn't count). How would they account Patriarch Gregorios' statments (which are fairly average among Melkites IMO) and the fact that he concelebrated to the right of Pope Benedict at the latter's enthronement Mass?
The Zohgby (spelling?) initiative is evidence of serious problems in the Melkite church.

Can you elaborate on that?  I thought (incorrectly?) the Zoghby (sp?) initiative was dead in the water.
It is dead in the water. But its acceptance by so many Melkite bishops shows that there is a serious problem in the Melkite's understanding of the faith. From what I can tell, their actions make it clear that they don't really accept the the teachings of Vatican I. That being said, the Melkites have never made this statement explicitliy, so it's difficult to pin down exactly where they stand on the matter.

I didn't really mean to start a new branch of this thread to talk about Melkites and/or the Zoghby Initiative; but now that we are talking about them ... My understanding of the Zoghby Initiative is that they don't consider Rome heretical for believing Papal Supremacy, nor do they consider the Orthodox heretical for not believing it. Hence they would have no problem being in communion with both.

So, does that explain why the initiative is dead in the water?  I can't imagine too many Orthodox bishops or synods going for that--if any at all.  Most unfortunately, that is.
Title: Re: Why
Post by: Peter J on April 24, 2012, 11:35:40 AM
I can't imagine too many Orthodox bishops or synods going for that--if any at all. 

None-at-all is my understanding.
Title: Re: Why
Post by: Papist on April 24, 2012, 12:00:48 PM
I agree that there such a thing as automatic excommunication; but the term dissent has multiple meanings. For example, Melkites are often called dissenters. (I could come up with other examples, but I choose the Melkite Church because it is especially dear to me, having gone to Melkite liturgies weekly since 2002.)

?????????

Interesting, i've never heard this one.  

Who says this? Have they ever taken an introductory graduate theology course at a decent Catholic university?  (some dude who's picked up a Catechism - or worse gotten their theology from the internet- doesn't count). How would they account Patriarch Gregorios' statments (which are fairly average among Melkites IMO) and the fact that he concelebrated to the right of Pope Benedict at the latter's enthronement Mass?
The Zohgby (spelling?) initiative is evidence of serious problems in the Melkite church.

Can you elaborate on that?  I thought (incorrectly?) the Zoghby (sp?) initiative was dead in the water.
It is dead in the water. But its acceptance by so many Melkite bishops shows that there is a serious problem in the Melkite's understanding of the faith. From what I can tell, their actions make it clear that they don't really accept the the teachings of Vatican I. That being said, the Melkites have never made this statement explicitliy, so it's difficult to pin down exactly where they stand on the matter.

I didn't really mean to start a new branch of this thread to talk about Melkites and/or the Zoghby Initiative; but now that we are talking about them ... My understanding of the Zoghby Initiative is that they don't consider Rome heretical for believing Papal Supremacy, nor do they consider the Orthodox heretical for not believing it. Hence they would have no problem being in communion with both.
So no law of non-contradictiong?
Title: Re: Why
Post by: Alpo on April 24, 2012, 12:04:02 PM
Is there any danger/hope of Melkites returning back to the Antiochian EO church?
Title: Re: Why
Post by: J Michael on April 24, 2012, 12:04:33 PM
I can't imagine too many Orthodox bishops or synods going for that--if any at all. 

None-at-all is my understanding.

I know they don't see it that way, but.....their loss.
Title: Re: Why
Post by: elijahmaria on April 24, 2012, 12:17:11 PM
The Melkites have tacit acceptance from Rome.  They NEVER attack the Roman rite, nor do they try to tear down any other particular Church...Orthodox Catholic or Catholic.  They never suggest that anyone else MUST do it their way or the others are not in communion with them, nor are they legitimate Church...they NEVER say those things. 

A dissenter tries to change by force...and no...I don't mean violent force.   Bishops ordaining female priests is force...non-violent force.

M.
Title: Re: Why
Post by: Peter J on April 24, 2012, 12:32:59 PM
I agree that there such a thing as automatic excommunication; but the term dissent has multiple meanings. For example, Melkites are often called dissenters. (I could come up with other examples, but I choose the Melkite Church because it is especially dear to me, having gone to Melkite liturgies weekly since 2002.)

?????????

Interesting, i've never heard this one.  

Who says this? Have they ever taken an introductory graduate theology course at a decent Catholic university?  (some dude who's picked up a Catechism - or worse gotten their theology from the internet- doesn't count). How would they account Patriarch Gregorios' statments (which are fairly average among Melkites IMO) and the fact that he concelebrated to the right of Pope Benedict at the latter's enthronement Mass?
The Zohgby (spelling?) initiative is evidence of serious problems in the Melkite church.

Can you elaborate on that?  I thought (incorrectly?) the Zoghby (sp?) initiative was dead in the water.
It is dead in the water. But its acceptance by so many Melkite bishops shows that there is a serious problem in the Melkite's understanding of the faith. From what I can tell, their actions make it clear that they don't really accept the the teachings of Vatican I. That being said, the Melkites have never made this statement explicitliy, so it's difficult to pin down exactly where they stand on the matter.

I didn't really mean to start a new branch of this thread to talk about Melkites and/or the Zoghby Initiative; but now that we are talking about them ... My understanding of the Zoghby Initiative is that they don't consider Rome heretical for believing Papal Supremacy, nor do they consider the Orthodox heretical for not believing it. Hence they would have no problem being in communion with both.
So no law of non-contradiction?

If you mean law of non-contradiction in the literal sense (i.e. A and B can't both be right if they contradict each other) then I think that goes without saying.

If by law of non-contradiction you mean something more like "I can't be in communion with both A and B if they disagree on something that at least one of them considers non-negotiable", then I would say: No, the Melkites don't follow any such policy, as far as I can tell.
Title: Re: Why
Post by: witega on April 24, 2012, 01:03:27 PM
I agree that there such a thing as automatic excommunication; but the term dissent has multiple meanings. For example, Melkites are often called dissenters. (I could come up with other examples, but I choose the Melkite Church because it is especially dear to me, having gone to Melkite liturgies weekly since 2002.)

?????????

Interesting, i've never heard this one.  

Who says this? Have they ever taken an introductory graduate theology course at a decent Catholic university?  (some dude who's picked up a Catechism - or worse gotten their theology from the internet- doesn't count). How would they account Patriarch Gregorios' statments (which are fairly average among Melkites IMO) and the fact that he concelebrated to the right of Pope Benedict at the latter's enthronement Mass?
The Zohgby (spelling?) initiative is evidence of serious problems in the Melkite church.

Can you elaborate on that?  I thought (incorrectly?) the Zoghby (sp?) initiative was dead in the water.
It is dead in the water. But its acceptance by so many Melkite bishops shows that there is a serious problem in the Melkite's understanding of the faith. From what I can tell, their actions make it clear that they don't really accept the the teachings of Vatican I. That being said, the Melkites have never made this statement explicitliy, so it's difficult to pin down exactly where they stand on the matter.

I didn't really mean to start a new branch of this thread to talk about Melkites and/or the Zoghby Initiative; but now that we are talking about them ... My understanding of the Zoghby Initiative is that they don't consider Rome heretical for believing Papal Supremacy, nor do they consider the Orthodox heretical for not believing it. Hence they would have no problem being in communion with both.
So no law of non-contradiction?

If you mean law of non-contradiction in the literal sense (i.e. A and B can't both be right if they contradict each other) then I think that goes without saying.

If by law of non-contradiction you mean something more like "I can't be in communion with both A and B if they disagree on something that at least one of them considers non-negotiable", then I would say: No, the Melkites don't follow any such policy, as far as I can tell.

Okay. This is where you (and the Melkites) always lose me. Papal Supremacy would seem to be an example of your first sentence. Either the Roman pontiff has supreme authority within the Church (the Roman position) or does he not (the Orthodox--and  everyone else's--position). A and B can't both be right.

And the Roman Church has dogmatized that A (Papal Supremacy) is right. So it's not merely that some Roman Catholics hold it as a private opinion, but everyone in communion with Rome is required to believe it in order to be in communion with Rome.

So how can the Melkites be in communion with Rome if they don't accept it? And if they do accept it then a) how could they be in communion with a group that rejects A as false, and b) why would they want to be in communion with a group that rejects one of their dogmas as false? I mean I don't see anybody advocating being in communion with Arians or Adoptionists or Iconoclasts. And no, like most Orthodox, I don't see the issue of the Pope's authority as being comparable to the doctrines of the Trinity or the  Incarnation--but then my Church didn't make or accept it as a dogma.
Title: Re: Why
Post by: Shlomlokh on April 24, 2012, 01:08:00 PM
I agree that there such a thing as automatic excommunication; but the term dissent has multiple meanings. For example, Melkites are often called dissenters. (I could come up with other examples, but I choose the Melkite Church because it is especially dear to me, having gone to Melkite liturgies weekly since 2002.)

?????????

Interesting, i've never heard this one.  

Who says this? Have they ever taken an introductory graduate theology course at a decent Catholic university?  (some dude who's picked up a Catechism - or worse gotten their theology from the internet- doesn't count). How would they account Patriarch Gregorios' statments (which are fairly average among Melkites IMO) and the fact that he concelebrated to the right of Pope Benedict at the latter's enthronement Mass?
The Zohgby (spelling?) initiative is evidence of serious problems in the Melkite church.

Can you elaborate on that?  I thought (incorrectly?) the Zoghby (sp?) initiative was dead in the water.
It is dead in the water. But its acceptance by so many Melkite bishops shows that there is a serious problem in the Melkite's understanding of the faith. From what I can tell, their actions make it clear that they don't really accept the the teachings of Vatican I. That being said, the Melkites have never made this statement explicitliy, so it's difficult to pin down exactly where they stand on the matter.

I didn't really mean to start a new branch of this thread to talk about Melkites and/or the Zoghby Initiative; but now that we are talking about them ... My understanding of the Zoghby Initiative is that they don't consider Rome heretical for believing Papal Supremacy, nor do they consider the Orthodox heretical for not believing it. Hence they would have no problem being in communion with both.
So no law of non-contradiction?

If you mean law of non-contradiction in the literal sense (i.e. A and B can't both be right if they contradict each other) then I think that goes without saying.

If by law of non-contradiction you mean something more like "I can't be in communion with both A and B if they disagree on something that at least one of them considers non-negotiable", then I would say: No, the Melkites don't follow any such policy, as far as I can tell.

Okay. This is where you (and the Melkites) always lose me. Papal Supremacy would seem to be an example of your first sentence. Either the Roman pontiff has supreme authority within the Church (the Roman position) or does he not (the Orthodox--and  everyone else's--position). A and B can't both be right.

And the Roman Church has dogmatized that A (Papal Supremacy) is right. So it's not merely that some Roman Catholics hold it as a private opinion, but everyone in communion with Rome is required to believe it in order to be in communion with Rome.

So how can the Melkites be in communion with Rome if they don't accept it? And if they do accept it then a) how could they be in communion with a group that rejects A as false, and b) why would they want to be in communion with a group that rejects one of their dogmas as false? I mean I don't see anybody advocating being in communion with Arians or Adoptionists or Iconoclasts. And no, like most Orthodox, I don't see the issue of the Pope's authority as being comparable to the doctrines of the Trinity or the  Incarnation--but then my Church didn't make or accept it as a dogma.

How? Spiritual schizophrenia is how.

In Christ,
Andrew
Title: Re: Why
Post by: J Michael on April 24, 2012, 01:14:58 PM
I agree that there such a thing as automatic excommunication; but the term dissent has multiple meanings. For example, Melkites are often called dissenters. (I could come up with other examples, but I choose the Melkite Church because it is especially dear to me, having gone to Melkite liturgies weekly since 2002.)

?????????

Interesting, i've never heard this one.  

Who says this? Have they ever taken an introductory graduate theology course at a decent Catholic university?  (some dude who's picked up a Catechism - or worse gotten their theology from the internet- doesn't count). How would they account Patriarch Gregorios' statments (which are fairly average among Melkites IMO) and the fact that he concelebrated to the right of Pope Benedict at the latter's enthronement Mass?
The Zohgby (spelling?) initiative is evidence of serious problems in the Melkite church.

Can you elaborate on that?  I thought (incorrectly?) the Zoghby (sp?) initiative was dead in the water.
It is dead in the water. But its acceptance by so many Melkite bishops shows that there is a serious problem in the Melkite's understanding of the faith. From what I can tell, their actions make it clear that they don't really accept the the teachings of Vatican I. That being said, the Melkites have never made this statement explicitliy, so it's difficult to pin down exactly where they stand on the matter.

I didn't really mean to start a new branch of this thread to talk about Melkites and/or the Zoghby Initiative; but now that we are talking about them ... My understanding of the Zoghby Initiative is that they don't consider Rome heretical for believing Papal Supremacy, nor do they consider the Orthodox heretical for not believing it. Hence they would have no problem being in communion with both.
So no law of non-contradiction?

If you mean law of non-contradiction in the literal sense (i.e. A and B can't both be right if they contradict each other) then I think that goes without saying.

If by law of non-contradiction you mean something more like "I can't be in communion with both A and B if they disagree on something that at least one of them considers non-negotiable", then I would say: No, the Melkites don't follow any such policy, as far as I can tell.

Okay. This is where you (and the Melkites) always lose me. Papal Supremacy would seem to be an example of your first sentence. Either the Roman pontiff has supreme authority within the Church (the Roman position) or does he not (the Orthodox--and  everyone else's--position). A and B can't both be right.

And the Roman Church has dogmatized that A (Papal Supremacy) is right. So it's not merely that some Roman Catholics hold it as a private opinion, but everyone in communion with Rome is required to believe it in order to be in communion with Rome.

So how can the Melkites be in communion with Rome if they don't accept it? And if they do accept it then a) how could they be in communion with a group that rejects A as false, and b) why would they want to be in communion with a group that rejects one of their dogmas as false? I mean I don't see anybody advocating being in communion with Arians or Adoptionists or Iconoclasts. And no, like most Orthodox, I don't see the issue of the Pope's authority as being comparable to the doctrines of the Trinity or the  Incarnation--but then my Church didn't make or accept it as a dogma.


Life's just full of paradoxes, ain't it  :D?

Seriously, though...*do* the Melkites reject Papal supremacy?  And, which of their dogmas does Rome (I assume [eek!] you mean Rome?) reject as false?
Title: Re: Why
Post by: Peter J on April 24, 2012, 01:31:27 PM
This will be a short answer, b/c I'm going out the door shortly.

I agree that there such a thing as automatic excommunication; but the term dissent has multiple meanings. For example, Melkites are often called dissenters. (I could come up with other examples, but I choose the Melkite Church because it is especially dear to me, having gone to Melkite liturgies weekly since 2002.)

?????????

Interesting, i've never heard this one.  

Who says this? Have they ever taken an introductory graduate theology course at a decent Catholic university?  (some dude who's picked up a Catechism - or worse gotten their theology from the internet- doesn't count). How would they account Patriarch Gregorios' statments (which are fairly average among Melkites IMO) and the fact that he concelebrated to the right of Pope Benedict at the latter's enthronement Mass?
The Zohgby (spelling?) initiative is evidence of serious problems in the Melkite church.

Can you elaborate on that?  I thought (incorrectly?) the Zoghby (sp?) initiative was dead in the water.
It is dead in the water. But its acceptance by so many Melkite bishops shows that there is a serious problem in the Melkite's understanding of the faith. From what I can tell, their actions make it clear that they don't really accept the the teachings of Vatican I. That being said, the Melkites have never made this statement explicitliy, so it's difficult to pin down exactly where they stand on the matter.

I didn't really mean to start a new branch of this thread to talk about Melkites and/or the Zoghby Initiative; but now that we are talking about them ... My understanding of the Zoghby Initiative is that they don't consider Rome heretical for believing Papal Supremacy, nor do they consider the Orthodox heretical for not believing it. Hence they would have no problem being in communion with both.
So no law of non-contradiction?

If you mean law of non-contradiction in the literal sense (i.e. A and B can't both be right if they contradict each other) then I think that goes without saying.

If by law of non-contradiction you mean something more like "I can't be in communion with both A and B if they disagree on something that at least one of them considers non-negotiable", then I would say: No, the Melkites don't follow any such policy, as far as I can tell.

Okay. This is where you (and the Melkites) always lose me. Papal Supremacy would seem to be an example of your first sentence. Either the Roman pontiff has supreme authority within the Church (the Roman position) or does he not (the Orthodox--and  everyone else's--position). A and B can't both be right.

And the Roman Church has dogmatized that A (Papal Supremacy) is right. So it's not merely that some Roman Catholics hold it as a private opinion, but everyone in communion with Rome is required to believe it in order to be in communion with Rome.

So how can the Melkites be in communion with Rome if they don't accept it? And if they do accept it then a) how could they be in communion with a group that rejects A as false, and b) why would they want to be in communion with a group that rejects one of their dogmas as false? 

Accepting X as true doesn't always entail condemning as heretics those who deny X.
Title: Re: Why
Post by: witega on April 24, 2012, 02:21:55 PM
I agree that there such a thing as automatic excommunication; but the term dissent has multiple meanings. For example, Melkites are often called dissenters. (I could come up with other examples, but I choose the Melkite Church because it is especially dear to me, having gone to Melkite liturgies weekly since 2002.)

?????????

Interesting, i've never heard this one.  

Who says this? Have they ever taken an introductory graduate theology course at a decent Catholic university?  (some dude who's picked up a Catechism - or worse gotten their theology from the internet- doesn't count). How would they account Patriarch Gregorios' statments (which are fairly average among Melkites IMO) and the fact that he concelebrated to the right of Pope Benedict at the latter's enthronement Mass?
The Zohgby (spelling?) initiative is evidence of serious problems in the Melkite church.

Can you elaborate on that?  I thought (incorrectly?) the Zoghby (sp?) initiative was dead in the water.
It is dead in the water. But its acceptance by so many Melkite bishops shows that there is a serious problem in the Melkite's understanding of the faith. From what I can tell, their actions make it clear that they don't really accept the the teachings of Vatican I. That being said, the Melkites have never made this statement explicitliy, so it's difficult to pin down exactly where they stand on the matter.

I didn't really mean to start a new branch of this thread to talk about Melkites and/or the Zoghby Initiative; but now that we are talking about them ... My understanding of the Zoghby Initiative is that they don't consider Rome heretical for believing Papal Supremacy, nor do they consider the Orthodox heretical for not believing it. Hence they would have no problem being in communion with both.
So no law of non-contradiction?

If you mean law of non-contradiction in the literal sense (i.e. A and B can't both be right if they contradict each other) then I think that goes without saying.

If by law of non-contradiction you mean something more like "I can't be in communion with both A and B if they disagree on something that at least one of them considers non-negotiable", then I would say: No, the Melkites don't follow any such policy, as far as I can tell.

Okay. This is where you (and the Melkites) always lose me. Papal Supremacy would seem to be an example of your first sentence. Either the Roman pontiff has supreme authority within the Church (the Roman position) or does he not (the Orthodox--and  everyone else's--position). A and B can't both be right.

And the Roman Church has dogmatized that A (Papal Supremacy) is right. So it's not merely that some Roman Catholics hold it as a private opinion, but everyone in communion with Rome is required to believe it in order to be in communion with Rome.

So how can the Melkites be in communion with Rome if they don't accept it? And if they do accept it then a) how could they be in communion with a group that rejects A as false, and b) why would they want to be in communion with a group that rejects one of their dogmas as false? I mean I don't see anybody advocating being in communion with Arians or Adoptionists or Iconoclasts. And no, like most Orthodox, I don't see the issue of the Pope's authority as being comparable to the doctrines of the Trinity or the  Incarnation--but then my Church didn't make or accept it as a dogma.


Life's just full of paradoxes, ain't it  :D?

Seriously, though...*do* the Melkites reject Papal supremacy?  And, which of their dogmas does Rome (I assume [eek!] you mean Rome?) reject as false?

I don't know if the Melkites do or do not reject Papal supremacy. That's what my 3rd paragraph above is about--if they do not, then how can they be in communion with Rome; if they do then how can they be in communion with Orthodoxy or even want to be in communion with Orthodoxy (so, no, the part you assume refers to Rome is actually referring to Orthodoxy and our rejection of Papal Supremacy)

Title: Re: Why
Post by: witega on April 24, 2012, 02:22:59 PM
This will be a short answer, b/c I'm going out the door shortly.

I agree that there such a thing as automatic excommunication; but the term dissent has multiple meanings. For example, Melkites are often called dissenters. (I could come up with other examples, but I choose the Melkite Church because it is especially dear to me, having gone to Melkite liturgies weekly since 2002.)

?????????

Interesting, i've never heard this one.  

Who says this? Have they ever taken an introductory graduate theology course at a decent Catholic university?  (some dude who's picked up a Catechism - or worse gotten their theology from the internet- doesn't count). How would they account Patriarch Gregorios' statments (which are fairly average among Melkites IMO) and the fact that he concelebrated to the right of Pope Benedict at the latter's enthronement Mass?
The Zohgby (spelling?) initiative is evidence of serious problems in the Melkite church.

Can you elaborate on that?  I thought (incorrectly?) the Zoghby (sp?) initiative was dead in the water.
It is dead in the water. But its acceptance by so many Melkite bishops shows that there is a serious problem in the Melkite's understanding of the faith. From what I can tell, their actions make it clear that they don't really accept the the teachings of Vatican I. That being said, the Melkites have never made this statement explicitliy, so it's difficult to pin down exactly where they stand on the matter.

I didn't really mean to start a new branch of this thread to talk about Melkites and/or the Zoghby Initiative; but now that we are talking about them ... My understanding of the Zoghby Initiative is that they don't consider Rome heretical for believing Papal Supremacy, nor do they consider the Orthodox heretical for not believing it. Hence they would have no problem being in communion with both.
So no law of non-contradiction?

If you mean law of non-contradiction in the literal sense (i.e. A and B can't both be right if they contradict each other) then I think that goes without saying.

If by law of non-contradiction you mean something more like "I can't be in communion with both A and B if they disagree on something that at least one of them considers non-negotiable", then I would say: No, the Melkites don't follow any such policy, as far as I can tell.

Okay. This is where you (and the Melkites) always lose me. Papal Supremacy would seem to be an example of your first sentence. Either the Roman pontiff has supreme authority within the Church (the Roman position) or does he not (the Orthodox--and  everyone else's--position). A and B can't both be right.

And the Roman Church has dogmatized that A (Papal Supremacy) is right. So it's not merely that some Roman Catholics hold it as a private opinion, but everyone in communion with Rome is required to believe it in order to be in communion with Rome.

So how can the Melkites be in communion with Rome if they don't accept it? And if they do accept it then a) how could they be in communion with a group that rejects A as false, and b) why would they want to be in communion with a group that rejects one of their dogmas as false? 

Accepting X as true doesn't always entail condemning as heretics those who deny X.


I realize this is a short answer but it doesn't even being to answer my question.

I (and Orthodoxy in general) completely agree with your statement. Numerous times on this forum I have pointed out that
a) One can believe the Earth is flat, and be Orthodox.
b) One can believe that St. Constantine was not a saint but an opportunistic tyrant whose
glorification was completely political, and be Orthodox
c) One can believe that the body of the Mother of God was not taken up into heave, and still be Orthodox
In all 3 case I, and an overwhelming majority of Orthodox, believe the person is wrong and denying a truth--but it does not rise to the level of heresy.

But that's because all the above are *not* dogma. Isn't the whole point of dogma that these are the beliefs which it is *not* okay to be wrong about?
Title: Re: Why
Post by: elijahmaria on April 24, 2012, 03:57:30 PM

I don't know if the Melkites do or do not reject Papal supremacy.

There is every possibility that the Melkite primate and bishops do not understand primacy in the same ugly way so many Orthodox see it.

 ;)
Title: Re: Why
Post by: witega on April 24, 2012, 04:14:56 PM

I don't know if the Melkites do or do not reject Papal supremacy.

There is every possibility that the Melkite primate and bishops do not understand primacy in the same ugly way so many Orthodox see it.

 ;)

Change of subject. The issue in question is not 'primacy' whose exact meaning is certainly debated among Orthodox and in ecumenical consultations, but 'supremacy' as defined by V1:
Quote
So, then, if anyone says that the Roman Pontiff has merely an office of supervision and guidance, and not the full and supreme power of jurisdiction over the whole Church, and this not only in matters of faith and morals, but also in those which concern the discipline and government of the Church dispersed throughout the whole world; or that he has only the principal part, but not the absolute fullness, of this supreme power; or that this power of his is not ordinary and immediate both over all and each of the Churches and over all and each of the pastors and faithful: let him be anathema.  --Pastor aeternus 3.9 (http://www.ewtn.com/library/COUNCILS/V1.htm)

Title: Re: Why
Post by: elijahmaria on April 24, 2012, 04:20:15 PM

I don't know if the Melkites do or do not reject Papal supremacy.

There is every possibility that the Melkite primate and bishops do not understand primacy in the same ugly way so many Orthodox see it.

 ;)

Change of subject. The issue in question is not 'primacy' whose exact meaning is certainly debated among Orthodox and in ecumenical consultations, but 'supremacy' as defined by V1:
Quote
So, then, if anyone says that the Roman Pontiff has merely an office of supervision and guidance, and not the full and supreme power of jurisdiction over the whole Church, and this not only in matters of faith and morals, but also in those which concern the discipline and government of the Church dispersed throughout the whole world; or that he has only the principal part, but not the absolute fullness, of this supreme power; or that this power of his is not ordinary and immediate both over all and each of the Churches and over all and each of the pastors and faithful: let him be anathema.  --Pastor aeternus 3.9 (http://www.ewtn.com/library/COUNCILS/V1.htm)



In order to force a discussion of this particular part of the document, one needs then discuss it in light of the fact that the very same document says that papal power and authority is not to take the place of episcopal power.

John Paul II asked the Orthodox to take part in a discussion of the meaning of papal primacy in that light and in the potentiality for resumed communion.

So far all I've heard is Orthodox believers howling about what they THINK it means...Pardon if I am not impressed.

Apparently the pope and the Melkites understand one another. 

M.
Title: Re: Why
Post by: Peter J on April 24, 2012, 05:07:28 PM
This will be a short answer, b/c I'm going out the door shortly.

I agree that there such a thing as automatic excommunication; but the term dissent has multiple meanings. For example, Melkites are often called dissenters. (I could come up with other examples, but I choose the Melkite Church because it is especially dear to me, having gone to Melkite liturgies weekly since 2002.)

?????????

Interesting, i've never heard this one.  

Who says this? Have they ever taken an introductory graduate theology course at a decent Catholic university?  (some dude who's picked up a Catechism - or worse gotten their theology from the internet- doesn't count). How would they account Patriarch Gregorios' statments (which are fairly average among Melkites IMO) and the fact that he concelebrated to the right of Pope Benedict at the latter's enthronement Mass?
The Zohgby (spelling?) initiative is evidence of serious problems in the Melkite church.

Can you elaborate on that?  I thought (incorrectly?) the Zoghby (sp?) initiative was dead in the water.
It is dead in the water. But its acceptance by so many Melkite bishops shows that there is a serious problem in the Melkite's understanding of the faith. From what I can tell, their actions make it clear that they don't really accept the the teachings of Vatican I. That being said, the Melkites have never made this statement explicitliy, so it's difficult to pin down exactly where they stand on the matter.

I didn't really mean to start a new branch of this thread to talk about Melkites and/or the Zoghby Initiative; but now that we are talking about them ... My understanding of the Zoghby Initiative is that they don't consider Rome heretical for believing Papal Supremacy, nor do they consider the Orthodox heretical for not believing it. Hence they would have no problem being in communion with both.
So no law of non-contradiction?

If you mean law of non-contradiction in the literal sense (i.e. A and B can't both be right if they contradict each other) then I think that goes without saying.

If by law of non-contradiction you mean something more like "I can't be in communion with both A and B if they disagree on something that at least one of them considers non-negotiable", then I would say: No, the Melkites don't follow any such policy, as far as I can tell.

Okay. This is where you (and the Melkites) always lose me. Papal Supremacy would seem to be an example of your first sentence. Either the Roman pontiff has supreme authority within the Church (the Roman position) or does he not (the Orthodox--and  everyone else's--position). A and B can't both be right.

And the Roman Church has dogmatized that A (Papal Supremacy) is right. So it's not merely that some Roman Catholics hold it as a private opinion, but everyone in communion with Rome is required to believe it in order to be in communion with Rome.

So how can the Melkites be in communion with Rome if they don't accept it? And if they do accept it then a) how could they be in communion with a group that rejects A as false, and b) why would they want to be in communion with a group that rejects one of their dogmas as false? 

Accepting X as true doesn't always entail condemning as heretics those who deny X.


I realize this is a short answer but it doesn't even being to answer my question.

I (and Orthodoxy in general) completely agree with your statement. Numerous times on this forum I have pointed out that
a) One can believe the Earth is flat, and be Orthodox.
b) One can believe that St. Constantine was not a saint but an opportunistic tyrant whose
glorification was completely political, and be Orthodox
c) One can believe that the body of the Mother of God was not taken up into heave, and still be Orthodox
In all 3 case I, and an overwhelming majority of Orthodox, believe the person is wrong and denying a truth--but it does not rise to the level of heresy.

But that's because all the above are *not* dogma. Isn't the whole point of dogma that these are the beliefs which it is *not* okay to be wrong about?

But do Melkites regard Papal Infallibility et al as dogmas? I don't mean whether they are aware that others regard those teachings as dogmas; but whether they themselves regard those teachings as dogmas.
Title: Re: Why
Post by: elijahmaria on April 24, 2012, 05:20:17 PM
The primary purpose of dogma in the Catholic Church is to define a teaching or rather a portion of a teaching that has been in dispute for some time.

The type of assent require for a teaching, roughly, fall into three categories:  the assent of faith, religious assent and intellectual assent.  The assent of faith means that you do your best to believe simply as an act of faith.  You don't try to understand it or make it fit into some kind of religious system, but simply accept it as true because the Church teaches it as a truth of revelation.

It does NOT assess the salvation of believers based upon how well they perform in all three categories.

The way to remain in communion in the papal Church is simply NOT to attack the teachings of the Church...any of them.

M.
Title: Re: Why
Post by: Peter J on April 24, 2012, 06:29:39 PM
and b) why would they want to be in communion with a group that rejects one of their dogmas as false?

This question only applies if the Melkites consider it to be a dogma.
Title: Re: Why
Post by: Peter J on April 24, 2012, 06:31:59 PM
So, all of you who disagree with the Zoghby Initiative, do any of you believe that its supporters are automatically excommunicated? I don't think anyone is claiming that, but I'd rather ask than assume.
Title: Re: Why
Post by: ZealousZeal on April 24, 2012, 08:10:02 PM
and b) why would they want to be in communion with a group that rejects one of their dogmas as false?

This question only applies if the Melkites consider it to be a dogma.

Relatedly, and this may be a stupid question so apologies if it is, but do Melkites consider VI to be an Ecumenical Council? If they don't, wouldn't they not consider it a dogma?
Title: Re: Why
Post by: ialmisry on April 24, 2012, 08:17:09 PM
I can't imagine too many Orthodox bishops or synods going for that--if any at all. 

None-at-all is my understanding.

I know they don't see it that way, but.....their loss.
He who loses his life saves it.
Title: Re: Why
Post by: ialmisry on April 24, 2012, 08:29:45 PM
I agree that there such a thing as automatic excommunication; but the term dissent has multiple meanings. For example, Melkites are often called dissenters. (I could come up with other examples, but I choose the Melkite Church because it is especially dear to me, having gone to Melkite liturgies weekly since 2002.)

?????????

Interesting, i've never heard this one.  

Who says this? Have they ever taken an introductory graduate theology course at a decent Catholic university?  (some dude who's picked up a Catechism - or worse gotten their theology from the internet- doesn't count). How would they account Patriarch Gregorios' statments (which are fairly average among Melkites IMO) and the fact that he concelebrated to the right of Pope Benedict at the latter's enthronement Mass?
The Zohgby (spelling?) initiative is evidence of serious problems in the Melkite church.

Can you elaborate on that?  I thought (incorrectly?) the Zoghby (sp?) initiative was dead in the water.
It is dead in the water. But its acceptance by so many Melkite bishops shows that there is a serious problem in the Melkite's understanding of the faith. From what I can tell, their actions make it clear that they don't really accept the the teachings of Vatican I. That being said, the Melkites have never made this statement explicitliy, so it's difficult to pin down exactly where they stand on the matter.
To be fair, your "supreme pontiff" doesn't state when he speaks "ex cathedra," yet demanding the "assent of faith and the submission of the will" or however Lumen Gentium phrases it, making it difficult to pin down exactly where he and your "magisterium" stand on practically any matter.  Take for instance, Munificentissimus Deus:all of you Latins are agreed your supreme pontiff spoke ex cathedra, and yet nothing on whether the Immortalists or the Mortalists understand it correctly.

So if your supreme pontiff has not stated he has spoken "ex cathedra" on Zoghby, what is the problem with the Melkite bishops exercising that power that Elijahmaria claims they have under Pastor Aeternus?

Maybe the Melkite bishops you refer to, understand the Faith. We just need them to follow through consistently.
Title: Re: Why
Post by: Aindriú on April 24, 2012, 08:32:28 PM
To be fair, your "supreme pontiff" doesn't state when he speaks "ex cathedra," yet demanding the "assent of faith and the submission of the will" or however Lumen Gentium phrases it, making it difficult to pin down exactly where he and your "magisterium" stand on practically any matter.  Take for instance, Munificentissimus Deus:all of you Latins are agreed your supreme pontiff spoke ex cathedra, and yet nothing on whether the Immortalists or the Mortalists understand it correctly.

So if your supreme pontiff has not stated he has spoken "ex cathedra" on Zoghby, what is the problem with the Melkite bishops exercising that power that Elijahmaria claims they have under Pastor Aeternus?

Maybe the Melkite bishops you refer to, understand the Faith. We just need them to follow through consistently.

To be fair, I find ex cathedra criticism ironic from the Orthodox, who accept Ecumenical Councils, and yet don't know exactly when they were accepted as Ecumenical.
Title: Re: Why
Post by: Peter J on April 24, 2012, 08:42:44 PM
and b) why would they want to be in communion with a group that rejects one of their dogmas as false?

This question only applies if the Melkites consider it to be a dogma.

Relatedly, and this may be a stupid question so apologies if it is, but do Melkites consider VI to be an Ecumenical Council? If they don't, wouldn't they not consider it a dogma?

Not a stupid question at all, and no they don't.
Title: Re: Why
Post by: Peter J on April 24, 2012, 08:45:49 PM
I agree that there such a thing as automatic excommunication; but the term dissent has multiple meanings. For example, Melkites are often called dissenters. (I could come up with other examples, but I choose the Melkite Church because it is especially dear to me, having gone to Melkite liturgies weekly since 2002.)

?????????

Interesting, i've never heard this one.  

Who says this? Have they ever taken an introductory graduate theology course at a decent Catholic university?  (some dude who's picked up a Catechism - or worse gotten their theology from the internet- doesn't count). How would they account Patriarch Gregorios' statments (which are fairly average among Melkites IMO) and the fact that he concelebrated to the right of Pope Benedict at the latter's enthronement Mass?
The Zohgby (spelling?) initiative is evidence of serious problems in the Melkite church.

Can you elaborate on that?  I thought (incorrectly?) the Zoghby (sp?) initiative was dead in the water.
It is dead in the water. But its acceptance by so many Melkite bishops shows that there is a serious problem in the Melkite's understanding of the faith. From what I can tell, their actions make it clear that they don't really accept the the teachings of Vatican I. That being said, the Melkites have never made this statement explicitliy, so it's difficult to pin down exactly where they stand on the matter.
To be fair, your "supreme pontiff" doesn't state when he speaks "ex cathedra," yet demanding the "assent of faith and the submission of the will" or however Lumen Gentium phrases it, making it difficult to pin down exactly where he and your "magisterium" stand on practically any matter.  Take for instance, Munificentissimus Deus:all of you Latins are agreed your supreme pontiff spoke ex cathedra, and yet nothing on whether the Immortalists or the Mortalists understand it correctly.

So if your supreme pontiff has not stated he has spoken "ex cathedra" on Zoghby, what is the problem with the Melkite bishops exercising that power that Elijahmaria claims they have under Pastor Aeternus?

Maybe the Melkite bishops you refer to, understand the Faith. We just need them to follow through consistently.

As far as I know, Melkite are free to promote the Zoghby Initiative and are not excommunicated for doing so. That was my original point.
Title: Re: Why
Post by: elijahmaria on April 24, 2012, 09:12:39 PM
To be fair, your "supreme pontiff" doesn't state when he speaks "ex cathedra," yet demanding the "assent of faith and the submission of the will" or however Lumen Gentium phrases it, making it difficult to pin down exactly where he and your "magisterium" stand on practically any matter.  Take for instance, Munificentissimus Deus:all of you Latins are agreed your supreme pontiff spoke ex cathedra, and yet nothing on whether the Immortalists or the Mortalists understand it correctly.

To REALLY be fair, you keep asking for some sort of list from all the wrong places, without realizing that you miss the point of ex cathedra statements entirely. 

You also think that "ex cathedra" is the ONLY time some statement or teaching MUST be believed.

You keep basing your understanding of Catholic teaching on what the laity says or what some secular priest in a classroom has said to you, or what you THINK he has said to you.

To REALLY be fair, you are not an expert on Catholic teaching.

M.

Title: Re: Why
Post by: Iconodule on April 24, 2012, 09:16:06 PM
I wish we could push more of the dissenting hangers-on along a little more rapidly.

I believe you.

Given the fact that more often than not you mis-take some of the subtleties of my comments, I have to take this assertion with a grain of salt... ;)  You may believe me but you'd not be able to guess where I'd land on any given case nor would you be able to guess why.

M.

Thank you teacher. May I have another?  :-[

Oh Peter, I am sorry.  That was much harsher than I meant it to be.  Please forgive me...\

Sometimes I think of you as harsher than you are...Sometimes you are difficult to read and I do to you what I cry over, when it is done to me.  Drat!!  I wish I could take it back.

Fondly,

M.

No need for such sentiments. Your good or bad opinion doesn't influence how I think of myself any more than it influences my remaining Catholic. I am who I am.

From BS to blasphemy.

(http://analepsis.files.wordpress.com/2012/01/popeye_i_am_what_i_am_t_copy.gif)
Title: Re: Why
Post by: witega on April 24, 2012, 09:21:45 PM
But do Melkites regard Papal Infallibility et al as dogmas? I don't mean whether they are aware that others regard those teachings as dogmas; but whether they themselves regard those teachings as dogmas.

Now you're just restating the very point that I'm asking about--to reiterate, I don't have any idea what the Melkites believe, I'm just trying to understand the train of thought--but the possible tracks seem to be

a) The Melkites accept the passage I quoted above--in which case, I don't understand how they can think it would be possible to be in communion with Orthodox (who say all the things the passage anathematizes)
b) The Melkites do not accept the passage I quoted above--in which case, I don't understand how they are acceptable to Rome--without that meaning that Rome doesn't actually take its own dogmas very seriously? (unless you're hanging it on the technicality that the passage says 'says' and as long as the Melkites don't *say* they don't accept it, or actually act as if they don't accept it then that's okay?--although that gets back to why anyone would think that that would be acceptable to Orthodoxy)

I'm not saying those are the only paths--I'm saying they are the only ones that I can see and asking for an explanation of what I'm missing.
Title: Re: Why
Post by: Peter J on April 24, 2012, 09:32:31 PM
But do Melkites regard Papal Infallibility et al as dogmas? I don't mean whether they are aware that others regard those teachings as dogmas; but whether they themselves regard those teachings as dogmas.

Now you're just restating the very point that I'm asking about--to reiterate, I don't have any idea what the Melkites believe, I'm just trying to understand the train of thought--but the possible tracks seem to be

a) The Melkites accept the passage I quoted above--in which case, I don't understand how they can think it would be possible to be in communion with Orthodox (who say all the things the passage anathematizes)
...

If Melkites agree with Papal Supremacy without regarding it as a dogma (i.e. without anathematizing those we disagree with it), then what's the problem?
Title: Re: Why
Post by: elijahmaria on April 24, 2012, 09:40:31 PM
But do Melkites regard Papal Infallibility et al as dogmas? I don't mean whether they are aware that others regard those teachings as dogmas; but whether they themselves regard those teachings as dogmas.

Now you're just restating the very point that I'm asking about--to reiterate, I don't have any idea what the Melkites believe, I'm just trying to understand the train of thought--but the possible tracks seem to be

a) The Melkites accept the passage I quoted above--in which case, I don't understand how they can think it would be possible to be in communion with Orthodox (who say all the things the passage anathematizes)
...

If Melkites agree with Papal Supremacy without regarding it as a dogma (i.e. without anathematizing those we disagree with it), then what's the problem?

If the Melkites "agree" with Papal Supremacy then by definition they "agree" with papal supremacy.

The question is NOT one of DOGMA but one of MEANING!!
Title: Re: Why
Post by: MarkosC on April 25, 2012, 12:44:17 AM
I do not represent the Melkite Church, and I don't have the time to address everything here this morning.  

But IMO Mary's respones are on the mark here.  

Finally, re:

So, all of you who disagree with the Zoghby Initiative, do any of you believe that its supporters are automatically excommunicated? I don't think anyone is claiming that, but I'd rather ask than assume.

This is impossible.  Again, Patriarch Gregory was one of the signers of the so-called initiative (which I think was premature and more useful as a statement than anything practical) and has gone on the record wishing that more could be done to implement it.  Rome knows this.  Nevertheless, he has not been condemned by the Pope (the Pope being the only person whose opinion really matters and who could excommunicate someone) and in fact has concelebrated with the Pope on several occasions, to include being the primary concelebrant at the Pope's enthronement Mass.  

To think that a Patriarch who concelebrated with the Pope, especially at a Mass like this, was excommunicated, atuomatically or otherwise, is ridiculous.  

It would also suggest to me that Rome thinks differently from whatever theology would generate a position like that in the quote.
Title: Re: Why
Post by: ialmisry on April 25, 2012, 12:49:55 AM
To be fair, your "supreme pontiff" doesn't state when he speaks "ex cathedra," yet demanding the "assent of faith and the submission of the will" or however Lumen Gentium phrases it, making it difficult to pin down exactly where he and your "magisterium" stand on practically any matter.  Take for instance, Munificentissimus Deus:all of you Latins are agreed your supreme pontiff spoke ex cathedra, and yet nothing on whether the Immortalists or the Mortalists understand it correctly.

So if your supreme pontiff has not stated he has spoken "ex cathedra" on Zoghby, what is the problem with the Melkite bishops exercising that power that Elijahmaria claims they have under Pastor Aeternus?

Maybe the Melkite bishops you refer to, understand the Faith. We just need them to follow through consistently.

To be fair, I find ex cathedra criticism ironic from the Orthodox, who accept Ecumenical Councils, and yet don't know exactly when they were accepted as Ecumenical.
325, 381, 431, 451, 553, 681 and 787
Title: Re: Why
Post by: ialmisry on April 25, 2012, 12:58:36 AM
To be fair, your "supreme pontiff" doesn't state when he speaks "ex cathedra," yet demanding the "assent of faith and the submission of the will" or however Lumen Gentium phrases it, making it difficult to pin down exactly where he and your "magisterium" stand on practically any matter.  Take for instance, Munificentissimus Deus:all of you Latins are agreed your supreme pontiff spoke ex cathedra, and yet nothing on whether the Immortalists or the Mortalists understand it correctly.

To REALLY be fair, you keep asking for some sort of list from all the wrong places, without realizing that you miss the point of ex cathedra statements entirely.
Besides creating an aura around your supreme pontiff, they have not point.

You also think that "ex cathedra" is the ONLY time some statement or teaching MUST be believed.
To be fair, your "supreme pontiff" doesn't state when he speaks "ex cathedra," yet demanding the "assent of faith and the submission of the will" or however Lumen Gentium phrases it, making it difficult to pin down exactly where he and your "magisterium" stand on practically any matter.
so you don't miss it this time.

You keep basing your understanding of Catholic teaching on what the laity says or what some secular priest in a classroom has said to you, or what you THINK he has said to you.
Ah, the gnosticism of the Vatican, open only to those who got the decoder ring.

To REALLY be fair, you are not an expert on Catholic teaching.
I know a lot on Catholic teaching.  And what the Vatican teaches too.  Enough to know the difference.
Title: Re: Why
Post by: ZealousZeal on April 25, 2012, 01:15:31 AM
and b) why would they want to be in communion with a group that rejects one of their dogmas as false?

This question only applies if the Melkites consider it to be a dogma.

Relatedly, and this may be a stupid question so apologies if it is, but do Melkites consider VI to be an Ecumenical Council? If they don't, wouldn't they not consider it a dogma?

Not a stupid question at all, and no they don't.

Okay, then another potentially stupid question ( ;D):

I find it pretty confusing that different churches can be in the same communion without recognizing the same # of Ecumenical Councils, especially when the discrepancy is as huge as Roman Catholics recognizing 21, and others recognizing only 7. If the canons of these councils are dogma, then it seems pretty mission-critical to be in agreement on what's Ecumenical and what isn't.

So I guess my question is... How does this work in the Catholic Church? How is it functional?
Title: Re: Why
Post by: Cavaradossi on April 25, 2012, 06:53:37 AM
To be fair, your "supreme pontiff" doesn't state when he speaks "ex cathedra," yet demanding the "assent of faith and the submission of the will" or however Lumen Gentium phrases it, making it difficult to pin down exactly where he and your "magisterium" stand on practically any matter.  Take for instance, Munificentissimus Deus:all of you Latins are agreed your supreme pontiff spoke ex cathedra, and yet nothing on whether the Immortalists or the Mortalists understand it correctly.

So if your supreme pontiff has not stated he has spoken "ex cathedra" on Zoghby, what is the problem with the Melkite bishops exercising that power that Elijahmaria claims they have under Pastor Aeternus?

Maybe the Melkite bishops you refer to, understand the Faith. We just need them to follow through consistently.

To be fair, I find ex cathedra criticism ironic from the Orthodox, who accept Ecumenical Councils, and yet don't know exactly when they were accepted as Ecumenical.

But along the same vein, do the Catholics know when their ecumenical councils became ecumenical? I've seen Catholics criticize the Orthodox insistence that we only know of a council's ecumenical nature after the fact, but doesn't the way that canonists gradually started adding on the Lateran Councils and the Councils at Lyons seem to indicate that the same process (after the fact recognition) happens in Catholicism too? Doesn't that seem to indicate that there is a flaw in the belief that one can reduce the trait of being ecumenical down into a few basic criteria?
Title: Re: Why
Post by: Peter J on April 25, 2012, 07:41:25 AM
So, all of you who disagree with the Zoghby Initiative, do any of you believe that its supporters are automatically excommunicated? I don't think anyone is claiming that, but I'd rather ask than assume.

This is impossible.  

Thanks MarkosC. So would you agree then that it can't be used as grounds for other Catholic to politely encourage (or whatever you want to call it) them to leave the Church?
Title: Re: Why
Post by: elijahmaria on April 25, 2012, 10:26:39 AM

I know a lot on Catholic teaching.  And what the Vatican teaches too.  Enough to know the difference.

One may have a handle on Orthodox teaching, and you certainly know Orthodox negative teaching about Catholics:  But you haven't got a clue about Catholic teaching.  Unless one understands Catholic teaching, rightly, it is impossible for one to know anyone's reality. 
Title: Re: Why
Post by: primuspilus on April 25, 2012, 10:41:01 AM
Quote
To be fair, I find ex cathedra criticism ironic from the Orthodox, who accept Ecumenical Councils, and yet don't know exactly when they were accepted as Ecumenical
Sure we do. The acceptance of something by the faithful makes it ecumenical. Not one person who demands it. ex cathedra can not be compared to an ecumenical council. The two are not the same thing.


PP
Title: Re: Why
Post by: Aindriú on April 25, 2012, 10:49:16 AM
Quote
To be fair, I find ex cathedra criticism ironic from the Orthodox, who accept Ecumenical Councils, and yet don't know exactly when they were accepted as Ecumenical
Sure we do. The acceptance of something by the faithful makes it ecumenical. Not one person who demands it. ex cathedra can not be compared to an ecumenical council. The two are not the same thing.


PP

That didn't answer the question of "what is" and "when is it".
Title: Re: Why
Post by: Aindriú on April 25, 2012, 10:50:05 AM
To be fair, your "supreme pontiff" doesn't state when he speaks "ex cathedra," yet demanding the "assent of faith and the submission of the will" or however Lumen Gentium phrases it, making it difficult to pin down exactly where he and your "magisterium" stand on practically any matter.  Take for instance, Munificentissimus Deus:all of you Latins are agreed your supreme pontiff spoke ex cathedra, and yet nothing on whether the Immortalists or the Mortalists understand it correctly.

So if your supreme pontiff has not stated he has spoken "ex cathedra" on Zoghby, what is the problem with the Melkite bishops exercising that power that Elijahmaria claims they have under Pastor Aeternus?

Maybe the Melkite bishops you refer to, understand the Faith. We just need them to follow through consistently.

To be fair, I find ex cathedra criticism ironic from the Orthodox, who accept Ecumenical Councils, and yet don't know exactly when they were accepted as Ecumenical.

But along the same vein, do the Catholics know when their ecumenical councils became ecumenical? I've seen Catholics criticize the Orthodox insistence that we only know of a council's ecumenical nature after the fact, but doesn't the way that canonists gradually started adding on the Lateran Councils and the Councils at Lyons seem to indicate that the same process (after the fact recognition) happens in Catholicism too? Doesn't that seem to indicate that there is a flaw in the belief that one can reduce the trait of being ecumenical down into a few basic criteria?

Catholics say it's ecumenical when it's ratified by the Pope.
Title: Re: Why
Post by: Peter J on April 25, 2012, 11:00:26 AM
Catholics say it's ecumenical when it's ratified by the Pope.

Officially our position is that ratification by the Pope is a necessary condition, but unofficially I've heard many Catholics say that it is both necessary and sufficient. (We had a big discussion about this on CAF a couple months ago.)
Title: Re: Why
Post by: elijahmaria on April 25, 2012, 11:41:03 AM
Catholics say it's ecumenical when it's ratified by the Pope.

Officially our position is that ratification by the Pope is a necessary condition, but unofficially I've heard many Catholics say that it is both necessary and sufficient. (We had a big discussion about this on CAF a couple months ago.)

To add to the fun!!...Not every word of every conciliar document is infallible whether the council itself is ratified or not...eh?
Title: Re: Why
Post by: J Michael on April 25, 2012, 11:45:52 AM
Catholics say it's ecumenical when it's ratified by the Pope.

Officially our position is that ratification by the Pope is a necessary condition, but unofficially I've heard many Catholics say that it is both necessary and sufficient. (We had a big discussion about this on CAF a couple months ago.)

To add to the fun!!...Not every word of every conciliar document is infallible whether the council itself is ratified or not...eh?

What???  You mean all doze "ifs", "a's", "thes", "ands", "buts" *NOT* infallible??  Is *outrage*!!!   ;)
Title: Re: Why
Post by: Papist on April 25, 2012, 01:31:04 PM
Catholics say it's ecumenical when it's ratified by the Pope.

Officially our position is that ratification by the Pope is a necessary condition, but unofficially I've heard many Catholics say that it is both necessary and sufficient. (We had a big discussion about this on CAF a couple months ago.)

To add to the fun!!...Not every word of every conciliar document is infallible whether the council itself is ratified or not...eh?

What???  You mean all doze "ifs", "a's", "thes", "ands", "buts" *NOT* infallible??  Is *outrage*!!!   ;)
Like
Title: Re: Why
Post by: NicholasMyra on April 25, 2012, 02:15:24 PM
To add to the fun!!...Not every word of every conciliar document is infallible whether the council itself is ratified or not...eh?
No amount of ratification, inerrancy or infallibility has ever been sufficiently potent as to terminate our need to think.

Despite the valiant attempts of innumerable Hyperdox and Hyperfranko-teutonic-lombardians.  :police:
Title: Re: Why
Post by: Papist on April 25, 2012, 02:18:39 PM
To add to the fun!!...Not every word of every conciliar document is infallible whether the council itself is ratified or not...eh?
No amount of ratification, inerrancy or infallibility has ever been sufficiently potent as to terminate our need to think.

Despite the valiant attempts of innumerable Hyperdox and Hyperfranko-teutonic-lombardians.  :police:
We're here, we're franko-teutonic-lombardians, get used to it! We're here, we're franko-teutonic-lombardians, get used to it.
Title: Re: Why
Post by: NicholasMyra on April 25, 2012, 02:32:23 PM
To add to the fun!!...Not every word of every conciliar document is infallible whether the council itself is ratified or not...eh?
No amount of ratification, inerrancy or infallibility has ever been sufficiently potent as to terminate our need to think.

Despite the valiant attempts of innumerable Hyperdox and Hyperfranko-teutonic-lombardians.  :police:
We're here, we're franko-teutonic-lombardians, get used to it! We're here, we're franko-teutonic-lombardians, get used to it.
I tried to sell a rockin' screenplay, but they went with "Last of the Mohicans" instead.
Title: Re: Why
Post by: ialmisry on April 25, 2012, 03:52:32 PM

I know a lot on Catholic teaching.  And what the Vatican teaches too.  Enough to know the difference.
One may have a handle on Orthodox teaching,
Certainly better than your nameless Orthodox "experts."

and you certainly know Orthodox negative teaching about Catholics:
 
As the Catholics are such by confessing the Orthodox Faith, Orthodoxy has no negative teaching about Catholics.

As for the Vatican's following, of course Orthodoxy has only negative teaching about the Vatican.  The Vatican being out of Catholic communion, the only part of its teaching that concerns us is that which keeps it of Catholic communion, and hence of course a negative thing.

But you haven't got a clue about Catholic teaching.
Of course I have more than clue about Catholic teaching.  That's why I embraced Orthodoxy.

But as to the Vatican: so you keep on asserting an alleged ignorance on my part, assertions more and more vacuous as the evidence to the contrary piles up.  Knowing the Vatican's teaching means not to drink the Kool-Aid.

Unless one understands Catholic teaching, rightly, it is impossible for one to know anyone's reality.
 
Since the Vatican's teaching is not true, it has no real reality.

To go back to your original response to the OP: the schism is a reality. A negative reality, but that doesn't negate its reality.  You turning a deaf ear to its cognitive dissonance does not change that, and your continued denial of that only affirms my expertise and right to speak of your ecclesiastical community because you keep on trying to assert it as part of the Orthodox Church.  As I know my Orthodox reality quite well.
Title: Re: Why
Post by: Peter J on April 25, 2012, 05:04:36 PM
As for the Vatican's following, of course Orthodoxy has only negative teaching about the Vatican.  

No, there are positive statements too.
Title: Re: Why
Post by: biro on April 25, 2012, 05:06:51 PM
As for the Vatican's following, of course Orthodoxy has only negative teaching about the Vatican.  

No, there are positive statements too.

Yeah, the museum's kind of nice...  ;)
Title: Re: Why
Post by: primuspilus on April 25, 2012, 05:11:15 PM
As for the Vatican's following, of course Orthodoxy has only negative teaching about the Vatican.  

No, there are positive statements too.

Yeah, the museum's kind of nice...  ;)
Statues are pretty....

PP
Title: Re: Why
Post by: ialmisry on April 25, 2012, 06:18:38 PM
As for the Vatican's following, of course Orthodoxy has only negative teaching about the Vatican.  

No, there are positive statements too.

Yeah, the museum's kind of nice...  ;)
Statues are pretty....

PP
Look at all the manuscripts!
Title: Re: Why
Post by: Peter J on April 25, 2012, 06:24:17 PM
As for the Vatican's following, of course Orthodoxy has only negative teaching about the Vatican.  

No, there are positive statements too.

Yeah, the museum's kind of nice...  ;)
Statues are pretty....

PP
Look at all the manuscripts!

I'm not sure what you mean.
Title: Re: Why
Post by: Iconodule on April 25, 2012, 06:28:27 PM
 Nevertheless, he has not been condemned by the Pope (the Pope being the only person whose opinion really matters and who could excommunicate someone)

So the opinion of an "ecumenical council" (Vatican I, including the Pope who presided over it) doesn't matter. Interesting.
Title: Re: Why
Post by: Peter J on April 25, 2012, 06:40:23 PM
 Nevertheless, he has not been condemned by the Pope (the Pope being the only person whose opinion really matters and who could excommunicate someone)

So the opinion of an "ecumenical council" (Vatican I, including the Pope who presided over it) doesn't matter. Interesting.

You're assuming that he considers VI to be an ecumenical council, but most Melkites believe there have only been 7 ecumenical councils.
Title: Re: Why
Post by: Iconodule on April 25, 2012, 06:44:54 PM
Nevertheless, he has not been condemned by the Pope (the Pope being the only person whose opinion really matters and who could excommunicate someone)

So the opinion of an "ecumenical council" (Vatican I, including the Pope who presided over it) doesn't matter. Interesting.

You're assuming that he considers VI to be an ecumenical council, but most Melkites believe there have only been 7 ecumenical councils.

But the Pope, whose opinion apparently is the only one that matters, considers VI ecumenical. Sorry, the Melkites don't have a leg to stand on.
Title: Re: Why
Post by: witega on April 25, 2012, 06:54:11 PM
But do Melkites regard Papal Infallibility et al as dogmas? I don't mean whether they are aware that others regard those teachings as dogmas; but whether they themselves regard those teachings as dogmas.

Now you're just restating the very point that I'm asking about--to reiterate, I don't have any idea what the Melkites believe, I'm just trying to understand the train of thought--but the possible tracks seem to be

a) The Melkites accept the passage I quoted above--in which case, I don't understand how they can think it would be possible to be in communion with Orthodox (who say all the things the passage anathematizes)
...

If Melkites agree with Papal Supremacy without regarding it as a dogma (i.e. without anathematizing those we disagree with it), then what's the problem?

Okay... but that actually raises more questions than it answers.
First off, the statement from Vatican 1, is basically an if/then structure with the 'then' being 'let him be anathema'. So if the Melkites agree with the first part (the if), but don't agree with the second, then doesn't that mean they disagree with the *statement*? (I mean, if I say, 'If lies on their job application, let him stoned to death'--and you agree that lieing is bad, but don't agree that those who do it should be stoned to death, aren't you disagreeing with the statement as whole)? So if the Melkites don't agree with the anathema, there's still my question of how that can be acceptable to Rome (although other posters seem to be indicating that this is not the case, in which case only the other part of my question applies.

But further to that, (although in some ways a restatement of earlier confusion), if the Melkites agree with Papal Supremacy, then how can they disagree with the anathema? Doesn't Papal Supremacy mean that the Roman Magisterium represented at Vatican I has legitimate authority to issue anathemas?
Title: Re: Why
Post by: Apotheoun on April 25, 2012, 07:24:35 PM
As a Melkite Catholic I believe in papal primacy, while rejecting the spurious notion of papal supremacy.   After all, being the first bishop among the other bishops is not the same as being the supreme bishop over all the other bishops.
Title: Re: Why
Post by: Iconodule on April 25, 2012, 07:28:10 PM
To summarize the Melkite position: The RC's teach false dogma (AKA heresy) but that's OK as long as they don't excommunicate us.
Title: Re: Why
Post by: Apotheoun on April 25, 2012, 07:33:59 PM
As Archbishop Elias Zoghby wrote many years ago:  ". . . Vatican I has the same designation as the Council of Lyons, a 'general' synod of the West. With this designation it is neither ecumenical nor infallible and could produce only theological opinions that can not be imposed on anyone" [Archbishop Elias Zoghby, Ecumenical Reflections].  It is also important to bear in mind that the papal office is not a matter open to dogmatic definition, because the papacy is not a divinely revealed truth, and so rejecting papal supremacy involves rejecting a theological opinion, and not a dogma.

Papal primacy - on the other hand - is a human custom of long standing, and as long as it is exercised synodally it is a helpful human institution for maintaining communion among the Churches.
Title: Re: Why
Post by: Apotheoun on April 25, 2012, 07:44:37 PM
I agree with what the Melkite Catholic Patriarch said some years ago in his interview with 30 Days magazine:


30 DAYS QUESTION: You once said: "With all respect for the Petrine office, the patriarchal office is equal to it."

GREGORY III's RESPONSE: Really I always say: I am cum Petro but not sub Petro. If I were sub Petro, I would be in submission, and I couldn't have a true frank, sincere, strong and free communion with the Pope. When you embrace a friend, you are not 'below'. You embrace him from the same height, if not it wouldn't be a true embrace. Unita manent, united things last.
Title: Re: Why
Post by: podkarpatska on April 25, 2012, 08:03:10 PM
As Archbishop Elias Zoghby wrote many years ago:  ". . . Vatican I has the same designation as the Council of Lyons, a 'general' synod of the West. With this designation it is neither ecumenical nor infallible and could produce only theological opinions that can not be imposed on anyone" [Archbishop Elias Zoghby, Ecumenical Reflections].  It is also important to bear in mind that the papal office is not a matter open to dogmatic definition, because the papacy is not a divinely revealed truth, and so rejecting papal supremacy involves rejecting a theological opinion, and not a dogma.

Papal primacy - on the other hand - is a human custom of long standing, and as long as it is exercised synodally it is a helpful human institution for maintaining communion among the Churches.

Yet, the problem remains, as many Orthodox scholars could accept the concept of Vatican I being nothing more than a 'general' synod of the West - provided Rome accepts that perspective. Not likely - even if this Pope or any future Pope so desired.

But the way in which we Orthodox, or the Melkites for that matter, regard that council is not really relevant unless Rome backs down. As long as the Romans regard Pastor Aeternus as an infallible expression of dogma - not a theological opinion- there can be no 'peace' - only an 'uneasy truce.' Sort of like the armistice which ended the Korean Conflict - we are not drawing blood, but there is always a lot of noise and the threat of open warfare looms over all. (Relax, it's just a bad analogy.)
Title: Re: Why
Post by: Apotheoun on April 25, 2012, 08:08:29 PM
Rome has had an exaggerated opinion of its importance for centuries, even going back into the first millennium itself, and so it is not really that important an issue to worry about.  After all, St. Stephen and St. Cyprian did not agree when it came to the papal office and both are held to be saints and faithful Catholics, and I really do not see this present situation as any different.
Title: Re: Why
Post by: Papist on April 25, 2012, 08:52:15 PM
As Archbishop Elias Zoghby wrote many years ago:  ". . . Vatican I has the same designation as the Council of Lyons, a 'general' synod of the West. With this designation it is neither ecumenical nor infallible and could produce only theological opinions that can not be imposed on anyone" [Archbishop Elias Zoghby, Ecumenical Reflections].  It is also important to bear in mind that the papal office is not a matter open to dogmatic definition, because the papacy is not a divinely revealed truth, and so rejecting papal supremacy involves rejecting a theological opinion, and not a dogma.

Papal primacy - on the other hand - is a human custom of long standing, and as long as it is exercised synodally it is a helpful human institution for maintaining communion among the Churches.
So bascially you are a non-Catholic Catholice. nice.
Title: Re: Why
Post by: podkarpatska on April 25, 2012, 08:56:50 PM
As Archbishop Elias Zoghby wrote many years ago:  ". . . Vatican I has the same designation as the Council of Lyons, a 'general' synod of the West. With this designation it is neither ecumenical nor infallible and could produce only theological opinions that can not be imposed on anyone" [Archbishop Elias Zoghby, Ecumenical Reflections].  It is also important to bear in mind that the papal office is not a matter open to dogmatic definition, because the papacy is not a divinely revealed truth, and so rejecting papal supremacy involves rejecting a theological opinion, and not a dogma.

Papal primacy - on the other hand - is a human custom of long standing, and as long as it is exercised synodally it is a helpful human institution for maintaining communion among the Churches.
So bascially you are a non-Catholic Catholice. nice.

I am curious as to what our other 'regular' Eastern Catholic posters have to say about Apotheoun's comments. Frankly, the concept of viewing the Roman church's post schism councils as 'local' and not 'ecumenical' has intrigued more than a few Orthodox scholars for some time. However, it seems a 'pipe dream' to believe that Rome would ever be able to depart from its defense of these councils and their proclamations without causing a major internal schism.  Even if a Pope were to speak from the chair -'ex cathedra' - so to speak.
Title: Re: Why
Post by: Peter J on April 25, 2012, 08:57:17 PM
But do Melkites regard Papal Infallibility et al as dogmas? I don't mean whether they are aware that others regard those teachings as dogmas; but whether they themselves regard those teachings as dogmas.

Now you're just restating the very point that I'm asking about--to reiterate, I don't have any idea what the Melkites believe, I'm just trying to understand the train of thought--but the possible tracks seem to be

a) The Melkites accept the passage I quoted above--in which case, I don't understand how they can think it would be possible to be in communion with Orthodox (who say all the things the passage anathematizes)
...

If Melkites agree with Papal Supremacy without regarding it as a dogma (i.e. without anathematizing those we disagree with it), then what's the problem?

Okay... but that actually raises more questions than it answers.
First off, the statement from Vatican 1, is basically an if/then structure with the 'then' being 'let him be anathema'. So if the Melkites agree with the first part (the if), but don't agree with the second, then doesn't that mean they disagree with the *statement*? (I mean, if I say, 'If lies on their job application, let him stoned to death'--and you agree that lieing is bad, but don't agree that those who do it should be stoned to death, aren't you disagreeing with the statement as whole)?


Yes, that makes sense ...

So if the Melkites don't agree with the anathema, there's still my question of how that can be acceptable to Rome (although other posters seem to be indicating that this is not the case, in which case only the other part of my question applies.

... but there's no anathema that says "If anyone (e.g. the Melkites) say that VI is not an ecumenical council, let them be anathema."

But further to that, (although in some ways a restatement of earlier confusion), if the Melkites agree with Papal Supremacy, then how can they disagree with the anathema?

We could probably get into a huge discussion about what the papal dogmas mean, but I think the easiest answer here is: Because Rome doesn't insist on agreement with the anathema.

BTW, I shouldn't have said "Papal Supremacy". I was being a little sloppy. I should have said "Universal Ordinary Jurisdiction".

As Archbishop Elias Zoghby wrote many years ago:  ". . . Vatican I has the same designation as the Council of Lyons, a 'general' synod of the West. With this designation it is neither ecumenical nor infallible and could produce only theological opinions that can not be imposed on anyone" [Archbishop Elias Zoghby, Ecumenical Reflections].  It is also important to bear in mind that the papal office is not a matter open to dogmatic definition, because the papacy is not a divinely revealed truth, and so rejecting papal supremacy involves rejecting a theological opinion, and not a dogma.

Papal primacy - on the other hand - is a human custom of long standing, and as long as it is exercised synodally it is a helpful human institution for maintaining communion among the Churches.
So bascially you are a non-Catholic Catholice. nice.

See my answers to witega.
Title: Re: Why
Post by: podkarpatska on April 25, 2012, 09:00:57 PM
I think that the Melkites have attempted to define 'Universal Ordinary Jurisdiction' in a manner consistent with an eastern understanding of 'primus inter pares' but attempts to do so have been uniformly unsuccessful for well over one thousand years.
Title: Re: Why
Post by: Papist on April 25, 2012, 09:01:06 PM
But do Melkites regard Papal Infallibility et al as dogmas? I don't mean whether they are aware that others regard those teachings as dogmas; but whether they themselves regard those teachings as dogmas.

Now you're just restating the very point that I'm asking about--to reiterate, I don't have any idea what the Melkites believe, I'm just trying to understand the train of thought--but the possible tracks seem to be

a) The Melkites accept the passage I quoted above--in which case, I don't understand how they can think it would be possible to be in communion with Orthodox (who say all the things the passage anathematizes)
...

If Melkites agree with Papal Supremacy without regarding it as a dogma (i.e. without anathematizing those we disagree with it), then what's the problem?

Okay... but that actually raises more questions than it answers.
First off, the statement from Vatican 1, is basically an if/then structure with the 'then' being 'let him be anathema'. So if the Melkites agree with the first part (the if), but don't agree with the second, then doesn't that mean they disagree with the *statement*? (I mean, if I say, 'If lies on their job application, let him stoned to death'--and you agree that lieing is bad, but don't agree that those who do it should be stoned to death, aren't you disagreeing with the statement as whole)?


Yes, that makes sense ...

So if the Melkites don't agree with the anathema, there's still my question of how that can be acceptable to Rome (although other posters seem to be indicating that this is not the case, in which case only the other part of my question applies.

... but there's no anathema that says "If anyone (e.g. the Melkites) say that VI is not an ecumenical council, let them be anathema."

But further to that, (although in some ways a restatement of earlier confusion), if the Melkites agree with Papal Supremacy, then how can they disagree with the anathema?

We could probably get into a huge discussion about what the papal dogmas mean, but I think the easiest answer here is: Because Rome doesn't insist on agreement with the anathema.

BTW, I shouldn't have said "Papal Supremacy". I was being a little sloppy. I should have said "Universal Ordinary Jurisdiction".

As Archbishop Elias Zoghby wrote many years ago:  ". . . Vatican I has the same designation as the Council of Lyons, a 'general' synod of the West. With this designation it is neither ecumenical nor infallible and could produce only theological opinions that can not be imposed on anyone" [Archbishop Elias Zoghby, Ecumenical Reflections].  It is also important to bear in mind that the papal office is not a matter open to dogmatic definition, because the papacy is not a divinely revealed truth, and so rejecting papal supremacy involves rejecting a theological opinion, and not a dogma.

Papal primacy - on the other hand - is a human custom of long standing, and as long as it is exercised synodally it is a helpful human institution for maintaining communion among the Churches.
So bascially you are a non-Catholic Catholice. nice.

See my answers to witega.
I think these answers are dancing around the issue. The canon amathematizes anyone who disagrees.
Title: Re: Why
Post by: podkarpatska on April 25, 2012, 09:03:42 PM
But do Melkites regard Papal Infallibility et al as dogmas? I don't mean whether they are aware that others regard those teachings as dogmas; but whether they themselves regard those teachings as dogmas.

Now you're just restating the very point that I'm asking about--to reiterate, I don't have any idea what the Melkites believe, I'm just trying to understand the train of thought--but the possible tracks seem to be

a) The Melkites accept the passage I quoted above--in which case, I don't understand how they can think it would be possible to be in communion with Orthodox (who say all the things the passage anathematizes)
...

If Melkites agree with Papal Supremacy without regarding it as a dogma (i.e. without anathematizing those we disagree with it), then what's the problem?

Okay... but that actually raises more questions than it answers.
First off, the statement from Vatican 1, is basically an if/then structure with the 'then' being 'let him be anathema'. So if the Melkites agree with the first part (the if), but don't agree with the second, then doesn't that mean they disagree with the *statement*? (I mean, if I say, 'If lies on their job application, let him stoned to death'--and you agree that lieing is bad, but don't agree that those who do it should be stoned to death, aren't you disagreeing with the statement as whole)?


Yes, that makes sense ...

So if the Melkites don't agree with the anathema, there's still my question of how that can be acceptable to Rome (although other posters seem to be indicating that this is not the case, in which case only the other part of my question applies.

... but there's no anathema that says "If anyone (e.g. the Melkites) say that VI is not an ecumenical council, let them be anathema."

But further to that, (although in some ways a restatement of earlier confusion), if the Melkites agree with Papal Supremacy, then how can they disagree with the anathema?

We could probably get into a huge discussion about what the papal dogmas mean, but I think the easiest answer here is: Because Rome doesn't insist on agreement with the anathema.

BTW, I shouldn't have said "Papal Supremacy". I was being a little sloppy. I should have said "Universal Ordinary Jurisdiction".

As Archbishop Elias Zoghby wrote many years ago:  ". . . Vatican I has the same designation as the Council of Lyons, a 'general' synod of the West. With this designation it is neither ecumenical nor infallible and could produce only theological opinions that can not be imposed on anyone" [Archbishop Elias Zoghby, Ecumenical Reflections].  It is also important to bear in mind that the papal office is not a matter open to dogmatic definition, because the papacy is not a divinely revealed truth, and so rejecting papal supremacy involves rejecting a theological opinion, and not a dogma.

Papal primacy - on the other hand - is a human custom of long standing, and as long as it is exercised synodally it is a helpful human institution for maintaining communion among the Churches.
So bascially you are a non-Catholic Catholice. nice.

See my answers to witega.
I think these answers are dancing around the issue. The canon amathematizes anyone who disagrees.

Sadly, I have to concur with Papist here. I don't see how any of these ideas move the east any closer to the west and vice versa. Isn't it the same old, same old which has led to this most ancient of stalemates? The more I think about these things, I fear that the best we can accomplish is an agreement to disagree while reaffirming our basic respect for each other. These issues have certainly confounded greater minds than ours.
Title: Re: Why
Post by: Papist on April 25, 2012, 09:05:06 PM
But do Melkites regard Papal Infallibility et al as dogmas? I don't mean whether they are aware that others regard those teachings as dogmas; but whether they themselves regard those teachings as dogmas.

Now you're just restating the very point that I'm asking about--to reiterate, I don't have any idea what the Melkites believe, I'm just trying to understand the train of thought--but the possible tracks seem to be

a) The Melkites accept the passage I quoted above--in which case, I don't understand how they can think it would be possible to be in communion with Orthodox (who say all the things the passage anathematizes)
...

If Melkites agree with Papal Supremacy without regarding it as a dogma (i.e. without anathematizing those we disagree with it), then what's the problem?

Okay... but that actually raises more questions than it answers.
First off, the statement from Vatican 1, is basically an if/then structure with the 'then' being 'let him be anathema'. So if the Melkites agree with the first part (the if), but don't agree with the second, then doesn't that mean they disagree with the *statement*? (I mean, if I say, 'If lies on their job application, let him stoned to death'--and you agree that lieing is bad, but don't agree that those who do it should be stoned to death, aren't you disagreeing with the statement as whole)?


Yes, that makes sense ...

So if the Melkites don't agree with the anathema, there's still my question of how that can be acceptable to Rome (although other posters seem to be indicating that this is not the case, in which case only the other part of my question applies.

... but there's no anathema that says "If anyone (e.g. the Melkites) say that VI is not an ecumenical council, let them be anathema."

But further to that, (although in some ways a restatement of earlier confusion), if the Melkites agree with Papal Supremacy, then how can they disagree with the anathema?

We could probably get into a huge discussion about what the papal dogmas mean, but I think the easiest answer here is: Because Rome doesn't insist on agreement with the anathema.

BTW, I shouldn't have said "Papal Supremacy". I was being a little sloppy. I should have said "Universal Ordinary Jurisdiction".

As Archbishop Elias Zoghby wrote many years ago:  ". . . Vatican I has the same designation as the Council of Lyons, a 'general' synod of the West. With this designation it is neither ecumenical nor infallible and could produce only theological opinions that can not be imposed on anyone" [Archbishop Elias Zoghby, Ecumenical Reflections].  It is also important to bear in mind that the papal office is not a matter open to dogmatic definition, because the papacy is not a divinely revealed truth, and so rejecting papal supremacy involves rejecting a theological opinion, and not a dogma.

Papal primacy - on the other hand - is a human custom of long standing, and as long as it is exercised synodally it is a helpful human institution for maintaining communion among the Churches.
So bascially you are a non-Catholic Catholice. nice.

See my answers to witega.
I think these answers are dancing around the issue. The canon amathematizes anyone who disagrees.

Sadly, I have to concur with Papist here. I don't see how any of these ideas move the east any closer to the west and vice versa. Isn't it the same old, same old which has led to this most ancient of stalemates? The more I think about these things, I fear that the best we can accomplish is an agreement to disagree while reaffirming our basic respect for each other. These issues have certainly confounded greater minds than ours.
Agreed. And in spite of our differences, we can still love and pray for one another.
Title: Re: Why
Post by: dzheremi on April 25, 2012, 09:11:54 PM
I don't see that as necessarily a bad thing, Podkarpatska. I mean, if you aren't going to budge and Rome isn't going to budge, isn't that the best of all possible outcomes? And indeed much better, if primarily in tone, than the days of "Contra Errores Graecorum" or similar.
Title: Re: Why
Post by: Peter J on April 25, 2012, 09:14:36 PM
But do Melkites regard Papal Infallibility et al as dogmas? I don't mean whether they are aware that others regard those teachings as dogmas; but whether they themselves regard those teachings as dogmas.

Now you're just restating the very point that I'm asking about--to reiterate, I don't have any idea what the Melkites believe, I'm just trying to understand the train of thought--but the possible tracks seem to be

a) The Melkites accept the passage I quoted above--in which case, I don't understand how they can think it would be possible to be in communion with Orthodox (who say all the things the passage anathematizes)
...

If Melkites agree with Papal Supremacy without regarding it as a dogma (i.e. without anathematizing those we disagree with it), then what's the problem?

Okay... but that actually raises more questions than it answers.
First off, the statement from Vatican 1, is basically an if/then structure with the 'then' being 'let him be anathema'. So if the Melkites agree with the first part (the if), but don't agree with the second, then doesn't that mean they disagree with the *statement*? (I mean, if I say, 'If lies on their job application, let him stoned to death'--and you agree that lieing is bad, but don't agree that those who do it should be stoned to death, aren't you disagreeing with the statement as whole)?


Yes, that makes sense ...

So if the Melkites don't agree with the anathema, there's still my question of how that can be acceptable to Rome (although other posters seem to be indicating that this is not the case, in which case only the other part of my question applies.

... but there's no anathema that says "If anyone (e.g. the Melkites) say that VI is not an ecumenical council, let them be anathema."

But further to that, (although in some ways a restatement of earlier confusion), if the Melkites agree with Papal Supremacy, then how can they disagree with the anathema?

We could probably get into a huge discussion about what the papal dogmas mean, but I think the easiest answer here is: Because Rome doesn't insist on agreement with the anathema.

BTW, I shouldn't have said "Papal Supremacy". I was being a little sloppy. I should have said "Universal Ordinary Jurisdiction".

As Archbishop Elias Zoghby wrote many years ago:  ". . . Vatican I has the same designation as the Council of Lyons, a 'general' synod of the West. With this designation it is neither ecumenical nor infallible and could produce only theological opinions that can not be imposed on anyone" [Archbishop Elias Zoghby, Ecumenical Reflections].  It is also important to bear in mind that the papal office is not a matter open to dogmatic definition, because the papacy is not a divinely revealed truth, and so rejecting papal supremacy involves rejecting a theological opinion, and not a dogma.

Papal primacy - on the other hand - is a human custom of long standing, and as long as it is exercised synodally it is a helpful human institution for maintaining communion among the Churches.
So bascially you are a non-Catholic Catholice. nice.

See my answers to witega.
I think these answers are dancing around the issue. The canon amathematizes anyone who disagrees.

This could -- perhaps -- be an explanation of why Rome doesn't support the Zoghby Initiative. Namely, from Rome's p.o.v., the initiative would allow for full communion between Catholics and some Christians who reject a defined dogma.
Title: Re: Why
Post by: podkarpatska on April 25, 2012, 09:14:59 PM
I don't see that as necessarily a bad thing, Podkarpatska. I mean, if you aren't going to budge and Rome isn't going to budge, isn't that the best of all possible outcomes? And indeed much better, if primarily in tone, than the days of "Contra Errores Graecorum" or similar.

I agree and if we can get along in spite of our differences, we can confront real issues like the coming economic upheavals in Europe, the dearth of faith in the west (including the former Soviet bloc countries...the old east/west dichotomy is archaic in many ways...) and the rise of Islamic extremism with a stronger voice and moral presence.
Title: Re: Why
Post by: Peter J on April 25, 2012, 10:02:58 PM
Another thought that may be helpful here: Is the Rome-Melkite relationship all that much different from the EO-OO relationship? In each case, both sides acknowledge each other as being orthodox, yet differ on how many ecumenical councils there have been.
Title: Re: Why
Post by: Iconodule on April 25, 2012, 10:14:08 PM
Another thought that may be helpful here: Is the Rome-Melkite relationship all that much different from the EO-OO relationship?

Yes because the Melkites actually deny dogma proclaimed by the RC councils. The basis of the EO-OO unity movement is the supposition that there is no genuine doctrinal disagreement.
Title: Re: Why
Post by: Peter J on April 25, 2012, 10:30:02 PM
Another thought that may be helpful here: Is the Rome-Melkite relationship all that much different from the EO-OO relationship?

Yes because the Melkites actually deny dogma proclaimed by the RC councils.

Actually, if you re-read the quote from Archbishop Zoghby you'll see that it doesn't contradict those teachings that Rome considers mandatory. It only denies that they are really dogmas, and that Vatican I was an ecumenical council:

As Archbishop Elias Zoghby wrote many years ago:  ". . . Vatican I has the same designation as the Council of Lyons, a 'general' synod of the West. With this designation it is neither ecumenical nor infallible and could produce only theological opinions that can not be imposed on anyone" [Archbishop Elias Zoghby, Ecumenical Reflections].  It is also important to bear in mind that the papal office is not a matter open to dogmatic definition, because the papacy is not a divinely revealed truth, and so rejecting papal supremacy involves rejecting a theological opinion, and not a dogma.
Title: Re: Why
Post by: ialmisry on April 25, 2012, 10:58:51 PM
I agree with what the Melkite Catholic Patriarch said some years ago in his interview with 30 Days magazine:


30 DAYS QUESTION: You once said: "With all respect for the Petrine office, the patriarchal office is equal to it."

GREGORY III's RESPONSE: Really I always say: I am cum Petro but not sub Petro. If I were sub Petro, I would be in submission, and I couldn't have a true frank, sincere, strong and free communion with the Pope. When you embrace a friend, you are not 'below'. You embrace him from the same height, if not it wouldn't be a true embrace. Unita manent, united things last.
After all, the Patriarch of Antioch is the successor of St. Peter.
Title: Re: Why
Post by: ialmisry on April 25, 2012, 11:06:07 PM
As for the Vatican's following, of course Orthodoxy has only negative teaching about the Vatican.  

No, there are positive statements too.

Yeah, the museum's kind of nice...  ;)
Statues are pretty....

PP
Look at all the manuscripts!

I'm not sure what you mean.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vatican_library#Manuscripts
Title: Re: Why
Post by: Apotheoun on April 25, 2012, 11:26:07 PM
I agree with what the Melkite Catholic Patriarch said some years ago in his interview with 30 Days magazine:


30 DAYS QUESTION: You once said: "With all respect for the Petrine office, the patriarchal office is equal to it."

GREGORY III's RESPONSE: Really I always say: I am cum Petro but not sub Petro. If I were sub Petro, I would be in submission, and I couldn't have a true frank, sincere, strong and free communion with the Pope. When you embrace a friend, you are not 'below'. You embrace him from the same height, if not it wouldn't be a true embrace. Unita manent, united things last.
After all, the Patriarch of Antioch is the successor of St. Peter.
Very true!  The primacy, according to Pope St. Gregory the Great, is held simultaneously by the three historic petrine sees (i.e., Rome, Alexandria, and Antioch):

"Wherefore though there are many apostles, yet with regard to the principality itself the See of the Prince of the apostles alone has grown strong in authority, which in three places [i.e., Rome, Alexandria, and Antioch] is the See of one. For he himself exalted the See in which he deigned even to rest and end the present life. He himself adorned the See to which he sent his disciple as evangelist. He himself established the See in which, though he was to leave it, he sat for seven years. Since then it is the See of one, and one See, over which by Divine authority three bishops now preside, whatever good I hear of you, this I impute to myself. If you believe anything good of me, impute this to your merits, since we are one in Him Who says, 'That they all may be one, as You, Father, art in me, and I in you that they also may be one in us.'" [Pope St. Gregory the Great, Registrum Epistolarum, Book VII, 40]

In addition, it is important to remember that the bishops in general are successors of all the Apostles, including St. Peter, and so every see is sacramentally the see of St. Peter.
Title: Re: Why
Post by: primuspilus on April 26, 2012, 10:19:00 AM
I agree with what the Melkite Catholic Patriarch said some years ago in his interview with 30 Days magazine:


30 DAYS QUESTION: You once said: "With all respect for the Petrine office, the patriarchal office is equal to it."

GREGORY III's RESPONSE: Really I always say: I am cum Petro but not sub Petro. If I were sub Petro, I would be in submission, and I couldn't have a true frank, sincere, strong and free communion with the Pope. When you embrace a friend, you are not 'below'. You embrace him from the same height, if not it wouldn't be a true embrace. Unita manent, united things last.
After all, the Patriarch of Antioch is the successor of St. Peter.
Very true!  The primacy, according to Pope St. Gregory the Great, is held simultaneously by the three historic petrine sees (i.e., Rome, Alexandria, and Antioch):

"Wherefore though there are many apostles, yet with regard to the principality itself the See of the Prince of the apostles alone has grown strong in authority, which in three places [i.e., Rome, Alexandria, and Antioch] is the See of one. For he himself exalted the See in which he deigned even to rest and end the present life. He himself adorned the See to which he sent his disciple as evangelist. He himself established the See in which, though he was to leave it, he sat for seven years. Since then it is the See of one, and one See, over which by Divine authority three bishops now preside, whatever good I hear of you, this I impute to myself. If you believe anything good of me, impute this to your merits, since we are one in Him Who says, 'That they all may be one, as You, Father, art in me, and I in you that they also may be one in us.'" [Pope St. Gregory the Great, Registrum Epistolarum, Book VII, 40]

In addition, it is important to remember that the bishops in general are successors of all the Apostles, including St. Peter, and so every see is sacramentally the see of St. Peter.

Dont worry, im sure those quotes will, or have been skewed and stretched already. Just like the explanation of my signature quote. The explanation of that was plain silly, but anyways.....

PP
Title: Re: Why
Post by: J Michael on April 26, 2012, 10:45:18 AM
I agree with what the Melkite Catholic Patriarch said some years ago in his interview with 30 Days magazine:


30 DAYS QUESTION: You once said: "With all respect for the Petrine office, the patriarchal office is equal to it."

GREGORY III's RESPONSE: Really I always say: I am cum Petro but not sub Petro. If I were sub Petro, I would be in submission, and I couldn't have a true frank, sincere, strong and free communion with the Pope. When you embrace a friend, you are not 'below'. You embrace him from the same height, if not it wouldn't be a true embrace. Unita manent, united things last.
After all, the Patriarch of Antioch is the successor of St. Peter.
Very true!  The primacy, according to Pope St. Gregory the Great, is held simultaneously by the three historic petrine sees (i.e., Rome, Alexandria, and Antioch):

"Wherefore though there are many apostles, yet with regard to the principality itself the See of the Prince of the apostles alone has grown strong in authority, which in three places [i.e., Rome, Alexandria, and Antioch] is the See of one. For he himself exalted the See in which he deigned even to rest and end the present life. He himself adorned the See to which he sent his disciple as evangelist. He himself established the See in which, though he was to leave it, he sat for seven years. Since then it is the See of one, and one See, over which by Divine authority three bishops now preside, whatever good I hear of you, this I impute to myself. If you believe anything good of me, impute this to your merits, since we are one in Him Who says, 'That they all may be one, as You, Father, art in me, and I in you that they also may be one in us.'" [Pope St. Gregory the Great, Registrum Epistolarum, Book VII, 40]

In addition, it is important to remember that the bishops in general are successors of all the Apostles, including St. Peter, and so every see is sacramentally the see of St. Peter.

Dont worry, im sure those quotes will, or have been skewed and stretched already. Just like the explanation of my signature quote. The explanation of that was plain silly, but anyways.....

PP

Precisely the problem when, as we are so very wont to do, we take a piece of something and mistake it for the whole of it.
Title: Re: Why
Post by: primuspilus on April 26, 2012, 10:50:15 AM
Quote
Precisely the problem when, as we are so very wont to do, we take a piece of something and mistake it for the whole of it.
Correct, and it can be said for both sides of this argument :)

PP
Title: Re: Why
Post by: J Michael on April 26, 2012, 10:53:54 AM
Quote
Precisely the problem when, as we are so very wont to do, we take a piece of something and mistake it for the whole of it.
Correct, and it can be said for both sides of this argument :)

PP

Couldn't agree with you more!
Title: Re: Why
Post by: Apotheoun on April 26, 2012, 11:32:10 AM
I agree with what the Melkite Catholic Patriarch said some years ago in his interview with 30 Days magazine:


30 DAYS QUESTION: You once said: "With all respect for the Petrine office, the patriarchal office is equal to it."

GREGORY III's RESPONSE: Really I always say: I am cum Petro but not sub Petro. If I were sub Petro, I would be in submission, and I couldn't have a true frank, sincere, strong and free communion with the Pope. When you embrace a friend, you are not 'below'. You embrace him from the same height, if not it wouldn't be a true embrace. Unita manent, united things last.
After all, the Patriarch of Antioch is the successor of St. Peter.
Very true!  The primacy, according to Pope St. Gregory the Great, is held simultaneously by the three historic petrine sees (i.e., Rome, Alexandria, and Antioch):

"Wherefore though there are many apostles, yet with regard to the principality itself the See of the Prince of the apostles alone has grown strong in authority, which in three places [i.e., Rome, Alexandria, and Antioch] is the See of one. For he himself exalted the See in which he deigned even to rest and end the present life. He himself adorned the See to which he sent his disciple as evangelist. He himself established the See in which, though he was to leave it, he sat for seven years. Since then it is the See of one, and one See, over which by Divine authority three bishops now preside, whatever good I hear of you, this I impute to myself. If you believe anything good of me, impute this to your merits, since we are one in Him Who says, 'That they all may be one, as You, Father, art in me, and I in you that they also may be one in us.'" [Pope St. Gregory the Great, Registrum Epistolarum, Book VII, 40]

In addition, it is important to remember that the bishops in general are successors of all the Apostles, including St. Peter, and so every see is sacramentally the see of St. Peter.

Dont worry, im sure those quotes will, or have been skewed and stretched already. Just like the explanation of my signature quote. The explanation of that was plain silly, but anyways.....

PP

Precisely the problem when, as we are so very wont to do, we take a piece of something and mistake it for the whole of it.
Of course we can all ignore quotations that challenge our own views, such an attitude is common enough, but in the present case the quotation does show that St. Gregory did not hold to the modern theory of the papacy advocated by the West in the 19th century, i.e., that the pope had a unique succession from Peter that made him the sole arbiter in matters of theological dispute.

That said, I have seen many Orthodox who will take quotations like the one above and not only deny the theory of papal supremacy, but also the notion of primacy; while Western Catholics will often confuse these two distinct ideas and try to use quotations from St. Gregory (and others) to prove that the late 19th century theory of papal authority is somehow ancient.
Title: Re: Why
Post by: elijahmaria on April 26, 2012, 12:21:22 PM
To add to the fun!!...Not every word of every conciliar document is infallible whether the council itself is ratified or not...eh?
No amount of ratification, inerrancy or infallibility has ever been sufficiently potent as to terminate our need to think.

Despite the valiant attempts of innumerable Hyperdox and Hyperfranko-teutonic-lombardians.  :police:

Makes me feel like a gourmet hot dog, for heaven's sake!

 :D :D :D :D :D
Title: Re: Why
Post by: J Michael on April 26, 2012, 12:26:05 PM
To add to the fun!!...Not every word of every conciliar document is infallible whether the council itself is ratified or not...eh?
No amount of ratification, inerrancy or infallibility has ever been sufficiently potent as to terminate our need to think.

Despite the valiant attempts of innumerable Hyperdox and Hyperfranko-teutonic-lombardians.  :police:

Makes me feel like a gourmet hot dog, for heaven's sake!

 :D :D :D :D :D

Yum, yum, YUM!!

(http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/MSNBC/Components/Photo/_new/090731_forbes-hotdog.jpg)


I just now, after all this time, figured out how to post pictures   :o.  I know, I'm a slow learner  :laugh:.

Look out, Isa  :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:!
Title: Re: Why
Post by: Papist on April 26, 2012, 12:31:11 PM
I agree with what the Melkite Catholic Patriarch said some years ago in his interview with 30 Days magazine:


30 DAYS QUESTION: You once said: "With all respect for the Petrine office, the patriarchal office is equal to it."

GREGORY III's RESPONSE: Really I always say: I am cum Petro but not sub Petro. If I were sub Petro, I would be in submission, and I couldn't have a true frank, sincere, strong and free communion with the Pope. When you embrace a friend, you are not 'below'. You embrace him from the same height, if not it wouldn't be a true embrace. Unita manent, united things last.
After all, the Patriarch of Antioch is the successor of St. Peter.
Very true!  The primacy, according to Pope St. Gregory the Great, is held simultaneously by the three historic petrine sees (i.e., Rome, Alexandria, and Antioch):

"Wherefore though there are many apostles, yet with regard to the principality itself the See of the Prince of the apostles alone has grown strong in authority, which in three places [i.e., Rome, Alexandria, and Antioch] is the See of one. For he himself exalted the See in which he deigned even to rest and end the present life. He himself adorned the See to which he sent his disciple as evangelist. He himself established the See in which, though he was to leave it, he sat for seven years. Since then it is the See of one, and one See, over which by Divine authority three bishops now preside, whatever good I hear of you, this I impute to myself. If you believe anything good of me, impute this to your merits, since we are one in Him Who says, 'That they all may be one, as You, Father, art in me, and I in you that they also may be one in us.'" [Pope St. Gregory the Great, Registrum Epistolarum, Book VII, 40]

In addition, it is important to remember that the bishops in general are successors of all the Apostles, including St. Peter, and so every see is sacramentally the see of St. Peter.

Dont worry, im sure those quotes will, or have been skewed and stretched already. Just like the explanation of my signature quote. The explanation of that was plain silly, but anyways.....

PP

Precisely the problem when, as we are so very wont to do, we take a piece of something and mistake it for the whole of it.
Of course we can all ignore quotations that challenge our own views, such an attitude is common enough, but in the present case the quotation does show that St. Gregory did not hold to the modern theory of the papacy advocated by the West in the 19th century, i.e., that the pope had a unique succession from Peter that made him the sole arbiter in matters of theological dispute.

That said, I have seen many Orthodox who will take quotations like the one above and not only deny the theory of papal supremacy, but also the notion of primacy; while Western Catholics will often confuse these two distinct ideas and try to use quotations from St. Gregory (and others) to prove that the late 19th century theory of papal authority is somehow ancient.
Once again, no one knows why you are in communion with Rome. If Rome is wrong, and the Orthodox are right, then why not choose to be in communion with those who you think are right?
Title: Re: Why
Post by: Papist on April 26, 2012, 12:32:02 PM
I agree with what the Melkite Catholic Patriarch said some years ago in his interview with 30 Days magazine:


30 DAYS QUESTION: You once said: "With all respect for the Petrine office, the patriarchal office is equal to it."

GREGORY III's RESPONSE: Really I always say: I am cum Petro but not sub Petro. If I were sub Petro, I would be in submission, and I couldn't have a true frank, sincere, strong and free communion with the Pope. When you embrace a friend, you are not 'below'. You embrace him from the same height, if not it wouldn't be a true embrace. Unita manent, united things last.
After all, the Patriarch of Antioch is the successor of St. Peter.
Very true!  The primacy, according to Pope St. Gregory the Great, is held simultaneously by the three historic petrine sees (i.e., Rome, Alexandria, and Antioch):

"Wherefore though there are many apostles, yet with regard to the principality itself the See of the Prince of the apostles alone has grown strong in authority, which in three places [i.e., Rome, Alexandria, and Antioch] is the See of one. For he himself exalted the See in which he deigned even to rest and end the present life. He himself adorned the See to which he sent his disciple as evangelist. He himself established the See in which, though he was to leave it, he sat for seven years. Since then it is the See of one, and one See, over which by Divine authority three bishops now preside, whatever good I hear of you, this I impute to myself. If you believe anything good of me, impute this to your merits, since we are one in Him Who says, 'That they all may be one, as You, Father, art in me, and I in you that they also may be one in us.'" [Pope St. Gregory the Great, Registrum Epistolarum, Book VII, 40]

In addition, it is important to remember that the bishops in general are successors of all the Apostles, including St. Peter, and so every see is sacramentally the see of St. Peter.

All of the Bishops are successors of Peter in a sense, just as all are vicars of Christ. As a Latin "papist" I have no problem with that.
Title: Re: Why
Post by: Apotheoun on April 26, 2012, 12:39:09 PM
I agree with what the Melkite Catholic Patriarch said some years ago in his interview with 30 Days magazine:


30 DAYS QUESTION: You once said: "With all respect for the Petrine office, the patriarchal office is equal to it."

GREGORY III's RESPONSE: Really I always say: I am cum Petro but not sub Petro. If I were sub Petro, I would be in submission, and I couldn't have a true frank, sincere, strong and free communion with the Pope. When you embrace a friend, you are not 'below'. You embrace him from the same height, if not it wouldn't be a true embrace. Unita manent, united things last.
After all, the Patriarch of Antioch is the successor of St. Peter.
Very true!  The primacy, according to Pope St. Gregory the Great, is held simultaneously by the three historic petrine sees (i.e., Rome, Alexandria, and Antioch):

"Wherefore though there are many apostles, yet with regard to the principality itself the See of the Prince of the apostles alone has grown strong in authority, which in three places [i.e., Rome, Alexandria, and Antioch] is the See of one. For he himself exalted the See in which he deigned even to rest and end the present life. He himself adorned the See to which he sent his disciple as evangelist. He himself established the See in which, though he was to leave it, he sat for seven years. Since then it is the See of one, and one See, over which by Divine authority three bishops now preside, whatever good I hear of you, this I impute to myself. If you believe anything good of me, impute this to your merits, since we are one in Him Who says, 'That they all may be one, as You, Father, art in me, and I in you that they also may be one in us.'" [Pope St. Gregory the Great, Registrum Epistolarum, Book VII, 40]

In addition, it is important to remember that the bishops in general are successors of all the Apostles, including St. Peter, and so every see is sacramentally the see of St. Peter.

All of the Bishops are successors of Peter in a sense, just as all are vicars of Christ. As a Latin "papist" I have no problem with that.
Actually, I am in communion with the Melkite Catholic Church, and my patriarch is in communion with Rome, which is the way the Church Fathers understood the reciprocal nature of the relationship among the many local Churches with each within the one Catholic communion.

As far as the term "vicar" is concerned, Christ is not absent from His Church and so there is no need for a "vicar."

Christos Voskrese!
Title: Re: Why
Post by: J Michael on April 26, 2012, 12:43:29 PM
I agree with what the Melkite Catholic Patriarch said some years ago in his interview with 30 Days magazine:


30 DAYS QUESTION: You once said: "With all respect for the Petrine office, the patriarchal office is equal to it."

GREGORY III's RESPONSE: Really I always say: I am cum Petro but not sub Petro. If I were sub Petro, I would be in submission, and I couldn't have a true frank, sincere, strong and free communion with the Pope. When you embrace a friend, you are not 'below'. You embrace him from the same height, if not it wouldn't be a true embrace. Unita manent, united things last.
After all, the Patriarch of Antioch is the successor of St. Peter.
Very true!  The primacy, according to Pope St. Gregory the Great, is held simultaneously by the three historic petrine sees (i.e., Rome, Alexandria, and Antioch):

"Wherefore though there are many apostles, yet with regard to the principality itself the See of the Prince of the apostles alone has grown strong in authority, which in three places [i.e., Rome, Alexandria, and Antioch] is the See of one. For he himself exalted the See in which he deigned even to rest and end the present life. He himself adorned the See to which he sent his disciple as evangelist. He himself established the See in which, though he was to leave it, he sat for seven years. Since then it is the See of one, and one See, over which by Divine authority three bishops now preside, whatever good I hear of you, this I impute to myself. If you believe anything good of me, impute this to your merits, since we are one in Him Who says, 'That they all may be one, as You, Father, art in me, and I in you that they also may be one in us.'" [Pope St. Gregory the Great, Registrum Epistolarum, Book VII, 40]

In addition, it is important to remember that the bishops in general are successors of all the Apostles, including St. Peter, and so every see is sacramentally the see of St. Peter.

All of the Bishops are successors of Peter in a sense, just as all are vicars of Christ. As a Latin "papist" I have no problem with that.
Actually, I am in communion with the Melkite Catholic Church, and my patriarch is in communion with Rome, which is the way the Church Fathers understood the reciprocal nature of the relationship among the many local Churches with each within the one Catholic communion.

As far as the term "vicar" is concerned, Christ is not absent from His Church and so there is no need for a "vicar."

Christos Voskrese!


Voistinu Voskrese!

Is that an opening for another "discussion" about what a "vicar" is and how that applies to the orthodox-but-not-Orthodox Catholic Church?
Title: Re: Why
Post by: Papist on April 26, 2012, 12:48:34 PM
I agree with what the Melkite Catholic Patriarch said some years ago in his interview with 30 Days magazine:


30 DAYS QUESTION: You once said: "With all respect for the Petrine office, the patriarchal office is equal to it."

GREGORY III's RESPONSE: Really I always say: I am cum Petro but not sub Petro. If I were sub Petro, I would be in submission, and I couldn't have a true frank, sincere, strong and free communion with the Pope. When you embrace a friend, you are not 'below'. You embrace him from the same height, if not it wouldn't be a true embrace. Unita manent, united things last.
After all, the Patriarch of Antioch is the successor of St. Peter.
Very true!  The primacy, according to Pope St. Gregory the Great, is held simultaneously by the three historic petrine sees (i.e., Rome, Alexandria, and Antioch):

"Wherefore though there are many apostles, yet with regard to the principality itself the See of the Prince of the apostles alone has grown strong in authority, which in three places [i.e., Rome, Alexandria, and Antioch] is the See of one. For he himself exalted the See in which he deigned even to rest and end the present life. He himself adorned the See to which he sent his disciple as evangelist. He himself established the See in which, though he was to leave it, he sat for seven years. Since then it is the See of one, and one See, over which by Divine authority three bishops now preside, whatever good I hear of you, this I impute to myself. If you believe anything good of me, impute this to your merits, since we are one in Him Who says, 'That they all may be one, as You, Father, art in me, and I in you that they also may be one in us.'" [Pope St. Gregory the Great, Registrum Epistolarum, Book VII, 40]

In addition, it is important to remember that the bishops in general are successors of all the Apostles, including St. Peter, and so every see is sacramentally the see of St. Peter.

All of the Bishops are successors of Peter in a sense, just as all are vicars of Christ. As a Latin "papist" I have no problem with that.
Actually, I am in communion with the Melkite Catholic Church, and my patriarch is in communion with Rome, which is the way the Church Fathers understood the reciprocal nature of the relationship among the many local Churches with each within the one Catholic communion.

As far as the term "vicar" is concerned, Christ is not absent from His Church and so there is no need for a "vicar."

Christos Voskrese!

Your posts always make me dizzy. haha. So why be incommunion with some one who is in communion with some one who is wrong, when you can be in communion with some one who is communion with some one who is right? Ok, I just fell over.
Title: Re: Why
Post by: Papist on April 26, 2012, 12:49:21 PM
I agree with what the Melkite Catholic Patriarch said some years ago in his interview with 30 Days magazine:


30 DAYS QUESTION: You once said: "With all respect for the Petrine office, the patriarchal office is equal to it."

GREGORY III's RESPONSE: Really I always say: I am cum Petro but not sub Petro. If I were sub Petro, I would be in submission, and I couldn't have a true frank, sincere, strong and free communion with the Pope. When you embrace a friend, you are not 'below'. You embrace him from the same height, if not it wouldn't be a true embrace. Unita manent, united things last.
After all, the Patriarch of Antioch is the successor of St. Peter.
Very true!  The primacy, according to Pope St. Gregory the Great, is held simultaneously by the three historic petrine sees (i.e., Rome, Alexandria, and Antioch):

"Wherefore though there are many apostles, yet with regard to the principality itself the See of the Prince of the apostles alone has grown strong in authority, which in three places [i.e., Rome, Alexandria, and Antioch] is the See of one. For he himself exalted the See in which he deigned even to rest and end the present life. He himself adorned the See to which he sent his disciple as evangelist. He himself established the See in which, though he was to leave it, he sat for seven years. Since then it is the See of one, and one See, over which by Divine authority three bishops now preside, whatever good I hear of you, this I impute to myself. If you believe anything good of me, impute this to your merits, since we are one in Him Who says, 'That they all may be one, as You, Father, art in me, and I in you that they also may be one in us.'" [Pope St. Gregory the Great, Registrum Epistolarum, Book VII, 40]

In addition, it is important to remember that the bishops in general are successors of all the Apostles, including St. Peter, and so every see is sacramentally the see of St. Peter.

All of the Bishops are successors of Peter in a sense, just as all are vicars of Christ. As a Latin "papist" I have no problem with that.
Actually, I am in communion with the Melkite Catholic Church, and my patriarch is in communion with Rome, which is the way the Church Fathers understood the reciprocal nature of the relationship among the many local Churches with each within the one Catholic communion.

As far as the term "vicar" is concerned, Christ is not absent from His Church and so there is no need for a "vicar."

Christos Voskrese!


Voistinu Voskrese!

Is that an opening for another "discussion" about what a "vicar" is and how that applies to the orthodox-but-not-Orthodox Catholic Church?
Todd is an orthodox in communion with an orthodox in communion with Rome.  ;D
Title: Re: Why
Post by: Wyatt on April 26, 2012, 12:56:47 PM
I agree with what the Melkite Catholic Patriarch said some years ago in his interview with 30 Days magazine:


30 DAYS QUESTION: You once said: "With all respect for the Petrine office, the patriarchal office is equal to it."

GREGORY III's RESPONSE: Really I always say: I am cum Petro but not sub Petro. If I were sub Petro, I would be in submission, and I couldn't have a true frank, sincere, strong and free communion with the Pope. When you embrace a friend, you are not 'below'. You embrace him from the same height, if not it wouldn't be a true embrace. Unita manent, united things last.
After all, the Patriarch of Antioch is the successor of St. Peter.
Very true!  The primacy, according to Pope St. Gregory the Great, is held simultaneously by the three historic petrine sees (i.e., Rome, Alexandria, and Antioch):

"Wherefore though there are many apostles, yet with regard to the principality itself the See of the Prince of the apostles alone has grown strong in authority, which in three places [i.e., Rome, Alexandria, and Antioch] is the See of one. For he himself exalted the See in which he deigned even to rest and end the present life. He himself adorned the See to which he sent his disciple as evangelist. He himself established the See in which, though he was to leave it, he sat for seven years. Since then it is the See of one, and one See, over which by Divine authority three bishops now preside, whatever good I hear of you, this I impute to myself. If you believe anything good of me, impute this to your merits, since we are one in Him Who says, 'That they all may be one, as You, Father, art in me, and I in you that they also may be one in us.'" [Pope St. Gregory the Great, Registrum Epistolarum, Book VII, 40]

In addition, it is important to remember that the bishops in general are successors of all the Apostles, including St. Peter, and so every see is sacramentally the see of St. Peter.

All of the Bishops are successors of Peter in a sense, just as all are vicars of Christ. As a Latin "papist" I have no problem with that.
Actually, I am in communion with the Melkite Catholic Church, and my patriarch is in communion with Rome, which is the way the Church Fathers understood the reciprocal nature of the relationship among the many local Churches with each within the one Catholic communion.

As far as the term "vicar" is concerned, Christ is not absent from His Church and so there is no need for a "vicar."

Christos Voskrese!


Voistinu Voskrese!

Is that an opening for another "discussion" about what a "vicar" is and how that applies to the orthodox-but-not-Orthodox Catholic Church?
Todd is an orthodox in communion with an orthodox in communion with Rome.  ;D
I haven't decided for sure whether the Melkites are actually orthodox
Title: Re: Why
Post by: Papist on April 26, 2012, 12:58:25 PM
I agree with what the Melkite Catholic Patriarch said some years ago in his interview with 30 Days magazine:


30 DAYS QUESTION: You once said: "With all respect for the Petrine office, the patriarchal office is equal to it."

GREGORY III's RESPONSE: Really I always say: I am cum Petro but not sub Petro. If I were sub Petro, I would be in submission, and I couldn't have a true frank, sincere, strong and free communion with the Pope. When you embrace a friend, you are not 'below'. You embrace him from the same height, if not it wouldn't be a true embrace. Unita manent, united things last.
After all, the Patriarch of Antioch is the successor of St. Peter.
Very true!  The primacy, according to Pope St. Gregory the Great, is held simultaneously by the three historic petrine sees (i.e., Rome, Alexandria, and Antioch):

"Wherefore though there are many apostles, yet with regard to the principality itself the See of the Prince of the apostles alone has grown strong in authority, which in three places [i.e., Rome, Alexandria, and Antioch] is the See of one. For he himself exalted the See in which he deigned even to rest and end the present life. He himself adorned the See to which he sent his disciple as evangelist. He himself established the See in which, though he was to leave it, he sat for seven years. Since then it is the See of one, and one See, over which by Divine authority three bishops now preside, whatever good I hear of you, this I impute to myself. If you believe anything good of me, impute this to your merits, since we are one in Him Who says, 'That they all may be one, as You, Father, art in me, and I in you that they also may be one in us.'" [Pope St. Gregory the Great, Registrum Epistolarum, Book VII, 40]

In addition, it is important to remember that the bishops in general are successors of all the Apostles, including St. Peter, and so every see is sacramentally the see of St. Peter.

All of the Bishops are successors of Peter in a sense, just as all are vicars of Christ. As a Latin "papist" I have no problem with that.
Actually, I am in communion with the Melkite Catholic Church, and my patriarch is in communion with Rome, which is the way the Church Fathers understood the reciprocal nature of the relationship among the many local Churches with each within the one Catholic communion.

As far as the term "vicar" is concerned, Christ is not absent from His Church and so there is no need for a "vicar."

Christos Voskrese!


Voistinu Voskrese!

Is that an opening for another "discussion" about what a "vicar" is and how that applies to the orthodox-but-not-Orthodox Catholic Church?
Todd is an orthodox in communion with an orthodox in communion with Rome.  ;D
I haven't decided for sure whether the Melkites are actually orthodox
I'm sure that there are many individual members who are. Ghosty is one example of a Melkite who is orthodox (litte 'o'). But Todd? No he is not orthodox from a Catholic point of view.
Title: Re: Why
Post by: J Michael on April 26, 2012, 01:03:09 PM
I agree with what the Melkite Catholic Patriarch said some years ago in his interview with 30 Days magazine:


30 DAYS QUESTION: You once said: "With all respect for the Petrine office, the patriarchal office is equal to it."

GREGORY III's RESPONSE: Really I always say: I am cum Petro but not sub Petro. If I were sub Petro, I would be in submission, and I couldn't have a true frank, sincere, strong and free communion with the Pope. When you embrace a friend, you are not 'below'. You embrace him from the same height, if not it wouldn't be a true embrace. Unita manent, united things last.
After all, the Patriarch of Antioch is the successor of St. Peter.
Very true!  The primacy, according to Pope St. Gregory the Great, is held simultaneously by the three historic petrine sees (i.e., Rome, Alexandria, and Antioch):

"Wherefore though there are many apostles, yet with regard to the principality itself the See of the Prince of the apostles alone has grown strong in authority, which in three places [i.e., Rome, Alexandria, and Antioch] is the See of one. For he himself exalted the See in which he deigned even to rest and end the present life. He himself adorned the See to which he sent his disciple as evangelist. He himself established the See in which, though he was to leave it, he sat for seven years. Since then it is the See of one, and one See, over which by Divine authority three bishops now preside, whatever good I hear of you, this I impute to myself. If you believe anything good of me, impute this to your merits, since we are one in Him Who says, 'That they all may be one, as You, Father, art in me, and I in you that they also may be one in us.'" [Pope St. Gregory the Great, Registrum Epistolarum, Book VII, 40]

In addition, it is important to remember that the bishops in general are successors of all the Apostles, including St. Peter, and so every see is sacramentally the see of St. Peter.

All of the Bishops are successors of Peter in a sense, just as all are vicars of Christ. As a Latin "papist" I have no problem with that.
Actually, I am in communion with the Melkite Catholic Church, and my patriarch is in communion with Rome, which is the way the Church Fathers understood the reciprocal nature of the relationship among the many local Churches with each within the one Catholic communion.

As far as the term "vicar" is concerned, Christ is not absent from His Church and so there is no need for a "vicar."

Christos Voskrese!


Voistinu Voskrese!

Is that an opening for another "discussion" about what a "vicar" is and how that applies to the orthodox-but-not-Orthodox Catholic Church?
Todd is an orthodox in communion with an orthodox in communion with Rome.  ;D
I haven't decided for sure whether the Melkites are actually orthodox
I'm sure that there are many individual members who are. Ghosty is one example of a Melkite who is orthodox (litte 'o'). But Todd? No he is not orthodox from a Catholic point of view.

So, he's a non-orthodox Catholic in communion with an orthodox, non-Orthodox Catholic in communion with the orthodox Pope of the non-Orthodox Catholic orthodox Church?  Or did you just say that?  Now...I, too, just fell over  :laugh: :laugh:
Title: Re: Why
Post by: Papist on April 26, 2012, 01:40:00 PM
I agree with what the Melkite Catholic Patriarch said some years ago in his interview with 30 Days magazine:


30 DAYS QUESTION: You once said: "With all respect for the Petrine office, the patriarchal office is equal to it."

GREGORY III's RESPONSE: Really I always say: I am cum Petro but not sub Petro. If I were sub Petro, I would be in submission, and I couldn't have a true frank, sincere, strong and free communion with the Pope. When you embrace a friend, you are not 'below'. You embrace him from the same height, if not it wouldn't be a true embrace. Unita manent, united things last.
After all, the Patriarch of Antioch is the successor of St. Peter.
Very true!  The primacy, according to Pope St. Gregory the Great, is held simultaneously by the three historic petrine sees (i.e., Rome, Alexandria, and Antioch):

"Wherefore though there are many apostles, yet with regard to the principality itself the See of the Prince of the apostles alone has grown strong in authority, which in three places [i.e., Rome, Alexandria, and Antioch] is the See of one. For he himself exalted the See in which he deigned even to rest and end the present life. He himself adorned the See to which he sent his disciple as evangelist. He himself established the See in which, though he was to leave it, he sat for seven years. Since then it is the See of one, and one See, over which by Divine authority three bishops now preside, whatever good I hear of you, this I impute to myself. If you believe anything good of me, impute this to your merits, since we are one in Him Who says, 'That they all may be one, as You, Father, art in me, and I in you that they also may be one in us.'" [Pope St. Gregory the Great, Registrum Epistolarum, Book VII, 40]

In addition, it is important to remember that the bishops in general are successors of all the Apostles, including St. Peter, and so every see is sacramentally the see of St. Peter.

All of the Bishops are successors of Peter in a sense, just as all are vicars of Christ. As a Latin "papist" I have no problem with that.
Actually, I am in communion with the Melkite Catholic Church, and my patriarch is in communion with Rome, which is the way the Church Fathers understood the reciprocal nature of the relationship among the many local Churches with each within the one Catholic communion.

As far as the term "vicar" is concerned, Christ is not absent from His Church and so there is no need for a "vicar."

Christos Voskrese!


Voistinu Voskrese!

Is that an opening for another "discussion" about what a "vicar" is and how that applies to the orthodox-but-not-Orthodox Catholic Church?
Todd is an orthodox in communion with an orthodox in communion with Rome.  ;D
I haven't decided for sure whether the Melkites are actually orthodox
I'm sure that there are many individual members who are. Ghosty is one example of a Melkite who is orthodox (litte 'o'). But Todd? No he is not orthodox from a Catholic point of view.

So, he's a non-orthodox Catholic in communion with an orthodox, non-Orthodox Catholic in communion with the orthodox Pope of the non-Orthodox Catholic orthodox Church?  Or did you just say that?  Now...I, too, just fell over  :laugh: :laugh:

YES!!! I love when a post makes me laugh aloud. Thank you.  :D
Title: Re: Why
Post by: J Michael on April 26, 2012, 01:55:16 PM
I agree with what the Melkite Catholic Patriarch said some years ago in his interview with 30 Days magazine:


30 DAYS QUESTION: You once said: "With all respect for the Petrine office, the patriarchal office is equal to it."

GREGORY III's RESPONSE: Really I always say: I am cum Petro but not sub Petro. If I were sub Petro, I would be in submission, and I couldn't have a true frank, sincere, strong and free communion with the Pope. When you embrace a friend, you are not 'below'. You embrace him from the same height, if not it wouldn't be a true embrace. Unita manent, united things last.
After all, the Patriarch of Antioch is the successor of St. Peter.
Very true!  The primacy, according to Pope St. Gregory the Great, is held simultaneously by the three historic petrine sees (i.e., Rome, Alexandria, and Antioch):

"Wherefore though there are many apostles, yet with regard to the principality itself the See of the Prince of the apostles alone has grown strong in authority, which in three places [i.e., Rome, Alexandria, and Antioch] is the See of one. For he himself exalted the See in which he deigned even to rest and end the present life. He himself adorned the See to which he sent his disciple as evangelist. He himself established the See in which, though he was to leave it, he sat for seven years. Since then it is the See of one, and one See, over which by Divine authority three bishops now preside, whatever good I hear of you, this I impute to myself. If you believe anything good of me, impute this to your merits, since we are one in Him Who says, 'That they all may be one, as You, Father, art in me, and I in you that they also may be one in us.'" [Pope St. Gregory the Great, Registrum Epistolarum, Book VII, 40]

In addition, it is important to remember that the bishops in general are successors of all the Apostles, including St. Peter, and so every see is sacramentally the see of St. Peter.

All of the Bishops are successors of Peter in a sense, just as all are vicars of Christ. As a Latin "papist" I have no problem with that.
Actually, I am in communion with the Melkite Catholic Church, and my patriarch is in communion with Rome, which is the way the Church Fathers understood the reciprocal nature of the relationship among the many local Churches with each within the one Catholic communion.

As far as the term "vicar" is concerned, Christ is not absent from His Church and so there is no need for a "vicar."

Christos Voskrese!


Voistinu Voskrese!

Is that an opening for another "discussion" about what a "vicar" is and how that applies to the orthodox-but-not-Orthodox Catholic Church?
Todd is an orthodox in communion with an orthodox in communion with Rome.  ;D
I haven't decided for sure whether the Melkites are actually orthodox
I'm sure that there are many individual members who are. Ghosty is one example of a Melkite who is orthodox (litte 'o'). But Todd? No he is not orthodox from a Catholic point of view.

So, he's a non-orthodox Catholic in communion with an orthodox, non-Orthodox Catholic in communion with the orthodox Pope of the non-Orthodox Catholic orthodox Church?  Or did you just say that?  Now...I, too, just fell over  :laugh: :laugh:

YES!!! I love when a post makes me laugh aloud. Thank you.  :D

My pleasure  ;D!

There's a tendency here to take ourselves and each other waaaaaaaaaaayyyy too seriously sometimes.
Title: Re: Why
Post by: Peter J on April 26, 2012, 02:15:15 PM
I agree with what the Melkite Catholic Patriarch said some years ago in his interview with 30 Days magazine:


30 DAYS QUESTION: You once said: "With all respect for the Petrine office, the patriarchal office is equal to it."

GREGORY III's RESPONSE: Really I always say: I am cum Petro but not sub Petro. If I were sub Petro, I would be in submission, and I couldn't have a true frank, sincere, strong and free communion with the Pope. When you embrace a friend, you are not 'below'. You embrace him from the same height, if not it wouldn't be a true embrace. Unita manent, united things last.
After all, the Patriarch of Antioch is the successor of St. Peter.
Very true!  The primacy, according to Pope St. Gregory the Great, is held simultaneously by the three historic petrine sees (i.e., Rome, Alexandria, and Antioch):

"Wherefore though there are many apostles, yet with regard to the principality itself the See of the Prince of the apostles alone has grown strong in authority, which in three places [i.e., Rome, Alexandria, and Antioch] is the See of one. For he himself exalted the See in which he deigned even to rest and end the present life. He himself adorned the See to which he sent his disciple as evangelist. He himself established the See in which, though he was to leave it, he sat for seven years. Since then it is the See of one, and one See, over which by Divine authority three bishops now preside, whatever good I hear of you, this I impute to myself. If you believe anything good of me, impute this to your merits, since we are one in Him Who says, 'That they all may be one, as You, Father, art in me, and I in you that they also may be one in us.'" [Pope St. Gregory the Great, Registrum Epistolarum, Book VII, 40]

In addition, it is important to remember that the bishops in general are successors of all the Apostles, including St. Peter, and so every see is sacramentally the see of St. Peter.

All of the Bishops are successors of Peter in a sense, just as all are vicars of Christ. As a Latin "papist" I have no problem with that.
Actually, I am in communion with the Melkite Catholic Church, and my patriarch is in communion with Rome, which is the way the Church Fathers understood the reciprocal nature of the relationship among the many local Churches with each within the one Catholic communion.

As far as the term "vicar" is concerned, Christ is not absent from His Church and so there is no need for a "vicar."

Christos Voskrese!

I think you mentioned earlier (though I don't want to go hunting for the post) that you converted from Anglicanism to Catholicism.

Without getting into a big discussion of why you chose to join Catholicism and not Orthodoxy, I would at least like to ask (if you don't mind, of course): were your views at that time pretty much the same as they are now? Or have they changed since your conversion?
Title: Re: Why
Post by: Apotheoun on April 26, 2012, 02:19:36 PM
I agree with what the Melkite Catholic Patriarch said some years ago in his interview with 30 Days magazine:


30 DAYS QUESTION: You once said: "With all respect for the Petrine office, the patriarchal office is equal to it."

GREGORY III's RESPONSE: Really I always say: I am cum Petro but not sub Petro. If I were sub Petro, I would be in submission, and I couldn't have a true frank, sincere, strong and free communion with the Pope. When you embrace a friend, you are not 'below'. You embrace him from the same height, if not it wouldn't be a true embrace. Unita manent, united things last.
After all, the Patriarch of Antioch is the successor of St. Peter.
Very true!  The primacy, according to Pope St. Gregory the Great, is held simultaneously by the three historic petrine sees (i.e., Rome, Alexandria, and Antioch):

"Wherefore though there are many apostles, yet with regard to the principality itself the See of the Prince of the apostles alone has grown strong in authority, which in three places [i.e., Rome, Alexandria, and Antioch] is the See of one. For he himself exalted the See in which he deigned even to rest and end the present life. He himself adorned the See to which he sent his disciple as evangelist. He himself established the See in which, though he was to leave it, he sat for seven years. Since then it is the See of one, and one See, over which by Divine authority three bishops now preside, whatever good I hear of you, this I impute to myself. If you believe anything good of me, impute this to your merits, since we are one in Him Who says, 'That they all may be one, as You, Father, art in me, and I in you that they also may be one in us.'" [Pope St. Gregory the Great, Registrum Epistolarum, Book VII, 40]

In addition, it is important to remember that the bishops in general are successors of all the Apostles, including St. Peter, and so every see is sacramentally the see of St. Peter.

All of the Bishops are successors of Peter in a sense, just as all are vicars of Christ. As a Latin "papist" I have no problem with that.
Actually, I am in communion with the Melkite Catholic Church, and my patriarch is in communion with Rome, which is the way the Church Fathers understood the reciprocal nature of the relationship among the many local Churches with each within the one Catholic communion.

As far as the term "vicar" is concerned, Christ is not absent from His Church and so there is no need for a "vicar."

Christos Voskrese!


Voistinu Voskrese!

Is that an opening for another "discussion" about what a "vicar" is and how that applies to the orthodox-but-not-Orthodox Catholic Church?
Todd is an orthodox in communion with an orthodox in communion with Rome.  ;D
I haven't decided for sure whether the Melkites are actually orthodox
I'm sure that there are many individual members who are. Ghosty is one example of a Melkite who is orthodox (litte 'o'). But Todd? No he is not orthodox from a Catholic point of view.

So, he's a non-orthodox Catholic in communion with an orthodox, non-Orthodox Catholic in communion with the orthodox Pope of the non-Orthodox Catholic orthodox Church?  Or did you just say that?  Now...I, too, just fell over  :laugh: :laugh:

YES!!! I love when a post makes me laugh aloud. Thank you.  :D

My pleasure  ;D!

There's a tendency here to take ourselves and each other waaaaaaaaaaayyyy too seriously sometimes.
Many people take the papacy too seriously.  :D
Title: Re: Why
Post by: Papist on April 26, 2012, 02:22:57 PM
I agree with what the Melkite Catholic Patriarch said some years ago in his interview with 30 Days magazine:


30 DAYS QUESTION: You once said: "With all respect for the Petrine office, the patriarchal office is equal to it."

GREGORY III's RESPONSE: Really I always say: I am cum Petro but not sub Petro. If I were sub Petro, I would be in submission, and I couldn't have a true frank, sincere, strong and free communion with the Pope. When you embrace a friend, you are not 'below'. You embrace him from the same height, if not it wouldn't be a true embrace. Unita manent, united things last.
After all, the Patriarch of Antioch is the successor of St. Peter.
Very true!  The primacy, according to Pope St. Gregory the Great, is held simultaneously by the three historic petrine sees (i.e., Rome, Alexandria, and Antioch):

"Wherefore though there are many apostles, yet with regard to the principality itself the See of the Prince of the apostles alone has grown strong in authority, which in three places [i.e., Rome, Alexandria, and Antioch] is the See of one. For he himself exalted the See in which he deigned even to rest and end the present life. He himself adorned the See to which he sent his disciple as evangelist. He himself established the See in which, though he was to leave it, he sat for seven years. Since then it is the See of one, and one See, over which by Divine authority three bishops now preside, whatever good I hear of you, this I impute to myself. If you believe anything good of me, impute this to your merits, since we are one in Him Who says, 'That they all may be one, as You, Father, art in me, and I in you that they also may be one in us.'" [Pope St. Gregory the Great, Registrum Epistolarum, Book VII, 40]

In addition, it is important to remember that the bishops in general are successors of all the Apostles, including St. Peter, and so every see is sacramentally the see of St. Peter.

All of the Bishops are successors of Peter in a sense, just as all are vicars of Christ. As a Latin "papist" I have no problem with that.
Actually, I am in communion with the Melkite Catholic Church, and my patriarch is in communion with Rome, which is the way the Church Fathers understood the reciprocal nature of the relationship among the many local Churches with each within the one Catholic communion.

As far as the term "vicar" is concerned, Christ is not absent from His Church and so there is no need for a "vicar."

Christos Voskrese!


Voistinu Voskrese!

Is that an opening for another "discussion" about what a "vicar" is and how that applies to the orthodox-but-not-Orthodox Catholic Church?
Todd is an orthodox in communion with an orthodox in communion with Rome.  ;D
I haven't decided for sure whether the Melkites are actually orthodox
I'm sure that there are many individual members who are. Ghosty is one example of a Melkite who is orthodox (litte 'o'). But Todd? No he is not orthodox from a Catholic point of view.

So, he's a non-orthodox Catholic in communion with an orthodox, non-Orthodox Catholic in communion with the orthodox Pope of the non-Orthodox Catholic orthodox Church?  Or did you just say that?  Now...I, too, just fell over  :laugh: :laugh:

YES!!! I love when a post makes me laugh aloud. Thank you.  :D

My pleasure  ;D!

There's a tendency here to take ourselves and each other waaaaaaaaaaayyyy too seriously sometimes.
Many people take the papacy too seriously.  :D
Yes... you do.  ;D
Title: Re: Why
Post by: Apotheoun on April 26, 2012, 02:24:28 PM
I think you mentioned earlier (though I don't want to go hunting for the post) that you converted from Anglicanism to Catholicism.

Without getting into a big discussion of why you chose to join Catholicism and not Orthodoxy, I would at least like to ask (if you don't mind, of course): were your views at that time pretty much the same as they are now? Or have they changed since your conversion?
I became Roman Catholic in 1987/88 and at that time I knew very little about the East.  Interestingly, had I remained Anglo-Catholic a few years longer it is possible that I would have become Eastern Orthodox, since the High Church Episcopal parish I belonged to converted to Orthodoxy en masse in the early 1990s.

I only discovered the East myself in the late 1990s and early 2000s, and changed sui juris Churches while working on my MA in Theology at Franciscan University.
Title: Re: Why
Post by: Papist on April 26, 2012, 02:25:10 PM
I think you mentioned earlier (though I don't want to go hunting for the post) that you converted from Anglicanism to Catholicism.

Without getting into a big discussion of why you chose to join Catholicism and not Orthodoxy, I would at least like to ask (if you don't mind, of course): were your views at that time pretty much the same as they are now? Or have they changed since your conversion?
I became Roman Catholic in 1987/88 and at that time I knew very little about the East.  Interestingly, had I remained Anglo-Catholic a few years longer it is possible that I would have become Eastern Orthodox, since the High Church Episcopal parish I belonged to converted to Orthodox en masse in the early 1990s.

I only discovered the East myself in the late 1990s and early 2000s, and changed sui juris Churches while working on my MA in Theology at Franciscan University.
And why not go into communion with the Communion you agree with?
Title: Re: Why
Post by: Apotheoun on April 26, 2012, 02:26:25 PM
I agree with what the Melkite Catholic Patriarch said some years ago in his interview with 30 Days magazine:


30 DAYS QUESTION: You once said: "With all respect for the Petrine office, the patriarchal office is equal to it."

GREGORY III's RESPONSE: Really I always say: I am cum Petro but not sub Petro. If I were sub Petro, I would be in submission, and I couldn't have a true frank, sincere, strong and free communion with the Pope. When you embrace a friend, you are not 'below'. You embrace him from the same height, if not it wouldn't be a true embrace. Unita manent, united things last.
After all, the Patriarch of Antioch is the successor of St. Peter.
Very true!  The primacy, according to Pope St. Gregory the Great, is held simultaneously by the three historic petrine sees (i.e., Rome, Alexandria, and Antioch):

"Wherefore though there are many apostles, yet with regard to the principality itself the See of the Prince of the apostles alone has grown strong in authority, which in three places [i.e., Rome, Alexandria, and Antioch] is the See of one. For he himself exalted the See in which he deigned even to rest and end the present life. He himself adorned the See to which he sent his disciple as evangelist. He himself established the See in which, though he was to leave it, he sat for seven years. Since then it is the See of one, and one See, over which by Divine authority three bishops now preside, whatever good I hear of you, this I impute to myself. If you believe anything good of me, impute this to your merits, since we are one in Him Who says, 'That they all may be one, as You, Father, art in me, and I in you that they also may be one in us.'" [Pope St. Gregory the Great, Registrum Epistolarum, Book VII, 40]

In addition, it is important to remember that the bishops in general are successors of all the Apostles, including St. Peter, and so every see is sacramentally the see of St. Peter.

All of the Bishops are successors of Peter in a sense, just as all are vicars of Christ. As a Latin "papist" I have no problem with that.
Actually, I am in communion with the Melkite Catholic Church, and my patriarch is in communion with Rome, which is the way the Church Fathers understood the reciprocal nature of the relationship among the many local Churches with each within the one Catholic communion.

As far as the term "vicar" is concerned, Christ is not absent from His Church and so there is no need for a "vicar."

Christos Voskrese!


Voistinu Voskrese!

Is that an opening for another "discussion" about what a "vicar" is and how that applies to the orthodox-but-not-Orthodox Catholic Church?
Todd is an orthodox in communion with an orthodox in communion with Rome.  ;D
I haven't decided for sure whether the Melkites are actually orthodox
I'm sure that there are many individual members who are. Ghosty is one example of a Melkite who is orthodox (litte 'o'). But Todd? No he is not orthodox from a Catholic point of view.

So, he's a non-orthodox Catholic in communion with an orthodox, non-Orthodox Catholic in communion with the orthodox Pope of the non-Orthodox Catholic orthodox Church?  Or did you just say that?  Now...I, too, just fell over  :laugh: :laugh:

YES!!! I love when a post makes me laugh aloud. Thank you.  :D

My pleasure  ;D!

There's a tendency here to take ourselves and each other waaaaaaaaaaayyyy too seriously sometimes.
Many people take the papacy too seriously.  :D
Yes... you do.  ;D
Believe me, I don't!  The pope is just another bishop, and neither you nor I are in direct communion with him.  :D
Title: Re: Why
Post by: Apotheoun on April 26, 2012, 02:27:26 PM
I think you mentioned earlier (though I don't want to go hunting for the post) that you converted from Anglicanism to Catholicism.

Without getting into a big discussion of why you chose to join Catholicism and not Orthodoxy, I would at least like to ask (if you don't mind, of course): were your views at that time pretty much the same as they are now? Or have they changed since your conversion?
I became Roman Catholic in 1987/88 and at that time I knew very little about the East.  Interestingly, had I remained Anglo-Catholic a few years longer it is possible that I would have become Eastern Orthodox, since the High Church Episcopal parish I belonged to converted to Orthodox en masse in the early 1990s.

I only discovered the East myself in the late 1990s and early 2000s, and changed sui juris Churches while working on my MA in Theology at Franciscan University.
And why not go into communion with the Communion you agree with?
I am in communion with the Church I agree with (i.e., the Melkite Catholic Church).
Title: Re: Why
Post by: Papist on April 26, 2012, 02:28:25 PM
I agree with what the Melkite Catholic Patriarch said some years ago in his interview with 30 Days magazine:


30 DAYS QUESTION: You once said: "With all respect for the Petrine office, the patriarchal office is equal to it."

GREGORY III's RESPONSE: Really I always say: I am cum Petro but not sub Petro. If I were sub Petro, I would be in submission, and I couldn't have a true frank, sincere, strong and free communion with the Pope. When you embrace a friend, you are not 'below'. You embrace him from the same height, if not it wouldn't be a true embrace. Unita manent, united things last.
After all, the Patriarch of Antioch is the successor of St. Peter.
Very true!  The primacy, according to Pope St. Gregory the Great, is held simultaneously by the three historic petrine sees (i.e., Rome, Alexandria, and Antioch):

"Wherefore though there are many apostles, yet with regard to the principality itself the See of the Prince of the apostles alone has grown strong in authority, which in three places [i.e., Rome, Alexandria, and Antioch] is the See of one. For he himself exalted the See in which he deigned even to rest and end the present life. He himself adorned the See to which he sent his disciple as evangelist. He himself established the See in which, though he was to leave it, he sat for seven years. Since then it is the See of one, and one See, over which by Divine authority three bishops now preside, whatever good I hear of you, this I impute to myself. If you believe anything good of me, impute this to your merits, since we are one in Him Who says, 'That they all may be one, as You, Father, art in me, and I in you that they also may be one in us.'" [Pope St. Gregory the Great, Registrum Epistolarum, Book VII, 40]

In addition, it is important to remember that the bishops in general are successors of all the Apostles, including St. Peter, and so every see is sacramentally the see of St. Peter.

All of the Bishops are successors of Peter in a sense, just as all are vicars of Christ. As a Latin "papist" I have no problem with that.
Actually, I am in communion with the Melkite Catholic Church, and my patriarch is in communion with Rome, which is the way the Church Fathers understood the reciprocal nature of the relationship among the many local Churches with each within the one Catholic communion.

As far as the term "vicar" is concerned, Christ is not absent from His Church and so there is no need for a "vicar."

Christos Voskrese!


Voistinu Voskrese!

Is that an opening for another "discussion" about what a "vicar" is and how that applies to the orthodox-but-not-Orthodox Catholic Church?
Todd is an orthodox in communion with an orthodox in communion with Rome.  ;D
I haven't decided for sure whether the Melkites are actually orthodox
I'm sure that there are many individual members who are. Ghosty is one example of a Melkite who is orthodox (litte 'o'). But Todd? No he is not orthodox from a Catholic point of view.

So, he's a non-orthodox Catholic in communion with an orthodox, non-Orthodox Catholic in communion with the orthodox Pope of the non-Orthodox Catholic orthodox Church?  Or did you just say that?  Now...I, too, just fell over  :laugh: :laugh:

YES!!! I love when a post makes me laugh aloud. Thank you.  :D

My pleasure  ;D!

There's a tendency here to take ourselves and each other waaaaaaaaaaayyyy too seriously sometimes.
Many people take the papacy too seriously.  :D
Yes... you do.  ;D
Believe me, I don't!  The pope is just another bishop, and neither you nor I are in direct communion with him.  :D
Oh but you do. Everytime the Pope is dicussed in relationship to the Eastern Catholic Churches, you take it as an opportunity to dissent from Catholic teaching, creating your own religion that is neither Catholic nor Orthodox.
Title: Re: Why
Post by: Apotheoun on April 26, 2012, 02:50:42 PM
The following is an address on ecumenism given by the Melkite Catholic Patriarch Gregorios III Laham at:


Holy Apostles Seminary
Cromwell, CT
Tuesday, May 28, 2002

From Unia to Koinonia

It is well known that it was in Antioch that the disciples of Jesus of Nazareth were called Christians for the first time (Acts 11: 26). This indicates the importance of the Antiochian Metropolis in the history of the Church. Therefore, I am sure that if the ecumenical movement will succeed in the Church of Antioch, it would be a blessing for the ecumenical efforts worldwide.

The very name of our Church is in itself a sign of our role: we are a Greek Church and we represent the heritage of the Greek language and culture in the whole Middle East; we are a Melkite Church, and that means our inculturation in our Arab world; we are a Catholic Church, and that corresponds to the universal character, in addition to our communion with the Apostolic See of Rome.

The initiative taken by our Holy Synod in 1996 was a consequence and a manifestation of our ecumenical role, but it does not cover all the different aspects of that same role. Anyway, if the Orthodox-Catholic, dialogue is successful in the framework of the Antiochian area, it could be an example for all the other efforts elsewhere.

In fact, His Holiness Pope John Paul II several times has encouraged the dialogue at local levels as a preparation for and a contribution to wider dialogues. In his speeches during his visit to Syria, last year, the Holy Father encouraged our Church to continue in the way of ecumenical initiatives, especially in view of the common date for the celebration of Easter, and generally for the promotion of ecumenism. The work for unity is, indeed, an essential dimension of the existence of our Church. It is a must, a to be or not to be, present in the field of ecumenism.

The Melkite-Greek Catholic Church has been and still is always deeply concerned by the ecumenical problems on local as well as international levels. It is a consequence and a result of the proper mission and historical identity of our Church.

The 1996 initiative was minded and elaborated to restore the communion, between Greek Orthodox and Greek Catholics, in the framework of our Antiochian Patriarchate. I consider it is necessary to know and to read the full text of that document. Hereby; the full English translation: of the statement adopted and published by our Holy Synod and the late Patriarch Maximos V on July 27, 1996:

(1) I believe everything which Eastern Orthodoxy teaches.

(2) I am in communion with the Bishop of Rome as the first among the bishops, according to the limits recognized by the Holy Fathers of the East during the first millennium, before the separation.


The local and international reactions to our initiative were great. And, now, we continue the march toward unity, together in our own name and in the name of our faithful. If this initiative were successful, even after a long time, a new way should be open in the road toward unity on the Antiochian and on the international levels. Therefore, there is no turning back.

We must express special thanks to our Greek Orthodox brothers for their remarks and objections, and for the special position they adopted in their 1997 Holy Synod.

Our initiative is an answer to the desire and the prayer of Jesus. We want to realize this unity in the way He means. For that reason, we shall continue the effort to realize our initiative with all those who are working for unity; at the same time, we would like to make them sensible to such a holy duty, and we ask for their help so that, together, we may succeed, in several items.

We are certainly in full communion with the Apostolic See of Rome, and we do want to keep the fullness of that unity. The letter sent to my predecessor Maximos V, after the publication of our 1996 document, by Cardinals Joseph Ratzinger, Achille Silvestrini and Edward Idris Cassidy, clearly states their willingness to help. And now we are preparing, within our Holy Synod, a reduced "ad hoc" committee, in charge of continuing the dialogue with Rome on that matter.

We hope to have a deep cooperation with the Greek Orthodox Churches and theologians, not only in the Middle East (that is to say with the Patriarchates of Antioch, of Alexandria and of Jerusalem), but also in the world (beginning with the Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople, and then with the Churches of Greece, Russia, Georgia, Romania, Bulgaria, Serbia, and so on).

Of course, we are also wishing to receive help and support from the theologians who are especially experts about Eastern theology, as it was done with my predecessor Maximos IV during the Second Vatican Council.

And, naturally, we want to cooperate with our Greek-Catholic brothers in the world, with all the Catholic Churches of Byzantine tradition, in Ukraine, Romania, Italy, Slovakia, Hungary, Croatia, Macedonia, Greece, the United States, Canada, etc.

Next year, in 2003, we shall have a special session of our Patriarchal Holy Synod, and we have invited to attend its work representatives of the Catholic Byzantine Churches all over the world, as well as orientalist theologians and observers from local and other Churches of Western and Eastern traditions.

In the framework of our own Church, we will deeply continue the inside work, on the level of the pastors as well as on the level of the faithful. We have a special duty on the ecclesiological and theological levels, and we must form a special theological commission to study the different ecumenical aspects, dimensions and difficulties of our initiative.

The 1996 initiative is an ineluctable concern of our Melkite tradition since the times of my predecessors Boutros III and Gregory II, until Maximos IV and Maximos V. It is our basic vocation, as it corresponds to the very signification of our existence, as Melkite-Greek Catholics, in the Catholic Church of Christ. Therefore, it must be our most important task in the new Millennium.

The relationship between Antiochian Greek Catholics and Greek Orthodox is an absolutely specific one, as our Greek Orthodox brethren also have a proper desire of unity. Nobody, indeed, can fulfill the endeavour in our place.

It is necessary to recognize that our 1996 initiative is, in a great part (but not exclusively, since the ecumenical efforts and research of Archbishop Elias Zoghby were previous to Balamand and begun decades earlier), a consequence and a result of the Balamand document about the Eastern Churches presently in communion with the Church of Rome. As it is well known, the Balamand statement considers that our communion with Rome since 1724 and its continuation to our days represent an ecclesiological failure. And this initiative of our Church is the will to correct such a failure.

We hope that our initiative could be an example to be followed by other Catholic Eastern Churches (of the Syrian, Armenian and Coptic traditions, as well as the Chaldean Church with the Assyrian Church). Such moves from those Churches could then support our own march. All similar initiatives would be in line with the spirit of ecumenism which started from the Second Vatican Council.

It is evident that, to achieve the aim of our initiative in the Antiochian Patriarchate, several and different steps are needed. And, in that dimension, we must work in cooperation with our Orthodox brethren on the levels of theological studies and specific theological formation for priests, male and female religious, and laity.

The evidence and clearness of our sincere will to continue the march could be elements that give courage to our faithful, give confidence to their hearts and animate the holy faith in their souls.

We consider that our role is not only local, in the Middle East area, but also international and worldwide. Like what happened during the Second Vatican Council, through our initiative in the Antiochian area, we invite the Christian world to move in the same direction; as it was during the Second Vatican Council, the world is waiting for our voice.

The ecclesiological dimension has the leading role in the ecumenical movement in the world. But why is the ecumenical movement now in deep crisis, quite in agony? After the meeting in Balamand, the International Commission for Theological Dialogue between the Catholic Church and the Orthodox Churches met once in the United States (in Baltimore), without any result, and since then has not met any more.

All these things are urging us to go ahead in our prophetical role, in the line of my predecessors Gregorios II and Maximos IV.

But we must not forget that the official theological position of Rome does not represent the position of all Western Catholics. As it was recently underlined by Archbishop John Raphael Quinn, there are Roman Catholic theologians who do not completely and fully accept the ecclesiology of the First and Second Vatican Councils. This is why our firm decision to achieve our initiative will let us get into the arena of the international ecumenical movement and work.

My predecessor Maximos V had choosen as his "motto" the word of the Lord: "Put out into deep water" (Luke 5:4). Our Lord encourages us when He says: "Do not live in fear, little flock" (Luke 12:32).

Our ecumenical line and vision includes several levels and endeavours.

On the synodal and ecclesiological levels, we have to study and deepen our ecclesiological theology and thought. Especially, we have to determine our theological position about the points the Greek Orthodox asked for, after our 1996 statement. We must, also, study the implications and consequences of the already mentionned letter of the three Cardinals after our 1996 initiative, and study them with the present persons in charge in the Vatican, namely Cardinal Ignace Moussa I Daoud and Cardinal Walter Kasper.

It is also clear that new possibilities have been opened by the visit of Pope John Paul II to Syria last year. And we must study, with a special attention, the present, ecumenical position of the Antiochian Greek Orthodox after the Holy Father's visit to Damascus, as it has been expressed in the address of His Beatitude Ignatius IV to the Pope of Rome, and later after the visit to Assisi and Rome by Patriarch Ignatius IV and his new meeting with Pope John Paul II (October 2001).

Obviously, to continue the initiative of 1996, it is necessary to re-activate both "ad hoc'" committees then created by our respective Holy Synods.

On the pastoral level, we have to set up a detailed list of dogmas, uses and traditions that are common to us: theology, ecclesiology, Liturgy, Sacraments, etc. Among our common uses, we must give a special attention to the forms of popular devotion, fasting, processions, memorials, vows, liturgical music, etc.

We have to emphasize the fact that what unites us is not only the heritage of the first Millennium, but also the Orthodox heritage until 1724.

We must explain and clarify the topics that are obstacles to our full communion: Primacy of the Pope of Rome, Western Councils which cannot be recognized as Ecumenical Councils (as it has been admitted by highly qualified Western theologians since Pope Paul VI), theological dogmas formulated in Western vocabulary and concepts (Immaculate Conception and Assumption of the Theotokos, infallibility of the Pope of Rome).

Finally, to ensure the diffusion of the theological and pastoral aspects of our thought, so that the ecumenical concern will become general on the popular level as well as on the academic one, it would be useful to have a common publication of Orthodox and Catholic documents and pastoral letters, showing the concrete progress of the ecumenical endeavour.

The coming theological path and stage is to move from Unia (that is to say "Uniatism") to Koinonia (Communion).

The Document of Balamand  established that our 1724 experience was not the best ecclesiological solution. Certainly, we do exist, and we have the right to live, but our situation cannot be considered as an example for the future.

Our initiative of 1996, after the Document of Balamand, was willing to correct the mistakes of 1724, with the intention of clarifying our relations with the Church of Rome, as well as with the Orthodox Church, through the path from Unia to that of Koinonia. We have to take into account, also, that often we receive splendid documents from the Pope of Rome, but we have been living, at the same time, the experience of a behavior of Departments of the Roman Curia which does not correspond to the aforesaid Pontifical documents.

In 2000, the Council of the Catholic Eastern Patriarchs issued a statement in which a more real autonomy is required for our Eastern Churches, together with an urgent revision of the recently promulgated Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches, and also a new modality of mutual relations (of the Eastern Churches with Rome, and of Rome with the Eastern Churches), not based upon authority, but characterized by, consent and reciprocal consultations.

Our path from Unia to Koinonia, in addition to the solution of the present stagnation of ecumenism, could be of great utility for the Church of Rome and for the Orthodox Churches. The last ones could understand that their future communion with the Church of Rome would not be according to the Unia conception, but in the framework of a spirit of Koinonia, which was the characteristic of East-West ecclesiological relations in the first Millennium, and was not only in two directions (from Rome and towards Rome), but multidirectionnal, between Rome and the Patriarchal and Metropolitan Sees, and between the last ones, from See to See, on all levels.

It is our future, it is the future of ecumenism, for the Church of Rome as well as for the Orthodox Churches.
Title: Re: Why
Post by: Apotheoun on April 26, 2012, 02:52:36 PM
Many people take the papacy too seriously.  :D
Yes... you do.  ;D
Believe me, I don't!  The pope is just another bishop, and neither you nor I are in direct communion with him.  :D
Oh but you do. Everytime the Pope is dicussed in relationship to the Eastern Catholic Churches, you take it as an opportunity to dissent from Catholic teaching, creating your own religion that is neither Catholic nor Orthodox.
That's an exaggeration.  I don't even have that many posts here at OC.net, and even fewer existing posts at CAF.

P.S. - Based upon our respective post counts and our screen names it is pretty clear that you are the one who is fixated on the papacy.  ;D

P.P.S. - I don't dissent at all from Catholic teaching, I just refuse to equate Catholic teaching with Latin doctrinal formulations.
Title: Re: Why
Post by: Peter J on April 26, 2012, 02:55:44 PM
I agree with what the Melkite Catholic Patriarch said some years ago in his interview with 30 Days magazine:


30 DAYS QUESTION: You once said: "With all respect for the Petrine office, the patriarchal office is equal to it."

GREGORY III's RESPONSE: Really I always say: I am cum Petro but not sub Petro. If I were sub Petro, I would be in submission, and I couldn't have a true frank, sincere, strong and free communion with the Pope. When you embrace a friend, you are not 'below'. You embrace him from the same height, if not it wouldn't be a true embrace. Unita manent, united things last.
After all, the Patriarch of Antioch is the successor of St. Peter.
Very true!  The primacy, according to Pope St. Gregory the Great, is held simultaneously by the three historic petrine sees (i.e., Rome, Alexandria, and Antioch):

"Wherefore though there are many apostles, yet with regard to the principality itself the See of the Prince of the apostles alone has grown strong in authority, which in three places [i.e., Rome, Alexandria, and Antioch] is the See of one. For he himself exalted the See in which he deigned even to rest and end the present life. He himself adorned the See to which he sent his disciple as evangelist. He himself established the See in which, though he was to leave it, he sat for seven years. Since then it is the See of one, and one See, over which by Divine authority three bishops now preside, whatever good I hear of you, this I impute to myself. If you believe anything good of me, impute this to your merits, since we are one in Him Who says, 'That they all may be one, as You, Father, art in me, and I in you that they also may be one in us.'" [Pope St. Gregory the Great, Registrum Epistolarum, Book VII, 40]

In addition, it is important to remember that the bishops in general are successors of all the Apostles, including St. Peter, and so every see is sacramentally the see of St. Peter.

All of the Bishops are successors of Peter in a sense, just as all are vicars of Christ. As a Latin "papist" I have no problem with that.
Actually, I am in communion with the Melkite Catholic Church, and my patriarch is in communion with Rome, which is the way the Church Fathers understood the reciprocal nature of the relationship among the many local Churches with each within the one Catholic communion.

As far as the term "vicar" is concerned, Christ is not absent from His Church and so there is no need for a "vicar."

Christos Voskrese!


Voistinu Voskrese!

Is that an opening for another "discussion" about what a "vicar" is and how that applies to the orthodox-but-not-Orthodox Catholic Church?
Todd is an orthodox in communion with an orthodox in communion with Rome.  ;D
I haven't decided for sure whether the Melkites are actually orthodox
I'm sure that there are many individual members who are. Ghosty is one example of a Melkite who is orthodox (litte 'o'). But Todd? No he is not orthodox from a Catholic point of view.

So, he's a non-orthodox Catholic in communion with an orthodox, non-Orthodox Catholic in communion with the orthodox Pope of the non-Orthodox Catholic orthodox Church?  Or did you just say that?  Now...I, too, just fell over  :laugh: :laugh:

YES!!! I love when a post makes me laugh aloud. Thank you.  :D

My pleasure  ;D!

There's a tendency here to take ourselves and each other waaaaaaaaaaayyyy too seriously sometimes.
Many people take the papacy too seriously.  :D
Yes... you do.  ;D
Believe me, I don't!  The pope is just another bishop, and neither you nor I are in direct communion with him.  :D
Oh but you do. Everytime the Pope is dicussed in relationship to the Eastern Catholic Churches, you take it as an opportunity to dissent from Catholic teaching, creating your own religion that is neither Catholic nor Orthodox.

Since we've come back (more or less) to the topic of encouraging-fellow-Catholics-to-leave, I'm curious what your take is, Papist. Specifically, would you only encourage someone to leave if you believe he/she is already automatically excommunicated?
Title: Re: Why
Post by: Peter J on April 26, 2012, 02:57:52 PM
I think you mentioned earlier (though I don't want to go hunting for the post) that you converted from Anglicanism to Catholicism.

Without getting into a big discussion of why you chose to join Catholicism and not Orthodoxy, I would at least like to ask (if you don't mind, of course): were your views at that time pretty much the same as they are now? Or have they changed since your conversion?
I became Roman Catholic in 1987/88 and at that time I knew very little about the East.  Interestingly, had I remained Anglo-Catholic a few years longer it is possible that I would have become Eastern Orthodox, since the High Church Episcopal parish I belonged to converted to Orthodoxy en masse in the early 1990s.

I only discovered the East myself in the late 1990s and early 2000s, and changed sui juris Churches while working on my MA in Theology at Franciscan University.

Interesting. Thanks. :)
Title: Re: Why
Post by: Papist on April 26, 2012, 03:04:29 PM

That's an exaggeration.  I don't even have that many posts here at OC.net, and even fewer existing posts at CAF.

P.S. - Based upon our respective post counts and our screen names it is pretty clear that you are the one who is fixated on the papacy.  ;D
But the problem is that the number of your posts that focus on your rejection of Catholic teaching are disproportionate to your other posts.

P.P.S. - I don't dissent at all from Catholic teaching, I just refuse to equate Catholic teaching with Latin doctrinal formulations.
Translation: Todd thinks it's ok to be in communion with Catholics and yet reject Catholic teaching.
This is the reality no matter how many theological hoops you jump through.
Title: Re: Why
Post by: Papist on April 26, 2012, 03:06:49 PM
Todd, again why be in communion with a Church that you disagree with ( or as you put it "you are in communion with some one who is in communion with...  ::)  ), when you can be in communion with a body with whom you agree, namely the Eastern Orthodox?
Title: Re: Why
Post by: Apotheoun on April 26, 2012, 03:08:51 PM
Todd, again why be in communion with a Church that you disagree with ( or as you put it "you are in communion with some one who is in communion with...  ::)  ), when you can be in communion with a body with whom you agree, namely the Eastern Orthodox?
I am in full agreement with the Church of which I am a member (i.e., the Melkite Catholic Church).
Title: Re: Why
Post by: Papist on April 26, 2012, 03:12:25 PM
Todd, again why be in communion with a Church that you disagree with ( or as you put it "you are in communion with some one who is in communion with...  ::)  ), when you can be in communion with a body with whom you agree, namely the Eastern Orthodox?
I am in full agreement with the Church of which I am a member (i.e., the Melkite Catholic Church).
If you are in communion with some one in communion with somone in communion with someone in communion with someone in communion with someone in communion with Rome. You don't believe in the faith of the Romans.
So why not being in communion with someone in communion with someone in communion with someone in communion with the Eastern Orthodox, whith whomb you agree?
Why do you continue LARPing?
Title: Re: Why
Post by: primuspilus on April 26, 2012, 03:13:37 PM
Quote
(1) I believe everything which Eastern Orthodoxy teaches.

(2) I am in communion with the Bishop of Rome as the first among the bishops, according to the limits recognized by the Holy Fathers of the East during the first millennium, before the separation
So, since the Easter Orthodox Church teaches that the Pope is a schismatic.......

Also, since the Pope says that the Bishop of Rome has always been supreme, and the fathers said so too, these are a contradiction of terms, and can not be rectified.

PP
Title: Re: Why
Post by: Papist on April 26, 2012, 03:14:37 PM
Quote
(1) I believe everything which Eastern Orthodoxy teaches.

(2) I am in communion with the Bishop of Rome as the first among the bishops, according to the limits recognized by the Holy Fathers of the East during the first millennium, before the separation
So, since the Easter Orthodox Church teaches that the Pope is a schismatic.......

Also, since the Pope says that the Bishop of Rome has always been supreme, and the fathers said so too, these are a contradiction of terms, and can not be rectified.

PP
^ This
Title: Re: Why
Post by: Apotheoun on April 26, 2012, 03:17:10 PM
Actually, I am in communion with the Melkite Catholic Church, and my patriarch is in communion with Rome, which is the way the Church Fathers understood the reciprocal nature of the relationship among the many local Churches with each other within the one Catholic communion.

As far as the term "vicar" is concerned, Christ is not absent from His Church and so there is no need for a "vicar."

Christos Voskrese!


Voistinu Voskrese!

Is that an opening for another "discussion" about what a "vicar" is and how that applies to the orthodox-but-not-Orthodox Catholic Church?
If a bishop needs a special title "Vicar of St. Peter" or "Vicar of the Apostles" is far better than "Vicar of Christ."  Christ is never absent from His body the Church, because He is omnipresent as the divine Logos.  St. Peter and the Apostles - on the other hand - remain limited beings, and so one could argue that they do need vicars to stand in for them.
Title: Re: Why
Post by: Papist on April 26, 2012, 03:18:27 PM
Actually, I am in communion with the Melkite Catholic Church, and my patriarch is in communion with Rome, which is the way the Church Fathers understood the reciprocal nature of the relationship among the many local Churches with each other within the one Catholic communion.

As far as the term "vicar" is concerned, Christ is not absent from His Church and so there is no need for a "vicar."

Christos Voskrese!



Voistinu Voskrese!

Is that an opening for another "discussion" about what a "vicar" is and how that applies to the orthodox-but-not-Orthodox Catholic Church?
If a bishop needs a special title "Vicar of St. Peter" or "Vicar of the Apostles" is far better than "Vicar of Christ."  Christ is never absent from His body the Church, because He is omnipresent as the divine Logos.  St. Peter and the Apostles - on the other hand - remain limited beings, and so one could argue that they do need vicars to stand in for them.
You are really making a big deal out of simple termonology? Do you really think that Latins believe that Christ is absent from the Church?
Title: Re: Why
Post by: Apotheoun on April 26, 2012, 03:18:34 PM
Quote
(1) I believe everything which Eastern Orthodoxy teaches.

(2) I am in communion with the Bishop of Rome as the first among the bishops, according to the limits recognized by the Holy Fathers of the East during the first millennium, before the separation
So, since the Easter Orthodox Church teaches that the Pope is a schismatic.......
I did not know that that was an article of faith in Eastern Orthodoxy.  Certainly it is a common opinion, but an article of faith.  Interesting.  ;D
Title: Re: Why
Post by: Apotheoun on April 26, 2012, 03:20:21 PM
Quote
(1) I believe everything which Eastern Orthodoxy teaches.

(2) I am in communion with the Bishop of Rome as the first among the bishops, according to the limits recognized by the Holy Fathers of the East during the first millennium, before the separation
. . .

Also, since the Pope says that the Bishop of Rome has always been supreme, and the fathers said so too, these are a contradiction of terms, and can not be rectified.
Popes have said lots of things over the course of many centuries (e.g., Pope Honorius taught that there was only one will in Christ and was condemned for teaching that), but the Eastern bishops have never accepted what the bishops of Rome have said simply because they have said it.
Title: Re: Why
Post by: Apotheoun on April 26, 2012, 03:23:21 PM
Actually, I am in communion with the Melkite Catholic Church, and my patriarch is in communion with Rome, which is the way the Church Fathers understood the reciprocal nature of the relationship among the many local Churches with each other within the one Catholic communion.

As far as the term "vicar" is concerned, Christ is not absent from His Church and so there is no need for a "vicar."

Christos Voskrese!



Voistinu Voskrese!

Is that an opening for another "discussion" about what a "vicar" is and how that applies to the orthodox-but-not-Orthodox Catholic Church?
If a bishop needs a special title "Vicar of St. Peter" or "Vicar of the Apostles" is far better than "Vicar of Christ."  Christ is never absent from His body the Church, because He is omnipresent as the divine Logos.  St. Peter and the Apostles - on the other hand - remain limited beings, and so one could argue that they do need vicars to stand in for them.
You are really making a big deal out of simple termonology? Do you really think that Latins believe that Christ is absent from the Church?
Why use a word that etymologically means substitute unless you think you need one.  The earlier Roman tradition was to call the bishop of Rome "vicar of St. Peter," and that title was not only better, it was more accurate.
Title: Re: Why
Post by: Papist on April 26, 2012, 03:25:04 PM
Actually, I am in communion with the Melkite Catholic Church, and my patriarch is in communion with Rome, which is the way the Church Fathers understood the reciprocal nature of the relationship among the many local Churches with each other within the one Catholic communion.

As far as the term "vicar" is concerned, Christ is not absent from His Church and so there is no need for a "vicar."

Christos Voskrese!



Voistinu Voskrese!

Is that an opening for another "discussion" about what a "vicar" is and how that applies to the orthodox-but-not-Orthodox Catholic Church?
If a bishop needs a special title "Vicar of St. Peter" or "Vicar of the Apostles" is far better than "Vicar of Christ."  Christ is never absent from His body the Church, because He is omnipresent as the divine Logos.  St. Peter and the Apostles - on the other hand - remain limited beings, and so one could argue that they do need vicars to stand in for them.
You are really making a big deal out of simple termonology? Do you really think that Latins believe that Christ is absent from the Church?
Why use a word that etymologically means substitute unless you think you need one.  The earlier Roman tradition was to call the bishop of Rome "vicar of St. Peter," and that title was not only better, it was more accurate.
You know very well that the Latin Church teaches that Christ is present in the Church, unless you didn't really get a masters degree in theology.
Title: Re: Why
Post by: Apotheoun on April 26, 2012, 03:26:12 PM
Actually, I am in communion with the Melkite Catholic Church, and my patriarch is in communion with Rome, which is the way the Church Fathers understood the reciprocal nature of the relationship among the many local Churches with each other within the one Catholic communion.

As far as the term "vicar" is concerned, Christ is not absent from His Church and so there is no need for a "vicar."

Christos Voskrese!



Voistinu Voskrese!

Is that an opening for another "discussion" about what a "vicar" is and how that applies to the orthodox-but-not-Orthodox Catholic Church?
If a bishop needs a special title "Vicar of St. Peter" or "Vicar of the Apostles" is far better than "Vicar of Christ."  Christ is never absent from His body the Church, because He is omnipresent as the divine Logos.  St. Peter and the Apostles - on the other hand - remain limited beings, and so one could argue that they do need vicars to stand in for them.
You are really making a big deal out of simple termonology? Do you really think that Latins believe that Christ is absent from the Church?
Why use a word that etymologically means substitute unless you think you need one.  The earlier Roman tradition was to call the bishop of Rome "vicar of St. Peter," and that title was not only better, it was more accurate.
You know very well that the Latin Church teaches that Christ is present in the Church, unless you didn't really get a masters degree in theology.
All the more reason to avoid terms that state the opposite.
Title: Re: Why
Post by: J Michael on April 26, 2012, 03:27:35 PM
Actually, I am in communion with the Melkite Catholic Church, and my patriarch is in communion with Rome, which is the way the Church Fathers understood the reciprocal nature of the relationship among the many local Churches with each other within the one Catholic communion.

As far as the term "vicar" is concerned, Christ is not absent from His Church and so there is no need for a "vicar."

Christos Voskrese!



Voistinu Voskrese!

Is that an opening for another "discussion" about what a "vicar" is and how that applies to the orthodox-but-not-Orthodox Catholic Church?
If a bishop needs a special title "Vicar of St. Peter" or "Vicar of the Apostles" is far better than "Vicar of Christ."  Christ is never absent from His body the Church, because He is omnipresent as the divine Logos.  St. Peter and the Apostles - on the other hand - remain limited beings, and so one could argue that they do need vicars to stand in for them.
You are really making a big deal out of simple termonology? Do you really think that Latins believe that Christ is absent from the Church?

You beat me to it!

If he does, then he's in communion with someone in communion with someone in communion with....the wrong person.  (Gettin' dizzy again  ;D!)
Title: Re: Why
Post by: primuspilus on April 26, 2012, 03:28:16 PM
Quote
(1) I believe everything which Eastern Orthodoxy teaches.

(2) I am in communion with the Bishop of Rome as the first among the bishops, according to the limits recognized by the Holy Fathers of the East during the first millennium, before the separation
So, since the Easter Orthodox Church teaches that the Pope is a schismatic.......
I did not know that that was an article of faith in Eastern Orthodoxy.  Certainly it is a common opinion, but an article of faith.  Interesting.  ;D
Whatever makes you sleep better at night I suppose.....

Quote
Why use a word that etymologically means substitute unless you think you need one.  The earlier Roman tradition was to call the bishop of Rome "vicar of St. Peter," and that title was not only better, it was more accurate
Vicar of Christ has always seemed a bit haughty.

Quote
u know very well that the Latin Church teaches that Christ is present in the Church, unless you didn't really get a masters degree in theology
True, but appearances are everything.

PP
Title: Re: Why
Post by: Papist on April 26, 2012, 03:39:26 PM
Actually, I am in communion with the Melkite Catholic Church, and my patriarch is in communion with Rome, which is the way the Church Fathers understood the reciprocal nature of the relationship among the many local Churches with each other within the one Catholic communion.

As far as the term "vicar" is concerned, Christ is not absent from His Church and so there is no need for a "vicar."

Christos Voskrese!



Voistinu Voskrese!

Is that an opening for another "discussion" about what a "vicar" is and how that applies to the orthodox-but-not-Orthodox Catholic Church?
If a bishop needs a special title "Vicar of St. Peter" or "Vicar of the Apostles" is far better than "Vicar of Christ."  Christ is never absent from His body the Church, because He is omnipresent as the divine Logos.  St. Peter and the Apostles - on the other hand - remain limited beings, and so one could argue that they do need vicars to stand in for them.
You are really making a big deal out of simple termonology? Do you really think that Latins believe that Christ is absent from the Church?

You beat me to it!

If he does, then he's in communion with someone in communion with someone in communion with....the wrong person.  (Gettin' dizzy again  ;D!)
So far I am convinced that Todd is at least in communion with himself.
Title: Re: Why
Post by: J Michael on April 26, 2012, 03:42:22 PM
Actually, I am in communion with the Melkite Catholic Church, and my patriarch is in communion with Rome, which is the way the Church Fathers understood the reciprocal nature of the relationship among the many local Churches with each other within the one Catholic communion.

As far as the term "vicar" is concerned, Christ is not absent from His Church and so there is no need for a "vicar."

Christos Voskrese!



Voistinu Voskrese!

Is that an opening for another "discussion" about what a "vicar" is and how that applies to the orthodox-but-not-Orthodox Catholic Church?
If a bishop needs a special title "Vicar of St. Peter" or "Vicar of the Apostles" is far better than "Vicar of Christ."  Christ is never absent from His body the Church, because He is omnipresent as the divine Logos.  St. Peter and the Apostles - on the other hand - remain limited beings, and so one could argue that they do need vicars to stand in for them.
You are really making a big deal out of simple termonology? Do you really think that Latins believe that Christ is absent from the Church?

You beat me to it!

If he does, then he's in communion with someone in communion with someone in communion with....the wrong person.  (Gettin' dizzy again  ;D!)
So far I am convinced that Todd is at least in communion with himself.

Gotta start somewhere, eh?  :laugh: :laugh:
Title: Re: Why
Post by: Wyatt on April 26, 2012, 04:37:23 PM
Christ is never absent from His body the Church
I agree...but then this point raises a question in my mind: why is Christ returning on judgment day if He is already here?
Title: Re: Why
Post by: J Michael on April 26, 2012, 04:49:16 PM
Christ is never absent from His body the Church
I agree...but then this point raises a question in my mind: why is Christ returning on judgment day if He is already here?

He will be returning in His resurrected body, no?  The one with the wounds that St. Thomas put his fingers into, no?  "He will come again in glory (His resurrected body?) to judge the living and the dead."

I'm sure someone more theologically adept can put this better or fill in any gaps I've left.

So....if He is never absent from His body the Church, wouldn't that mean "in spirit", as in the Holy Spirit?  Or, in the Eucharist, which is obviously a different "body" than His resurrected (glorified?) body, no?  If so, then He is not, in a manner of speaking, here physically.  If that's the case, there's no contradiction with the concept of the Pope being His "substitute" here on Earth.  Or am I just talkin' nonsense again?

By the way, I didn't mean to imply that Christ has "different" bodies, or more than one body.  Actually, I'm not sure *what* I mean, now.
Title: Re: Why
Post by: elijahmaria on April 26, 2012, 05:13:42 PM
Quote
(1) I believe everything which Eastern Orthodoxy teaches.

(2) I am in communion with the Bishop of Rome as the first among the bishops, according to the limits recognized by the Holy Fathers of the East during the first millennium, before the separation
. . .

Also, since the Pope says that the Bishop of Rome has always been supreme, and the fathers said so too, these are a contradiction of terms, and can not be rectified.
Popes have said lots of things over the course of many centuries (e.g., Pope Honorius taught that there was only one will in Christ and was condemned for teaching that), but the Eastern bishops have never accepted what the bishops of Rome have said simply because they have said it.

Well that is a bit of hyperbole and isogesis...Are you related to al Misry?
Title: Re: Why
Post by: elijahmaria on April 26, 2012, 05:15:22 PM
Christ is never absent from His body the Church
I agree...but then this point raises a question in my mind: why is Christ returning on judgment day if He is already here?

Because He said that He would... ;)
Title: Re: Why
Post by: J Michael on April 26, 2012, 05:21:55 PM
Christ is never absent from His body the Church
I agree...but then this point raises a question in my mind: why is Christ returning on judgment day if He is already here?

Because He said that He would... ;)

 :laugh:  There *is* that, isn't there?  Good answer!
Title: Re: Why
Post by: dzheremi on April 26, 2012, 06:29:39 PM
This "vicar" language again? Funny how certain topics reoccur everywhere on the internet...

While I can't and won't make a guess at how well Apotheoun sleeps at night, I think that there is something to be said for the point of view that one is in communion with their Patriarch, without necessarily being in lock-step agreement with every decision made by every other church or bishop. Things like the differences in canon between the Ethiopians and the Copts, for instance, don't seem to keep either church up at night. Granted, there is a vast difference here in that we don't have the Ethiopians telling the rest of the communion that they must therefore add books to their canons or risk their eternal souls (or whatever other analogy you can think of that is analogous to Rome dictating to its "eastern lung"), but still...even though I don't understand how the Melkites do it, I can very much relate to the reaction of "well, that's Rome's POV, ours is ____". Maybe that's because I felt that way more and more in my process of de-conversion from the RCC. I guess not everybody is so willing to leave, but it's not like the Melkites are the first to tell Rome off (to some degree). The Maronites, of all people, did so too when Rome sent Papal legates who attempted to enforce Roman custom on them, and the Spanish did the same when the same situation played itself out regarding the Mozarabic vs. standard Roman liturgy. Neither groups were particularly successful in the long run, but there does seem to be a precedent here (and not just among Easterners, as the Maronites are Orientals and the Mozarabs Westerners).

Would any of you Catholic posters care to speculate as to the Catholic standing of the Maronites or the Spanish?
Title: Re: Why
Post by: biro on April 26, 2012, 06:46:20 PM
There's a Maronite Catholic parish in Tampa. Guess they're not quite as ticked off at the Pope as some would like them to be.
Title: Re: Why
Post by: dzheremi on April 26, 2012, 06:48:25 PM
 ???

I don't understand what you're getting at, Biro.
Title: Re: Why
Post by: ialmisry on April 26, 2012, 06:56:14 PM
Quote
(1) I believe everything which Eastern Orthodoxy teaches.

(2) I am in communion with the Bishop of Rome as the first among the bishops, according to the limits recognized by the Holy Fathers of the East during the first millennium, before the separation
. . .

Also, since the Pope says that the Bishop of Rome has always been supreme, and the fathers said so too, these are a contradiction of terms, and can not be rectified.
Popes have said lots of things over the course of many centuries (e.g., Pope Honorius taught that there was only one will in Christ and was condemned for teaching that), but the Eastern bishops have never accepted what the bishops of Rome have said simply because they have said it.

Well that is a bit of hyperbole and isogesis...Are you related to al Misry?
Unfortunately not. But we have the same clear thinking.  As to your muddled assertion, there is not the slightest bit of hyperbole and eisogesis in what Apotheoun wrote (or writes).  If only your posts could resemble those of your coreligionist....
Title: Re: Why
Post by: ialmisry on April 26, 2012, 06:58:00 PM
Actually, I am in communion with the Melkite Catholic Church, and my patriarch is in communion with Rome, which is the way the Church Fathers understood the reciprocal nature of the relationship among the many local Churches with each other within the one Catholic communion.

As far as the term "vicar" is concerned, Christ is not absent from His Church and so there is no need for a "vicar."

Christos Voskrese!



Voistinu Voskrese!

Is that an opening for another "discussion" about what a "vicar" is and how that applies to the orthodox-but-not-Orthodox Catholic Church?
If a bishop needs a special title "Vicar of St. Peter" or "Vicar of the Apostles" is far better than "Vicar of Christ."  Christ is never absent from His body the Church, because He is omnipresent as the divine Logos.  St. Peter and the Apostles - on the other hand - remain limited beings, and so one could argue that they do need vicars to stand in for them.
You are really making a big deal out of simple termonology? Do you really think that Latins believe that Christ is absent from the Church?

You beat me to it!

If he does, then he's in communion with someone in communion with someone in communion with....the wrong person.  (Gettin' dizzy again  ;D!)
So far I am convinced that Todd is at least in communion with himself.
He is in communion with Irish Melkite, not a bad place to be.
Title: Re: Why
Post by: Iconodule on April 26, 2012, 07:02:13 PM
Quote
(1) I believe everything which Eastern Orthodoxy teaches.

(2) I am in communion with the Bishop of Rome as the first among the bishops, according to the limits recognized by the Holy Fathers of the East during the first millennium, before the separation
. . .

Also, since the Pope says that the Bishop of Rome has always been supreme, and the fathers said so too, these are a contradiction of terms, and can not be rectified.
Popes have said lots of things over the course of many centuries (e.g., Pope Honorius taught that there was only one will in Christ and was condemned for teaching that), but the Eastern bishops have never accepted what the bishops of Rome have said simply because they have said it.

Well that is a bit of hyperbole and isogesis...Are you related to al Misry?
Unfortunately not. But we have the same clear thinking. 

Apotheoun's tortured reasoning in favor of continued communion with Rome is anything but clear.
Title: Re: Why
Post by: ialmisry on April 26, 2012, 07:11:44 PM
Quote
(1) I believe everything which Eastern Orthodoxy teaches.

(2) I am in communion with the Bishop of Rome as the first among the bishops, according to the limits recognized by the Holy Fathers of the East during the first millennium, before the separation
. . .

Also, since the Pope says that the Bishop of Rome has always been supreme, and the fathers said so too, these are a contradiction of terms, and can not be rectified.
Popes have said lots of things over the course of many centuries (e.g., Pope Honorius taught that there was only one will in Christ and was condemned for teaching that), but the Eastern bishops have never accepted what the bishops of Rome have said simply because they have said it.

Well that is a bit of hyperbole and isogesis...Are you related to al Misry?
Unfortunately not. But we have the same clear thinking. 

Apotheoun's tortured reasoning in favor of continued communion with Rome is anything but clear.
has nothing to do with what EM was quoting and commenting on.
Title: Re: Why
Post by: dzheremi on April 26, 2012, 07:15:15 PM
I don't know, Iconodule. I find Apotheoun's posts both here and on CAF to be very clear. In this particular case I cannot understand his choice, but that doesn't mean that he hasn't supported his positions with ample reference to his Patriarch and other sources of authority within his tradition.
Title: Re: Why
Post by: Iconodule on April 26, 2012, 07:16:35 PM
I don't know, Iconodule. I find Apotheoun's posts both here and on CAF to be very clear. In this particular case I cannot understand his choice, but that doesn't mean that he hasn't supported his positions with ample reference to his Patriarch and other sources of authority within his tradition.

He is able to quote statements, yes, but to weave a coherent, logical argument from them, no.
Title: Re: Why
Post by: Peter J on April 26, 2012, 07:18:43 PM
Quote
(1) I believe everything which Eastern Orthodoxy teaches.

(2) I am in communion with the Bishop of Rome as the first among the bishops, according to the limits recognized by the Holy Fathers of the East during the first millennium, before the separation
. . .

Also, since the Pope says that the Bishop of Rome has always been supreme, and the fathers said so too, these are a contradiction of terms, and can not be rectified.
Popes have said lots of things over the course of many centuries (e.g., Pope Honorius taught that there was only one will in Christ and was condemned for teaching that), but the Eastern bishops have never accepted what the bishops of Rome have said simply because they have said it.

Well that is a bit of hyperbole and isogesis...Are you related to al Misry?
Unfortunately not. But we have the same clear thinking.  As to your muddled assertion, there is not the slightest bit of hyperbole and eisogesis in what Apotheoun wrote (or writes). 

Well, "the Eastern bishops have never accepted what the bishops of Rome have said simply because they have said it" would seem like a bit of an exaggeration/generalization to some.
Title: Re: Why
Post by: ialmisry on April 26, 2012, 07:25:37 PM
Quote
(1) I believe everything which Eastern Orthodoxy teaches.

(2) I am in communion with the Bishop of Rome as the first among the bishops, according to the limits recognized by the Holy Fathers of the East during the first millennium, before the separation
. . .

Also, since the Pope says that the Bishop of Rome has always been supreme, and the fathers said so too, these are a contradiction of terms, and can not be rectified.
Popes have said lots of things over the course of many centuries (e.g., Pope Honorius taught that there was only one will in Christ and was condemned for teaching that), but the Eastern bishops have never accepted what the bishops of Rome have said simply because they have said it.

Well that is a bit of hyperbole and isogesis...Are you related to al Misry?
Unfortunately not. But we have the same clear thinking.  As to your muddled assertion, there is not the slightest bit of hyperbole and eisogesis in what Apotheoun wrote (or writes).  

Well, "the Eastern bishops have never accepted what the bishops of Rome have said simply because they have said it" would seem like a bit of an exaggeration/generalization to some.
They are wrong, as it is neither an exaggeration nor generalization, as no instance of the Eastern bishops accepting what the bishop of Rome said simply because he said it, can be cited.  Many instances of the bishop of Rome being told "no" can, on the contrary, be cited time and time again.
Title: Re: Why
Post by: biro on April 26, 2012, 07:47:42 PM
???

I don't understand what you're getting at, Biro.

Yes, you do.
Title: Re: Why
Post by: dzheremi on April 26, 2012, 07:53:42 PM
Um...I do? Wow. You know me so well...even better than I know myself, apparently! :D

(No, really...what?)
Title: Re: Why
Post by: Papist on April 26, 2012, 08:43:28 PM
This "vicar" language again? Funny how certain topics reoccur everywhere on the internet...

While I can't and won't make a guess at how well Apotheoun sleeps at night, I think that there is something to be said for the point of view that one is in communion with their Patriarch, without necessarily being in lock-step agreement with every decision made by every other church or bishop. Things like the differences in canon between the Ethiopians and the Copts, for instance, don't seem to keep either church up at night. Granted, there is a vast difference here in that we don't have the Ethiopians telling the rest of the communion that they must therefore add books to their canons or risk their eternal souls (or whatever other analogy you can think of that is analogous to Rome dictating to its "eastern lung"), but still...even though I don't understand how the Melkites do it, I can very much relate to the reaction of "well, that's Rome's POV, ours is ____". Maybe that's because I felt that way more and more in my process of de-conversion from the RCC. I guess not everybody is so willing to leave, but it's not like the Melkites are the first to tell Rome off (to some degree). The Maronites, of all people, did so too when Rome sent Papal legates who attempted to enforce Roman custom on them, and the Spanish did the same when the same situation played itself out regarding the Mozarabic vs. standard Roman liturgy. Neither groups were particularly successful in the long run, but there does seem to be a precedent here (and not just among Easterners, as the Maronites are Orientals and the Mozarabs Westerners).

Would any of you Catholic posters care to speculate as to the Catholic standing of the Maronites or the Spanish?
The Latin Church should not have tried to impose its traditions on the Maronites. That was wrong.
Title: Re: Why
Post by: Papist on April 26, 2012, 08:44:58 PM
Actually, I am in communion with the Melkite Catholic Church, and my patriarch is in communion with Rome, which is the way the Church Fathers understood the reciprocal nature of the relationship among the many local Churches with each other within the one Catholic communion.

As far as the term "vicar" is concerned, Christ is not absent from His Church and so there is no need for a "vicar."

Christos Voskrese!



Voistinu Voskrese!

Is that an opening for another "discussion" about what a "vicar" is and how that applies to the orthodox-but-not-Orthodox Catholic Church?
If a bishop needs a special title "Vicar of St. Peter" or "Vicar of the Apostles" is far better than "Vicar of Christ."  Christ is never absent from His body the Church, because He is omnipresent as the divine Logos.  St. Peter and the Apostles - on the other hand - remain limited beings, and so one could argue that they do need vicars to stand in for them.
You are really making a big deal out of simple termonology? Do you really think that Latins believe that Christ is absent from the Church?

You beat me to it!

If he does, then he's in communion with someone in communion with someone in communion with....the wrong person.  (Gettin' dizzy again  ;D!)
So far I am convinced that Todd is at least in communion with himself.
He is in communion with Irish Melkite, not a bad place to be.
I don't respect the positions of either of these men when it comes to Catholic Church. Whether they realize it or not, they are at best LARPing, and at worst lying to themselves.
Title: Re: Why
Post by: Peter J on April 26, 2012, 08:56:45 PM
Actually, I am in communion with the Melkite Catholic Church, and my patriarch is in communion with Rome, which is the way the Church Fathers understood the reciprocal nature of the relationship among the many local Churches with each other within the one Catholic communion.

As far as the term "vicar" is concerned, Christ is not absent from His Church and so there is no need for a "vicar."

Christos Voskrese!



Voistinu Voskrese!

Is that an opening for another "discussion" about what a "vicar" is and how that applies to the orthodox-but-not-Orthodox Catholic Church?
If a bishop needs a special title "Vicar of St. Peter" or "Vicar of the Apostles" is far better than "Vicar of Christ."  Christ is never absent from His body the Church, because He is omnipresent as the divine Logos.  St. Peter and the Apostles - on the other hand - remain limited beings, and so one could argue that they do need vicars to stand in for them.
You are really making a big deal out of simple termonology? Do you really think that Latins believe that Christ is absent from the Church?

You beat me to it!

If he does, then he's in communion with someone in communion with someone in communion with....the wrong person.  (Gettin' dizzy again  ;D!)
So far I am convinced that Todd is at least in communion with himself.
He is in communion with Irish Melkite, not a bad place to be.
I don't respect the positions of either of these men when it comes to Catholic Church. Whether they realize it or not, they are at best LARPing, and at worst lying to themselves.

The pope respects those positions, however, notwithstanding the fact that he doesn't agree with them.
Title: Re: Why
Post by: dzheremi on April 26, 2012, 09:00:27 PM
The Latin Church should not have tried to impose its traditions on the Maronites.

Nor on the Mozarabs, no? Even after the Papal legate sent to investigate it in the 10th century spoke approvingly of it (after the Council of Frankfurt had apparently insinuated that it was in some way at fault for the Toldean Bishop Elipando's adoptionist heresy due to its supposed "Islamic" influences, despite the fact that it predates both the birth of the heretical bishop and the arrival of the Muslims in Spain by nearly a century at least), it was still suppressed in all but a handful of parishes in and around Toledo. :(
Title: Re: Why
Post by: Papist on April 26, 2012, 09:39:25 PM
Actually, I am in communion with the Melkite Catholic Church, and my patriarch is in communion with Rome, which is the way the Church Fathers understood the reciprocal nature of the relationship among the many local Churches with each other within the one Catholic communion.

As far as the term "vicar" is concerned, Christ is not absent from His Church and so there is no need for a "vicar."

Christos Voskrese!



Voistinu Voskrese!

Is that an opening for another "discussion" about what a "vicar" is and how that applies to the orthodox-but-not-Orthodox Catholic Church?
If a bishop needs a special title "Vicar of St. Peter" or "Vicar of the Apostles" is far better than "Vicar of Christ."  Christ is never absent from His body the Church, because He is omnipresent as the divine Logos.  St. Peter and the Apostles - on the other hand - remain limited beings, and so one could argue that they do need vicars to stand in for them.
You are really making a big deal out of simple termonology? Do you really think that Latins believe that Christ is absent from the Church?

You beat me to it!

If he does, then he's in communion with someone in communion with someone in communion with....the wrong person.  (Gettin' dizzy again  ;D!)
So far I am convinced that Todd is at least in communion with himself.
He is in communion with Irish Melkite, not a bad place to be.
I don't respect the positions of either of these men when it comes to Catholic Church. Whether they realize it or not, they are at best LARPing, and at worst lying to themselves.

The pope respects those positions, however, notwithstanding the fact that he doesn't agree with them.
Are you sure about that?
Title: Re: Why
Post by: Papist on April 26, 2012, 09:40:11 PM
The Latin Church should not have tried to impose its traditions on the Maronites.

Nor on the Mozarabs, no? Even after the Papal legate sent to investigate it in the 10th century spoke approvingly of it (after the Council of Frankfurt had apparently insinuated that it was in some way at fault for the Toldean Bishop Elipando's adoptionist heresy due to its supposed "Islamic" influences, despite the fact that it predates both the birth of the heretical bishop and the arrival of the Muslims in Spain by nearly a century at least), it was still suppressed in all but a handful of parishes in and around Toledo. :(
I am not, nor have I ever been, in favor of Latinizations.
Title: Re: Why
Post by: Peter J on April 26, 2012, 10:05:59 PM
Actually, I am in communion with the Melkite Catholic Church, and my patriarch is in communion with Rome, which is the way the Church Fathers understood the reciprocal nature of the relationship among the many local Churches with each other within the one Catholic communion.

As far as the term "vicar" is concerned, Christ is not absent from His Church and so there is no need for a "vicar."

Christos Voskrese!



Voistinu Voskrese!

Is that an opening for another "discussion" about what a "vicar" is and how that applies to the orthodox-but-not-Orthodox Catholic Church?
If a bishop needs a special title "Vicar of St. Peter" or "Vicar of the Apostles" is far better than "Vicar of Christ."  Christ is never absent from His body the Church, because He is omnipresent as the divine Logos.  St. Peter and the Apostles - on the other hand - remain limited beings, and so one could argue that they do need vicars to stand in for them.
You are really making a big deal out of simple termonology? Do you really think that Latins believe that Christ is absent from the Church?

You beat me to it!

If he does, then he's in communion with someone in communion with someone in communion with....the wrong person.  (Gettin' dizzy again  ;D!)
So far I am convinced that Todd is at least in communion with himself.
He is in communion with Irish Melkite, not a bad place to be.
I don't respect the positions of either of these men when it comes to Catholic Church. Whether they realize it or not, they are at best LARPing, and at worst lying to themselves.

The pope respects those positions, however, notwithstanding the fact that he doesn't agree with them.
Are you sure about that?

It's hard to think otherwise. Consider, for example, what MarkosC mentioned, that Patriarch Gregorios concelebrated to the right of Pope Benedict at the latter's enthronement Mass.
Title: Re: Why
Post by: Peter J on April 26, 2012, 10:10:19 PM
P.S. Also, let's not forget that even a recent pope, Pope Paul VI, called Lyon II a general council.
Title: Re: Why
Post by: podkarpatska on April 26, 2012, 11:15:08 PM
Actually, I am in communion with the Melkite Catholic Church, and my patriarch is in communion with Rome, which is the way the Church Fathers understood the reciprocal nature of the relationship among the many local Churches with each other within the one Catholic communion.

As far as the term "vicar" is concerned, Christ is not absent from His Church and so there is no need for a "vicar."

Christos Voskrese!



Voistinu Voskrese!

Is that an opening for another "discussion" about what a "vicar" is and how that applies to the orthodox-but-not-Orthodox Catholic Church?
If a bishop needs a special title "Vicar of St. Peter" or "Vicar of the Apostles" is far better than "Vicar of Christ."  Christ is never absent from His body the Church, because He is omnipresent as the divine Logos.  St. Peter and the Apostles - on the other hand - remain limited beings, and so one could argue that they do need vicars to stand in for them.
You are really making a big deal out of simple termonology? Do you really think that Latins believe that Christ is absent from the Church?

You beat me to it!

If he does, then he's in communion with someone in communion with someone in communion with....the wrong person.  (Gettin' dizzy again  ;D!)
So far I am convinced that Todd is at least in communion with himself.
He is in communion with Irish Melkite, not a bad place to be.
I don't respect the positions of either of these men when it comes to Catholic Church. Whether they realize it or not, they are at best LARPing, and at worst lying to themselves.

How then do you view the rights, privileges and dignity of the Eastern Catholic 'sui juris' churches in Communion with the Holy See, particularly in light of Orientalium Ecclesiarum following Vatican 2?
Title: Re: Why
Post by: Cavaradossi on April 26, 2012, 11:43:34 PM
I don't know, Iconodule. I find Apotheoun's posts both here and on CAF to be very clear. In this particular case I cannot understand his choice, but that doesn't mean that he hasn't supported his positions with ample reference to his Patriarch and other sources of authority within his tradition.

He is able to quote statements, yes, but to weave a coherent, logical argument from them, no.

It's rather simple. The Church is where the bishop is. Apotheoun believes that his bishop holds the orthodox faith. There is, therefore, no reason for him to leave communion with his bishop for another. I can see where he is coming from (refusing to allow hierarchical super-structures define his faith), and I have great respect for this ideal.
Title: Re: Why
Post by: Papist on April 26, 2012, 11:48:33 PM
Actually, I am in communion with the Melkite Catholic Church, and my patriarch is in communion with Rome, which is the way the Church Fathers understood the reciprocal nature of the relationship among the many local Churches with each other within the one Catholic communion.

As far as the term "vicar" is concerned, Christ is not absent from His Church and so there is no need for a "vicar."

Christos Voskrese!



Voistinu Voskrese!

Is that an opening for another "discussion" about what a "vicar" is and how that applies to the orthodox-but-not-Orthodox Catholic Church?
If a bishop needs a special title "Vicar of St. Peter" or "Vicar of the Apostles" is far better than "Vicar of Christ."  Christ is never absent from His body the Church, because He is omnipresent as the divine Logos.  St. Peter and the Apostles - on the other hand - remain limited beings, and so one could argue that they do need vicars to stand in for them.
You are really making a big deal out of simple termonology? Do you really think that Latins believe that Christ is absent from the Church?

You beat me to it!

If he does, then he's in communion with someone in communion with someone in communion with....the wrong person.  (Gettin' dizzy again  ;D!)
So far I am convinced that Todd is at least in communion with himself.
He is in communion with Irish Melkite, not a bad place to be.
I don't respect the positions of either of these men when it comes to Catholic Church. Whether they realize it or not, they are at best LARPing, and at worst lying to themselves.

The pope respects those positions, however, notwithstanding the fact that he doesn't agree with them.
Are you sure about that?

It's hard to think otherwise. Consider, for example, what MarkosC mentioned, that Patriarch Gregorios concelebrated to the right of Pope Benedict at the latter's enthronement Mass.
That doesn't mean he respects dissenting views. He has made it clear in a recent speach that clergy who dissent from Church teaching do not do any service to the people of God. What it does show is that he recognizes that he is in communion with Patriarch Gregorios.
That being said, I think the Pope is in a most difficult situation. He's solidly orthodox, but at the same time he doesn't want to risk schism. The past is littered with unhealed schims.
Title: Re: Why
Post by: Papist on April 26, 2012, 11:49:25 PM
P.S. Also, let's not forget that even a recent pope, Pope Paul VI, called Lyon II a general council.
You can call a council a moogala for all it matters. It doesn't change the fact that it was dogmatic and binding.
Title: Re: Why
Post by: Papist on April 26, 2012, 11:50:27 PM
Actually, I am in communion with the Melkite Catholic Church, and my patriarch is in communion with Rome, which is the way the Church Fathers understood the reciprocal nature of the relationship among the many local Churches with each other within the one Catholic communion.

As far as the term "vicar" is concerned, Christ is not absent from His Church and so there is no need for a "vicar."

Christos Voskrese!



Voistinu Voskrese!

Is that an opening for another "discussion" about what a "vicar" is and how that applies to the orthodox-but-not-Orthodox Catholic Church?
If a bishop needs a special title "Vicar of St. Peter" or "Vicar of the Apostles" is far better than "Vicar of Christ."  Christ is never absent from His body the Church, because He is omnipresent as the divine Logos.  St. Peter and the Apostles - on the other hand - remain limited beings, and so one could argue that they do need vicars to stand in for them.
You are really making a big deal out of simple termonology? Do you really think that Latins believe that Christ is absent from the Church?

You beat me to it!

If he does, then he's in communion with someone in communion with someone in communion with....the wrong person.  (Gettin' dizzy again  ;D!)
So far I am convinced that Todd is at least in communion with himself.
He is in communion with Irish Melkite, not a bad place to be.
I don't respect the positions of either of these men when it comes to Catholic Church. Whether they realize it or not, they are at best LARPing, and at worst lying to themselves.

How then do you view the rights, privileges and dignity of the Eastern Catholic 'sui juris' churches in Communion with the Holy See, particularly in light of Orientalium Ecclesiarum following Vatican 2?
To which specific rights are you referring? Those rights cannot interefer with the dogmas defined at Vatican I.
Title: Re: Why
Post by: ialmisry on April 27, 2012, 12:00:40 AM
Actually, I am in communion with the Melkite Catholic Church, and my patriarch is in communion with Rome, which is the way the Church Fathers understood the reciprocal nature of the relationship among the many local Churches with each other within the one Catholic communion.

As far as the term "vicar" is concerned, Christ is not absent from His Church and so there is no need for a "vicar."

Christos Voskrese!



Voistinu Voskrese!

Is that an opening for another "discussion" about what a "vicar" is and how that applies to the orthodox-but-not-Orthodox Catholic Church?
If a bishop needs a special title "Vicar of St. Peter" or "Vicar of the Apostles" is far better than "Vicar of Christ."  Christ is never absent from His body the Church, because He is omnipresent as the divine Logos.  St. Peter and the Apostles - on the other hand - remain limited beings, and so one could argue that they do need vicars to stand in for them.
You are really making a big deal out of simple termonology? Do you really think that Latins believe that Christ is absent from the Church?

You beat me to it!

If he does, then he's in communion with someone in communion with someone in communion with....the wrong person.  (Gettin' dizzy again  ;D!)
So far I am convinced that Todd is at least in communion with himself.
He is in communion with Irish Melkite, not a bad place to be.
I don't respect the positions of either of these men when it comes to Catholic Church. Whether they realize it or not, they are at best LARPing, and at worst lying to themselves.

How then do you view the rights, privileges and dignity of the Eastern Catholic 'sui juris' churches in Communion with the Holy See, particularly in light of Orientalium Ecclesiarum following Vatican 2?
To which specific rights are you referring? Those rights cannot interefer with the dogmas defined at Vatican I.
LOL.  Of course not.
Quote
This power of the Supreme Pontiff by no means detracts from that ordinary and immediate power of episcopal jurisdiction, by which bishops, who have succeeded to the place of the apostles by appointment of the Holy Spirit, tend and govern individually the particular flocks which have been assigned to them. On the contrary, this power of theirs is asserted, supported and defended by the Supreme and Universal Pastor; for St. Gregory the Great says: "My honor is the honor of the whole Church. My honor is the steadfast strength of my brethren. Then do I receive true honor, when it is denied to none of those to whom honor is due."[
you all didn't think "the Supreme Pontiff" seriously meant anything of substance by that, did you?
Title: Re: Why
Post by: ialmisry on April 27, 2012, 12:54:54 AM
P.S. Also, let's not forget that even a recent pope, Pope Paul VI, called Lyon II a general council.
You can call a council a moogala for all it matters. It doesn't change the fact that it was dogmatic and binding.
He didn't call it: your supreme pontiff did, the one that your "Ecumenical Council" of Vatican II demands that "This religious submission of mind and will must be shown in a special way to the authentic magisterium of the Roman Pontiff, even when he is not speaking ex cathedra."  So your Pope Paul VI need not have called Lyon II a general council ex cathedra for you to be bound to submit your mind and will to his judgement.  "That is, it must be shown in such a way that his supreme magisterium is acknowledged with reverence, the judgments made by him are sincerely adhered to, according to his manifest mind and will. His mind and will in the matter may be known either from the character of the documents, from his frequent repetition of the same doctrine, or from his manner of speaking." So you are without excuse.  Unless, of course, you present supreme pontiff contradicts his predecessors.  Happens all the time. :D
Title: Re: Why
Post by: Peter J on April 27, 2012, 02:50:36 AM
P.S. Also, let's not forget that even a recent pope, Pope Paul VI, called Lyon II a general council.
You can call a council a moogala for all it matters. It doesn't change the fact that it was dogmatic and binding.

Pope Paul's statement suggests a possible return to traditional thinking regarding 8 councils. Namely, they were called general councils up until St. Bellarmine and his 16th century followers added them en masse to the list of ecumenical councils.
Title: Re: Why
Post by: Peter J on April 27, 2012, 02:54:15 AM
Actually, I am in communion with the Melkite Catholic Church, and my patriarch is in communion with Rome, which is the way the Church Fathers understood the reciprocal nature of the relationship among the many local Churches with each other within the one Catholic communion.

As far as the term "vicar" is concerned, Christ is not absent from His Church and so there is no need for a "vicar."

Christos Voskrese!



Voistinu Voskrese!

Is that an opening for another "discussion" about what a "vicar" is and how that applies to the orthodox-but-not-Orthodox Catholic Church?
If a bishop needs a special title "Vicar of St. Peter" or "Vicar of the Apostles" is far better than "Vicar of Christ."  Christ is never absent from His body the Church, because He is omnipresent as the divine Logos.  St. Peter and the Apostles - on the other hand - remain limited beings, and so one could argue that they do need vicars to stand in for them.
You are really making a big deal out of simple termonology? Do you really think that Latins believe that Christ is absent from the Church?

You beat me to it!

If he does, then he's in communion with someone in communion with someone in communion with....the wrong person.  (Gettin' dizzy again  ;D!)
So far I am convinced that Todd is at least in communion with himself.
He is in communion with Irish Melkite, not a bad place to be.
I don't respect the positions of either of these men when it comes to Catholic Church. Whether they realize it or not, they are at best LARPing, and at worst lying to themselves.

The pope respects those positions, however, notwithstanding the fact that he doesn't agree with them.
Are you sure about that?

It's hard to think otherwise. Consider, for example, what MarkosC mentioned, that Patriarch Gregorios concelebrated to the right of Pope Benedict at the latter's enthronement Mass.
That doesn't mean he respects dissenting views. He has made it clear in a recent speach that clergy who dissent from Church teaching do not do any service to the people of God. What it does show is that he recognizes that he is in communion with Patriarch Gregorios.
That being said, I think the Pope is in a most difficult situation. He's solidly orthodox, but at the same time he doesn't want to risk schism. The past is littered with unhealed schims.

But as I told someone else, the quoted statement from A.B. Zoghby doesn't contradict the papal dogmas. It says that they aren't really dogmas (and that VI wasn't an ecumenical council) but that's not the same as saying they're wrong.
Title: Re: Why
Post by: Peter J on April 27, 2012, 02:58:15 AM
Actually, I am in communion with the Melkite Catholic Church, and my patriarch is in communion with Rome, which is the way the Church Fathers understood the reciprocal nature of the relationship among the many local Churches with each other within the one Catholic communion.

As far as the term "vicar" is concerned, Christ is not absent from His Church and so there is no need for a "vicar."

Christos Voskrese!



Voistinu Voskrese!

Is that an opening for another "discussion" about what a "vicar" is and how that applies to the orthodox-but-not-Orthodox Catholic Church?
If a bishop needs a special title "Vicar of St. Peter" or "Vicar of the Apostles" is far better than "Vicar of Christ."  Christ is never absent from His body the Church, because He is omnipresent as the divine Logos.  St. Peter and the Apostles - on the other hand - remain limited beings, and so one could argue that they do need vicars to stand in for them.
You are really making a big deal out of simple termonology? Do you really think that Latins believe that Christ is absent from the Church?

You beat me to it!

If he does, then he's in communion with someone in communion with someone in communion with....the wrong person.  (Gettin' dizzy again  ;D!)
So far I am convinced that Todd is at least in communion with himself.
He is in communion with Irish Melkite, not a bad place to be.
I don't respect the positions of either of these men when it comes to Catholic Church. Whether they realize it or not, they are at best LARPing, and at worst lying to themselves.

How then do you view the rights, privileges and dignity of the Eastern Catholic 'sui juris' churches in Communion with the Holy See, particularly in light of Orientalium Ecclesiarum following Vatican 2?

I don't think Papist is being any more hard-nosed than most Orthodox are: you guys (most of you) aren't willing to unite with OOs unless they acknowledge all 7 councils -- even though they already agree with the teachings of those councils.
Title: Re: Why
Post by: Irish Melkite on April 27, 2012, 04:26:57 AM
Chris,

I have to admit that, after having spent close to 5 decades worshipping as an Eastern Catholic, 45 years of those years as a canonical Melkite, I've ceased being much surprised at anything said with regard to my religious affiliation, but ... a LARPer? That's pretty creative on your part; I've never even thought to use that description in regard to vagante episcopi - where it would be so much more easily understood than the true, but obscure, Latin term - I'll have to keep it in mind.

Todd, a LARPer as well? Who knew? I just thought he was a particularly principled Melkite Greek Catholic with whom I often agree and occasionally don't.

Is there a costume associated with such role play? If so, I'd like to pick one up. My two little ones have been suggesting that Dad should dress up when he takes them trick-or-treating and I've resisted because I wasn't sure that I could pull off it off well. Just how should a Melkite masquerading as a Catholic deck himself out for maximum believability (and to get his fair share of candy)?

Todd has put it well. Like Todd, I'm in communion with my Patriarch, as I was with his two predecessors, of blessed memory, and my patriarch is in communion with your patriarch (albeit the popes have elected not to use that title any longer). Additionally, I'm going to offer an understanding, a view if you will, that I've posted a few times in the past; it's one to which I held before you let me fully understand the apparent duplicity of my religious convictions.

Quote
Ours is a conflicted Church but we cannot and will not stand around, wringing our hands, and waiting for the moment at which the Holy Spirit decides to illumne all concerned and bring a millenium or more of separation to an end. So, we celebrate every aspect of the religious beliefs that we share either with both Rome and Constantinople or with only one of them. I can't ask that anyone fully understand; I'm not sure we always do. [It's one of those 'mystery' things, I guess].

It's not beyond imagining that, when the Catholic-Orthodox Dialogue Commission meets, and our Church name is mentioned, those on both sides look across the table and say - simultaneously - "what is with those Melkites?" - to which the simultaneous replies from both parties are shrugged shoulders and mumbled "who knows"  ???

We do not claim to be more orthodox in our catholicity than Catholics, nor more catholic in our orthodoxy than the Orthodox. We claim nothing more than to be what we are. And, we don't imagine that we're the only Christians of this stripe. I know or know of persons, both Catholic and Orthodox, as well as some few of other Churches. whom I consider to have also walked the fine line that allows one to see and appreciate the truth in both and long for, pray for, the time when there will be a single shared understanding of that truth.

In the interim, I'm a bit perplexed at what you'd have me and those like me do? Separate from Rome or from wherever we're presently moored and establish yet another division in the Christian faith? I think not; one hardly can wrap one's mind around the notion that such would be God-pleasing.

Isa, my brother and friend, paid me a great compliment

Quote from: ialmisry
He is in communion with Irish Melkite, not a bad place to be.

I consider being in communion with Todd to likewise not be a bad place to be.

At the same time, there are any number of folk, Isa being one, David another, Father Ambrose yet another (and the list goes on) with whom I would be honored to be in communio sacris. That such can't presently be the case (and won't be in my lifetime) is a source of unending pain, but I'd be lying if I didn't admit that I consider myself in spiritual communion with them.

Many years,

Neil 
Title: Re: Why
Post by: elijahmaria on April 27, 2012, 08:35:02 AM
Quote
This power of the Supreme Pontiff by no means detracts from that ordinary and immediate power of episcopal jurisdiction, by which bishops, who have succeeded to the place of the apostles by appointment of the Holy Spirit, tend and govern individually the particular flocks which have been assigned to them. On the contrary, this power of theirs is asserted, supported and defended by the Supreme and Universal Pastor; for St. Gregory the Great says: "My honor is the honor of the whole Church. My honor is the steadfast strength of my brethren. Then do I receive true honor, when it is denied to none of those to whom honor is due.

Not only did the Holy Father mean something by this but by this he signals the proper understanding of papal primacy.

XB!!

M.
Title: Re: Why
Post by: ialmisry on April 27, 2012, 10:09:41 AM
Quote
This power of the Supreme Pontiff by no means detracts from that ordinary and immediate power of episcopal jurisdiction, by which bishops, who have succeeded to the place of the apostles by appointment of the Holy Spirit, tend and govern individually the particular flocks which have been assigned to them. On the contrary, this power of theirs is asserted, supported and defended by the Supreme and Universal Pastor; for St. Gregory the Great says: "My honor is the honor of the whole Church. My honor is the steadfast strength of my brethren. Then do I receive true honor, when it is denied to none of those to whom honor is due.

Not only did the Holy Father mean something by this but by this he signals the proper understanding of papal primacy.
yes, that it doesn't include papal supremacy.

BB
Title: Re: Why
Post by: Papist on April 27, 2012, 10:15:26 AM
P.S. Also, let's not forget that even a recent pope, Pope Paul VI, called Lyon II a general council.
You can call a council a moogala for all it matters. It doesn't change the fact that it was dogmatic and binding.

Pope Paul's statement suggests a possible return to traditional thinking regarding 8 councils. Namely, they were called general councils up until St. Bellarmine and his 16th century followers added them en masse to the list of ecumenical councils.
Again, you can call them moogala if you want. That doesn't change the fact that they are dogmatic and binding.
Title: Re: Why
Post by: Papist on April 27, 2012, 10:16:50 AM
Actually, I am in communion with the Melkite Catholic Church, and my patriarch is in communion with Rome, which is the way the Church Fathers understood the reciprocal nature of the relationship among the many local Churches with each other within the one Catholic communion.

As far as the term "vicar" is concerned, Christ is not absent from His Church and so there is no need for a "vicar."

Christos Voskrese!



Voistinu Voskrese!

Is that an opening for another "discussion" about what a "vicar" is and how that applies to the orthodox-but-not-Orthodox Catholic Church?
If a bishop needs a special title "Vicar of St. Peter" or "Vicar of the Apostles" is far better than "Vicar of Christ."  Christ is never absent from His body the Church, because He is omnipresent as the divine Logos.  St. Peter and the Apostles - on the other hand - remain limited beings, and so one could argue that they do need vicars to stand in for them.
You are really making a big deal out of simple termonology? Do you really think that Latins believe that Christ is absent from the Church?

You beat me to it!

If he does, then he's in communion with someone in communion with someone in communion with....the wrong person.  (Gettin' dizzy again  ;D!)
So far I am convinced that Todd is at least in communion with himself.
He is in communion with Irish Melkite, not a bad place to be.
I don't respect the positions of either of these men when it comes to Catholic Church. Whether they realize it or not, they are at best LARPing, and at worst lying to themselves.

The pope respects those positions, however, notwithstanding the fact that he doesn't agree with them.
Are you sure about that?

It's hard to think otherwise. Consider, for example, what MarkosC mentioned, that Patriarch Gregorios concelebrated to the right of Pope Benedict at the latter's enthronement Mass.
That doesn't mean he respects dissenting views. He has made it clear in a recent speach that clergy who dissent from Church teaching do not do any service to the people of God. What it does show is that he recognizes that he is in communion with Patriarch Gregorios.
That being said, I think the Pope is in a most difficult situation. He's solidly orthodox, but at the same time he doesn't want to risk schism. The past is littered with unhealed schims.

But as I told someone else, the quoted statement from A.B. Zoghby doesn't contradict the papal dogmas. It says that they aren't really dogmas (and that VI wasn't an ecumenical council) but that's not the same as saying they're wrong.
Which a way of jumping through theological hoops so that one can dissent from Church teaching. I have 0% for this approach. Either be Catholic or don't.
Title: Re: Why
Post by: Jetavan on April 27, 2012, 10:18:08 AM
....
Which a way of jumping through theological hoops so that one can dissent from Church teaching. I have 0% for this approach. Either be Catholic or don't.
Are you suggesting that all dissenters should be excommunicated?
Title: Re: Why
Post by: podkarpatska on April 27, 2012, 10:21:03 AM
P.S. Also, let's not forget that even a recent pope, Pope Paul VI, called Lyon II a general council.
You can call a council a moogala for all it matters. It doesn't change the fact that it was dogmatic and binding.

If you stick to that line and Rome does not - where will that leave you?

Recognizing the post-schism councils as local synods by both east and west is the first step to any reunion with the west agreeing, and the east looking the other way,  that those councils' theological interpretations are just that - theologoumena and not dogma.  

In other words, as we did before the break - we have to agree to disagree - as the Eastern fathers did for centuries with regards to the teachings of St. Augustine on the nature of sin and the nature of man.

The problem of course is that for Rome to admit the same would place the sincerely held beliefs of perhaps a billion or so Roman Catholics at risk as centuries of teachings have held quite to the contrary. Hence, I can't construct a result where that happens.
Title: Re: Why
Post by: podkarpatska on April 27, 2012, 10:24:27 AM
Actually, I am in communion with the Melkite Catholic Church, and my patriarch is in communion with Rome, which is the way the Church Fathers understood the reciprocal nature of the relationship among the many local Churches with each other within the one Catholic communion.

As far as the term "vicar" is concerned, Christ is not absent from His Church and so there is no need for a "vicar."

Christos Voskrese!



Voistinu Voskrese!

Is that an opening for another "discussion" about what a "vicar" is and how that applies to the orthodox-but-not-Orthodox Catholic Church?
If a bishop needs a special title "Vicar of St. Peter" or "Vicar of the Apostles" is far better than "Vicar of Christ."  Christ is never absent from His body the Church, because He is omnipresent as the divine Logos.  St. Peter and the Apostles - on the other hand - remain limited beings, and so one could argue that they do need vicars to stand in for them.
You are really making a big deal out of simple termonology? Do you really think that Latins believe that Christ is absent from the Church?

You beat me to it!

If he does, then he's in communion with someone in communion with someone in communion with....the wrong person.  (Gettin' dizzy again  ;D!)
So far I am convinced that Todd is at least in communion with himself.
He is in communion with Irish Melkite, not a bad place to be.
I don't respect the positions of either of these men when it comes to Catholic Church. Whether they realize it or not, they are at best LARPing, and at worst lying to themselves.

The pope respects those positions, however, notwithstanding the fact that he doesn't agree with them.
Are you sure about that?

It's hard to think otherwise. Consider, for example, what MarkosC mentioned, that Patriarch Gregorios concelebrated to the right of Pope Benedict at the latter's enthronement Mass.
That doesn't mean he respects dissenting views. He has made it clear in a recent speach that clergy who dissent from Church teaching do not do any service to the people of God. What it does show is that he recognizes that he is in communion with Patriarch Gregorios.
That being said, I think the Pope is in a most difficult situation. He's solidly orthodox, but at the same time he doesn't want to risk schism. The past is littered with unhealed schims.

But as I told someone else, the quoted statement from A.B. Zoghby doesn't contradict the papal dogmas. It says that they aren't really dogmas (and that VI wasn't an ecumenical council) but that's not the same as saying they're wrong.

Exactly, and consistent with my previous post in response to Papist's comment about a 'moogala'. If you look at how vociferously we Orthodox argue about certain theologoumena like (and I HATE to mention them) Toll-houses you would get an example of what I am talking about. We argue about it incessantly but we don't kick each other out of the house over it. (at least the sane ones of us don't do that.)
Title: Re: Why
Post by: podkarpatska on April 27, 2012, 10:32:31 AM
Actually, I am in communion with the Melkite Catholic Church, and my patriarch is in communion with Rome, which is the way the Church Fathers understood the reciprocal nature of the relationship among the many local Churches with each other within the one Catholic communion.

As far as the term "vicar" is concerned, Christ is not absent from His Church and so there is no need for a "vicar."

Christos Voskrese!



Voistinu Voskrese!

Is that an opening for another "discussion" about what a "vicar" is and how that applies to the orthodox-but-not-Orthodox Catholic Church?
If a bishop needs a special title "Vicar of St. Peter" or "Vicar of the Apostles" is far better than "Vicar of Christ."  Christ is never absent from His body the Church, because He is omnipresent as the divine Logos.  St. Peter and the Apostles - on the other hand - remain limited beings, and so one could argue that they do need vicars to stand in for them.
You are really making a big deal out of simple termonology? Do you really think that Latins believe that Christ is absent from the Church?

You beat me to it!

If he does, then he's in communion with someone in communion with someone in communion with....the wrong person.  (Gettin' dizzy again  ;D!)
So far I am convinced that Todd is at least in communion with himself.
He is in communion with Irish Melkite, not a bad place to be.
I don't respect the positions of either of these men when it comes to Catholic Church. Whether they realize it or not, they are at best LARPing, and at worst lying to themselves.

The pope respects those positions, however, notwithstanding the fact that he doesn't agree with them.
Are you sure about that?

It's hard to think otherwise. Consider, for example, what MarkosC mentioned, that Patriarch Gregorios concelebrated to the right of Pope Benedict at the latter's enthronement Mass.
That doesn't mean he respects dissenting views. He has made it clear in a recent speach that clergy who dissent from Church teaching do not do any service to the people of God. What it does show is that he recognizes that he is in communion with Patriarch Gregorios.
That being said, I think the Pope is in a most difficult situation. He's solidly orthodox, but at the same time he doesn't want to risk schism. The past is littered with unhealed schims.

But as I told someone else, the quoted statement from A.B. Zoghby doesn't contradict the papal dogmas. It says that they aren't really dogmas (and that VI wasn't an ecumenical council) but that's not the same as saying they're wrong.
Which a way of jumping through theological hoops so that one can dissent from Church teaching. I have 0% for this approach. Either be Catholic or don't.

Which, thanks be to God and the intercession of the Saints and the protection of the Theotokas - much of the non-Hellenist presence of Orthodoxy in North America - not just OCA and ACROD - including the Antiochians and Ukrainians - can be thankful for the choices made by their ancestors when the time to choose was before them.

For that matter - the continued existence of the Eastern Catholic Church in North America owes a debt to those who made that leap as well - because Rome was shown that people of conscience will choose as did Becket or Thomas More rather than renounce their faith. No doubt Rome's 1870-1960 plan for them was to make them like the Maronites.

The moderating of statements made by Vatican 2 and the refinement of the rules by the Congregation for the Eastern Churches is no doubt a result of someone actually reading the petitions and open letters sent to Rome in the 1930 through 1960 period by Greek Catholics who consciences were challenged by Rome's 'interpretations' of the terms of Union and who recognized the academic, legal and spiritual truths which were contained therein.
Title: Re: Why
Post by: podkarpatska on April 27, 2012, 10:33:50 AM
Chris,

I have to admit that, after having spent close to 5 decades worshipping as an Eastern Catholic, 45 years of those years as a canonical Melkite, I've ceased being much surprised at anything said with regard to my religious affiliation, but ... a LARPer? That's pretty creative on your part; I've never even thought to use that description in regard to vagante episcopi - where it would be so much more easily understood than the true, but obscure, Latin term - I'll have to keep it in mind.

Todd, a LARPer as well? Who knew? I just thought he was a particularly principled Melkite Greek Catholic with whom I often agree and occasionally don't.

Is there a costume associated with such role play? If so, I'd like to pick one up. My two little ones have been suggesting that Dad should dress up when he takes them trick-or-treating and I've resisted because I wasn't sure that I could pull off it off well. Just how should a Melkite masquerading as a Catholic deck himself out for maximum believability (and to get his fair share of candy)?

Todd has put it well. Like Todd, I'm in communion with my Patriarch, as I was with his two predecessors, of blessed memory, and my patriarch is in communion with your patriarch (albeit the popes have elected not to use that title any longer). Additionally, I'm going to offer an understanding, a view if you will, that I've posted a few times in the past; it's one to which I held before you let me fully understand the apparent duplicity of my religious convictions.

Quote
Ours is a conflicted Church but we cannot and will not stand around, wringing our hands, and waiting for the moment at which the Holy Spirit decides to illumne all concerned and bring a millenium or more of separation to an end. So, we celebrate every aspect of the religious beliefs that we share either with both Rome and Constantinople or with only one of them. I can't ask that anyone fully understand; I'm not sure we always do. [It's one of those 'mystery' things, I guess].

It's not beyond imagining that, when the Catholic-Orthodox Dialogue Commission meets, and our Church name is mentioned, those on both sides look across the table and say - simultaneously - "what is with those Melkites?" - to which the simultaneous replies from both parties are shrugged shoulders and mumbled "who knows"  ???

We do not claim to be more orthodox in our catholicity than Catholics, nor more catholic in our orthodoxy than the Orthodox. We claim nothing more than to be what we are. And, we don't imagine that we're the only Christians of this stripe. I know or know of persons, both Catholic and Orthodox, as well as some few of other Churches. whom I consider to have also walked the fine line that allows one to see and appreciate the truth in both and long for, pray for, the time when there will be a single shared understanding of that truth.

In the interim, I'm a bit perplexed at what you'd have me and those like me do? Separate from Rome or from wherever we're presently moored and establish yet another division in the Christian faith? I think not; one hardly can wrap one's mind around the notion that such would be God-pleasing.

Isa, my brother and friend, paid me a great compliment

Quote from: ialmisry
He is in communion with Irish Melkite, not a bad place to be.

I consider being in communion with Todd to likewise not be a bad place to be.

At the same time, there are any number of folk, Isa being one, David another, Father Ambrose yet another (and the list goes on) with whom I would be honored to be in communio sacris. That such can't presently be the case (and won't be in my lifetime) is a source of unending pain, but I'd be lying if I didn't admit that I consider myself in spiritual communion with them.

Many years,

Neil 

x3
Title: Re: Why
Post by: Papist on April 27, 2012, 10:39:15 AM
Chris,

I have to admit that, after having spent close to 5 decades worshipping as an Eastern Catholic, 45 years of those years as a canonical Melkite, I've ceased being much surprised at anything said with regard to my religious affiliation, but ... a LARPer? That's pretty creative on your part; I've never even thought to use that description in regard to vagante episcopi - where it would be so much more easily understood than the true, but obscure, Latin term - I'll have to keep it in mind.

Todd, a LARPer as well? Who knew? I just thought he was a particularly principled Melkite Greek Catholic with whom I often agree and occasionally don't.

Is there a costume associated with such role play? If so, I'd like to pick one up. My two little ones have been suggesting that Dad should dress up when he takes them trick-or-treating and I've resisted because I wasn't sure that I could pull off it off well. Just how should a Melkite masquerading as a Catholic deck himself out for maximum believability (and to get his fair share of candy)?

Todd has put it well. Like Todd, I'm in communion with my Patriarch, as I was with his two predecessors, of blessed memory, and my patriarch is in communion with your patriarch (albeit the popes have elected not to use that title any longer). Additionally, I'm going to offer an understanding, a view if you will, that I've posted a few times in the past; it's one to which I held before you let me fully understand the apparent duplicity of my religious convictions.

Quote
Ours is a conflicted Church but we cannot and will not stand around, wringing our hands, and waiting for the moment at which the Holy Spirit decides to illumne all concerned and bring a millenium or more of separation to an end. So, we celebrate every aspect of the religious beliefs that we share either with both Rome and Constantinople or with only one of them. I can't ask that anyone fully understand; I'm not sure we always do. [It's one of those 'mystery' things, I guess].

It's not beyond imagining that, when the Catholic-Orthodox Dialogue Commission meets, and our Church name is mentioned, those on both sides look across the table and say - simultaneously - "what is with those Melkites?" - to which the simultaneous replies from both parties are shrugged shoulders and mumbled "who knows"  ???

We do not claim to be more orthodox in our catholicity than Catholics, nor more catholic in our orthodoxy than the Orthodox. We claim nothing more than to be what we are. And, we don't imagine that we're the only Christians of this stripe. I know or know of persons, both Catholic and Orthodox, as well as some few of other Churches. whom I consider to have also walked the fine line that allows one to see and appreciate the truth in both and long for, pray for, the time when there will be a single shared understanding of that truth.

In the interim, I'm a bit perplexed at what you'd have me and those like me do? Separate from Rome or from wherever we're presently moored and establish yet another division in the Christian faith? I think not; one hardly can wrap one's mind around the notion that such would be God-pleasing.

Isa, my brother and friend, paid me a great compliment

Quote from: ialmisry
He is in communion with Irish Melkite, not a bad place to be.

I consider being in communion with Todd to likewise not be a bad place to be.

At the same time, there are any number of folk, Isa being one, David another, Father Ambrose yet another (and the list goes on) with whom I would be honored to be in communio sacris. That such can't presently be the case (and won't be in my lifetime) is a source of unending pain, but I'd be lying if I didn't admit that I consider myself in spiritual communion with them.

Many years,

Neil 
I call those who act and believe as you do "LARPers" for two reasons. You like act as if you are Catholic in your faith, but you are not. You reject dogmas of the faith. You also like to pretend like you are Eastern Orthodox, but you are not. You accept their faith, but you reject communion with the EOs. The most honest thing that people who believe as you do can do is to leave the Catholic Church and enter into communion with the EOs. I can't, for the life of me, see why you don't choose that path.
Title: Re: Why
Post by: Papist on April 27, 2012, 10:39:59 AM
....
Which a way of jumping through theological hoops so that one can dissent from Church teaching. I have 0% for this approach. Either be Catholic or don't.
Are you suggesting that all dissenters should be excommunicated?
No. I am suggesting that dissenters should do the honest thing and realize that they are no longer Catholic.
Title: Re: Why
Post by: Papist on April 27, 2012, 10:41:55 AM
P.S. Also, let's not forget that even a recent pope, Pope Paul VI, called Lyon II a general council.
You can call a council a moogala for all it matters. It doesn't change the fact that it was dogmatic and binding.

If you stick to that line and Rome does not - where will that leave you?

Recognizing the post-schism councils as local synods by both east and west is the first step to any reunion with the west agreeing, and the east looking the other way,  that those councils' theological interpretations are just that - theologoumena and not dogma.  

In other words, as we did before the break - we have to agree to disagree - as the Eastern fathers did for centuries with regards to the teachings of St. Augustine on the nature of sin and the nature of man.

The problem of course is that for Rome to admit the same would place the sincerely held beliefs of perhaps a billion or so Roman Catholics at risk as centuries of teachings have held quite to the contrary. Hence, I can't construct a result where that happens.
Well, first off, I don't think that Rome would do that, or they even made such a statement, it would be so nuanced that it could be interperated 100 different ways. However, if Rome did that, I would join the ranks of those who hold the traditional faith of the council of Trent, but believes that the See of Peter is empty. Of course, I can't imagine such a thing happening.
Title: Re: Why
Post by: Papist on April 27, 2012, 10:45:16 AM
Actually, I am in communion with the Melkite Catholic Church, and my patriarch is in communion with Rome, which is the way the Church Fathers understood the reciprocal nature of the relationship among the many local Churches with each other within the one Catholic communion.

As far as the term "vicar" is concerned, Christ is not absent from His Church and so there is no need for a "vicar."

Christos Voskrese!



Voistinu Voskrese!

Is that an opening for another "discussion" about what a "vicar" is and how that applies to the orthodox-but-not-Orthodox Catholic Church?
If a bishop needs a special title "Vicar of St. Peter" or "Vicar of the Apostles" is far better than "Vicar of Christ."  Christ is never absent from His body the Church, because He is omnipresent as the divine Logos.  St. Peter and the Apostles - on the other hand - remain limited beings, and so one could argue that they do need vicars to stand in for them.
You are really making a big deal out of simple termonology? Do you really think that Latins believe that Christ is absent from the Church?

You beat me to it!

If he does, then he's in communion with someone in communion with someone in communion with....the wrong person.  (Gettin' dizzy again  ;D!)
So far I am convinced that Todd is at least in communion with himself.
He is in communion with Irish Melkite, not a bad place to be.
I don't respect the positions of either of these men when it comes to Catholic Church. Whether they realize it or not, they are at best LARPing, and at worst lying to themselves.

The pope respects those positions, however, notwithstanding the fact that he doesn't agree with them.
Are you sure about that?

It's hard to think otherwise. Consider, for example, what MarkosC mentioned, that Patriarch Gregorios concelebrated to the right of Pope Benedict at the latter's enthronement Mass.
That doesn't mean he respects dissenting views. He has made it clear in a recent speach that clergy who dissent from Church teaching do not do any service to the people of God. What it does show is that he recognizes that he is in communion with Patriarch Gregorios.
That being said, I think the Pope is in a most difficult situation. He's solidly orthodox, but at the same time he doesn't want to risk schism. The past is littered with unhealed schims.

But as I told someone else, the quoted statement from A.B. Zoghby doesn't contradict the papal dogmas. It says that they aren't really dogmas (and that VI wasn't an ecumenical council) but that's not the same as saying they're wrong.

Exactly, and consistent with my previous post in response to Papist's comment about a 'moogala'. If you look at how vociferously we Orthodox argue about certain theologoumena like (and I HATE to mention them) Toll-houses you would get an example of what I am talking about. We argue about it incessantly but we don't kick each other out of the house over it. (at least the sane ones of us don't do that.)
I think there is a big difference between arguing about concepts such as Limbo or Toll houses, and arguing about concepts that have been canonized by the Church. Where does it end? Will we start calling the later of the seven councils ecumenical? Can we start arguing that the dogmas of Chalcedon were only declared in a "general council", so as not to offened the Oriental Catholics and the Oriental Orthodox? Understand this, there is much that I love about the Easter, and I love my Eastern Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox brothers and sisters, but I have no patience for Catholics in the fold who try to water down the faith.
Title: Re: Why
Post by: Papist on April 27, 2012, 10:46:37 AM
Actually, I am in communion with the Melkite Catholic Church, and my patriarch is in communion with Rome, which is the way the Church Fathers understood the reciprocal nature of the relationship among the many local Churches with each other within the one Catholic communion.

As far as the term "vicar" is concerned, Christ is not absent from His Church and so there is no need for a "vicar."

Christos Voskrese!



Voistinu Voskrese!

Is that an opening for another "discussion" about what a "vicar" is and how that applies to the orthodox-but-not-Orthodox Catholic Church?
If a bishop needs a special title "Vicar of St. Peter" or "Vicar of the Apostles" is far better than "Vicar of Christ."  Christ is never absent from His body the Church, because He is omnipresent as the divine Logos.  St. Peter and the Apostles - on the other hand - remain limited beings, and so one could argue that they do need vicars to stand in for them.
You are really making a big deal out of simple termonology? Do you really think that Latins believe that Christ is absent from the Church?

You beat me to it!

If he does, then he's in communion with someone in communion with someone in communion with....the wrong person.  (Gettin' dizzy again  ;D!)
So far I am convinced that Todd is at least in communion with himself.
He is in communion with Irish Melkite, not a bad place to be.
I don't respect the positions of either of these men when it comes to Catholic Church. Whether they realize it or not, they are at best LARPing, and at worst lying to themselves.

The pope respects those positions, however, notwithstanding the fact that he doesn't agree with them.
Are you sure about that?

It's hard to think otherwise. Consider, for example, what MarkosC mentioned, that Patriarch Gregorios concelebrated to the right of Pope Benedict at the latter's enthronement Mass.
That doesn't mean he respects dissenting views. He has made it clear in a recent speach that clergy who dissent from Church teaching do not do any service to the people of God. What it does show is that he recognizes that he is in communion with Patriarch Gregorios.
That being said, I think the Pope is in a most difficult situation. He's solidly orthodox, but at the same time he doesn't want to risk schism. The past is littered with unhealed schims.

But as I told someone else, the quoted statement from A.B. Zoghby doesn't contradict the papal dogmas. It says that they aren't really dogmas (and that VI wasn't an ecumenical council) but that's not the same as saying they're wrong.
Which a way of jumping through theological hoops so that one can dissent from Church teaching. I have 0% for this approach. Either be Catholic or don't.

Which, thanks be to God and the intercession of the Saints and the protection of the Theotokas - much of the non-Hellenist presence of Orthodoxy in North America - not just OCA and ACROD - including the Antiochians and Ukrainians - can be thankful for the choices made by their ancestors when the time to choose was before them.

For that matter - the continued existence of the Eastern Catholic Church in North America owes a debt to those who made that leap as well - because Rome was shown that people of conscience will choose as did Becket or Thomas More rather than renounce their faith. No doubt Rome's 1870-1960 plan for them was to make them like the Maronites.

The moderating of statements made by Vatican 2 and the refinement of the rules by the Congregation for the Eastern Churches is no doubt a result of someone actually reading the petitions and open letters sent to Rome in the 1930 through 1960 period by Greek Catholics who consciences were challenged by Rome's 'interpretations' of the terms of Union and who recognized the academic, legal and spiritual truths which were contained therein.
I respect the decisions of those who disagree with the Catholic Church and go into communion with the Eastern Orthodox. I do not respect the choices of those who disagree with the Catholic Church and remain in her fold. That is dishonest.
Title: Re: Why
Post by: Peter J on April 27, 2012, 11:03:09 AM
....
Which a way of jumping through theological hoops so that one can dissent from Church teaching. I have 0% for this approach. Either be Catholic or don't.
Are you suggesting that all dissenters should be excommunicated?
No. I am suggesting that dissenters should do the honest thing and realize that they are no longer Catholic.

See:


I know the Orthodox Church isn't the greenest, but, as you say, at least we don't have to worry about being morally obligated to vote for future President Dolan.

I hope you did not mistake my note to you as a CAF put down...oh my no!  I am more than happy to see you convert to Orthodoxy.  Your reasoning makes you a natural for moving.

Christ is Risen!

M.

This kind of happy-to-see-you-convert statement is, from my own experience talking with fellow Catholics, surprisingly common among Catholics.

Even Dr. Anthony Dragani said (http://www.byzcath.org/forums/ubbthreads.php/topics/83161/Death%20of%20Byzantine%20Catholicism):

Quote
What saddens me is the statement that we are making to others. Among so many Byzantine Catholics, the following premises now seem to dominate:

1. Rome has a messed up ecclesiology, and is wrong to micromanage so much. (I have to agree with this one, at least to some extent).

2. Orthodox ecclesiology is the right model.

3. The claims of the Pope to infallibility in specific instances are false.

4. There is no substantial benefit to being Byzantine Catholic as opposed to being Eastern Orthodox.

Anyone who follows these premises to their logical conclusion would - and should become Eastern Orthodox. It would be senseless to stay in a situation where a false ecclesiology dominates.

(I should mention that he said this in the context of trying to get ECs to have a more positive attitude toward being EC. Nevertheless, the fact that he said "Anyone who follows these premises to their logical conclusion would - and should become Eastern Orthodox" amazes me. I should also mention that this was more than a decade ago, and I don't know whether his current views are the same or not.)

Another example I could have given is Fr J. Steele -- although, unlike Dr. Dragani, he isn't someone I respect (I did, in fact, know and respect him about 10 years ago) -- who said:

Quote
The OICWR crowd is a tiny but vocal minority resident mostly online at ByzCath. They are not representative of the countless good Eastern Catholics one finds in church on Sunday.

I would beg to differ that these malcontents do not display a toxic anti-Westernism. That is pretty much all they are about, save a tenuous and virtually meaningless communion with Rome.

Most dox. And they should, in the interest of honesty.

(emphasis added) OICWR is "Orthodox in communion with Rome".

-http://ad-orientem.blogspot.com/2009/07/orthodox-in-communion-with-rome.html

Seriously though, that wouldn't suit the Vatican as Cardinal Lubomir Huzar was a leading proponent of the OICWR argument while he was Major Archbishop of the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church - by far the largest of the Eastern Churches in Communion with Rome. The whole matter is most confusing to me, I must confess.

It's definitely a tricky issue.

On the hand, Catholicism isn't anything-goes, nor should it be. Excommunication is still a possibility (although I'm glad that they aren't handed out as easily as they were in Martin Luther's day). Fr Feeney comes to mind for example.

On the other hand, I think many Catholics nowadays feel far too empowered to politely encourage fellow Catholics (the ones they disagree with to be specific) to leave Catholicism. Few of them would phrase it the way Fr. Steele did, but it's extremely common* nevertheless.

* You'll recall I said earlier that I was amazed by what Dr. Dragani said. I should have said I was amazed that he said it. If it had been a Catholic I had just met on CAF, it would have been no surprise.

I think there is some value to the commentary that anyone who is in a constant state of dissent, and publicly attacking the Church, has ALREADY ex-communicated themselves and so they remain and commune in a state, at least, of objective unworthiness.

I agree that there such a thing as automatic excommunication; but the term dissent has multiple meanings. For example, Melkites are often called dissenters. (I could come up with other examples, but I choose the Melkite Church because it is especially dear to me, having gone to Melkite liturgies weekly since 2002.)

The issue I have with what you're saying is essentially the issue I raised with elijahmaria: who is automatically excommunicated? Archbishop Zoghby, for example? I think not -- not unless the Pope has really gone off the deep-end in terms of political correctness and not-wanting-to-offend-anyone.
Title: Re: Why
Post by: Papist on April 27, 2012, 11:07:19 AM
....
Which a way of jumping through theological hoops so that one can dissent from Church teaching. I have 0% for this approach. Either be Catholic or don't.
Are you suggesting that all dissenters should be excommunicated?
No. I am suggesting that dissenters should do the honest thing and realize that they are no longer Catholic.

See:


I know the Orthodox Church isn't the greenest, but, as you say, at least we don't have to worry about being morally obligated to vote for future President Dolan.

I hope you did not mistake my note to you as a CAF put down...oh my no!  I am more than happy to see you convert to Orthodoxy.  Your reasoning makes you a natural for moving.

Christ is Risen!

M.

This kind of happy-to-see-you-convert statement is, from my own experience talking with fellow Catholics, surprisingly common among Catholics.

Even Dr. Anthony Dragani said (http://www.byzcath.org/forums/ubbthreads.php/topics/83161/Death%20of%20Byzantine%20Catholicism):

Quote
What saddens me is the statement that we are making to others. Among so many Byzantine Catholics, the following premises now seem to dominate:

1. Rome has a messed up ecclesiology, and is wrong to micromanage so much. (I have to agree with this one, at least to some extent).

2. Orthodox ecclesiology is the right model.

3. The claims of the Pope to infallibility in specific instances are false.

4. There is no substantial benefit to being Byzantine Catholic as opposed to being Eastern Orthodox.

Anyone who follows these premises to their logical conclusion would - and should become Eastern Orthodox. It would be senseless to stay in a situation where a false ecclesiology dominates.

(I should mention that he said this in the context of trying to get ECs to have a more positive attitude toward being EC. Nevertheless, the fact that he said "Anyone who follows these premises to their logical conclusion would - and should become Eastern Orthodox" amazes me. I should also mention that this was more than a decade ago, and I don't know whether his current views are the same or not.)

Another example I could have given is Fr J. Steele -- although, unlike Dr. Dragani, he isn't someone I respect (I did, in fact, know and respect him about 10 years ago) -- who said:

Quote
The OICWR crowd is a tiny but vocal minority resident mostly online at ByzCath. They are not representative of the countless good Eastern Catholics one finds in church on Sunday.

I would beg to differ that these malcontents do not display a toxic anti-Westernism. That is pretty much all they are about, save a tenuous and virtually meaningless communion with Rome.

Most dox. And they should, in the interest of honesty.

(emphasis added) OICWR is "Orthodox in communion with Rome".

-http://ad-orientem.blogspot.com/2009/07/orthodox-in-communion-with-rome.html

Seriously though, that wouldn't suit the Vatican as Cardinal Lubomir Huzar was a leading proponent of the OICWR argument while he was Major Archbishop of the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church - by far the largest of the Eastern Churches in Communion with Rome. The whole matter is most confusing to me, I must confess.

It's definitely a tricky issue.

On the hand, Catholicism isn't anything-goes, nor should it be. Excommunication is still a possibility (although I'm glad that they aren't handed out as easily as they were in Martin Luther's day). Fr Feeney comes to mind for example.

On the other hand, I think many Catholics nowadays feel far too empowered to politely encourage fellow Catholics (the ones they disagree with to be specific) to leave Catholicism. Few of them would phrase it the way Fr. Steele did, but it's extremely common* nevertheless.

* You'll recall I said earlier that I was amazed by what Dr. Dragani said. I should have said I was amazed that he said it. If it had been a Catholic I had just met on CAF, it would have been no surprise.

I think there is some value to the commentary that anyone who is in a constant state of dissent, and publicly attacking the Church, has ALREADY ex-communicated themselves and so they remain and commune in a state, at least, of objective unworthiness.

I agree that there such a thing as automatic excommunication; but the term dissent has multiple meanings. For example, Melkites are often called dissenters. (I could come up with other examples, but I choose the Melkite Church because it is especially dear to me, having gone to Melkite liturgies weekly since 2002.)

The issue I have with what you're saying is essentially the issue I raised with elijahmaria: who is automatically excommunicated? Archbishop Zoghby, for example? I think not -- not unless the Pope has really gone off the deep-end in terms of political correctness and not-wanting-to-offend-anyone.
I don't know how automatic excommunication works. And I don't think the Pope really wants to risk another painful schism. That being said, I still hold to my post above. Dissenters should do the honest thing, admit that they no longer hold the Catholic faith, and find a Church with which they agree... or maybe join some nice protestant denomination.
Title: Re: Why
Post by: podkarpatska on April 27, 2012, 11:09:07 AM
I want to be fair, when Papist said "Either be Catholic or don't...." he touched a raw nerve with us Orthodox and with his Eastern Catholic brothers and sisters. We took that they way we have taken that sentiment for centuries whether it came from the mouths of our secular rulers or our Bishops or ignorant, misinformed representatives of the Roman Rite like Archbishop Ireland and others. It was code for give up your traditions and jump on board the 'mother ship' and be 'real' Catholics. Far too many of us fell for that siren song either out of weakness, our own ignorance or simply convenience.

I painfully remember a friend, an Irish politician who was a good guy who thought he was a jokester when he would come to picnics or dinners at the Orthodox or the Greek Catholics parishes and quip about being among the 'Triple AAA' - the high minor leagues. No one thought he was funny - just ignorant. Still it hurt.

I don't think that is what Papist meant - and I hope he clarifies his intent. However, what he said is still not acceptable to the Eastern Catholics whom I know who are schooled in the teachings of their Church and its modern theoretical relationship to the Holy See. That is why neither Rome no longer views the unia as being a 'bridge' to unity as they espoused in the past. It is what it is and the faith and strength of those churches and their faithful should be respected by Roman Catholics - not questioned.





Title: Re: Why
Post by: elijahmaria on April 27, 2012, 11:14:50 AM
Quote
This power of the Supreme Pontiff by no means detracts from that ordinary and immediate power of episcopal jurisdiction, by which bishops, who have succeeded to the place of the apostles by appointment of the Holy Spirit, tend and govern individually the particular flocks which have been assigned to them. On the contrary, this power of theirs is asserted, supported and defended by the Supreme and Universal Pastor; for St. Gregory the Great says: "My honor is the honor of the whole Church. My honor is the steadfast strength of my brethren. Then do I receive true honor, when it is denied to none of those to whom honor is due.

Not only did the Holy Father mean something by this but by this he signals the proper understanding of papal primacy.
yes, that it doesn't include papal supremacy.

BB
 

It certainly does. 
Title: Re: Why
Post by: Papist on April 27, 2012, 11:15:41 AM
I want to be fair, when Papist said "Either be Catholic or don't...." he touched a raw nerve with us Orthodox and with his Eastern Catholic brothers and sisters. We took that they way we have taken that sentiment for centuries whether it came from the mouths of our secular rulers or our Bishops or ignorant, misinformed representatives of the Roman Rite like Archbishop Ireland and others. It was code for give up your traditions and jump on board the 'mother ship' and be 'real' Catholics. Far too many of us fell for that siren song either out of weakness, our own ignorance or simply convenience.

I painfully remember a friend, an Irish politician who was a good guy who thought he was a jokester when he would come to picnics or dinners at the Orthodox or the Greek Catholics parishes and quip about being among the 'Triple AAA' - the high minor leagues. No one thought he was funny - just ignorant. Still it hurt.

I don't think that is what Papist meant - and I hope he clarifies his intent. However, what he said is still not acceptable to the Eastern Catholics whom I know who are schooled in the teachings of their Church and its modern theoretical relationship to the Holy See. That is why neither Rome no longer views the unia as being a 'bridge' to unity as they espoused in the past. It is what it is and the faith and strength of those churches and their faithful should be respected by Roman Catholics - not questioned.

I would like to clarify. I don't think that Eastern Catholics should be "latinized". They should hold to their Eastern traditions without interferance from Rome.
However, I do think that Eastern Catholics must hold to the entire Catholic faith, including the dogmas of Vatican I. If they do not, then they no longer profess the Catholic faith, and going into communion with the Eastern Orthodox is the most honest thing that they can do.
I hold no ill will to those who are moved by their conscience to join the Eastern Orthodox Church. I respect their actions because they are honest.
I do not question the faith of those like Todd and Joe. I think they really do love God. I really do. However I am questioning the decision to remain in a communion that contradicts their faith. I question it because we already have enough dissenters, and lumping more in is bad for the Catholic Church.
One Last point: Not all Eastern Catholics are like Todd and Joe. The Eastern Catholic parish here in Albuquerque is a good example of a parish that is faithful to the entire Catholic faith.
Title: Re: Why
Post by: Peter J on April 27, 2012, 11:20:14 AM
The issue I have with what you're saying is essentially the issue I raised with elijahmaria: who is automatically excommunicated? Archbishop Zoghby, for example? I think not -- not unless the Pope has really gone off the deep-end in terms of political correctness and not-wanting-to-offend-anyone.
I don't know how automatic excommunication works. And I don't think the Pope really wants to risk another painful schism. That being said, I still hold to my post above. Dissenters should do the honest thing, admit that they no longer hold the Catholic faith, and find a Church with which they agree... or maybe join some nice protestant denomination.

Personally, I don't mind letting the Pope have his cake and eat it too -- that is, declaring certain belief as requirements, but then remaining in communion with some who don't believe those things. But it seems to me that adding on yet another layer (eating the cake once more, as it were): attacking those other Catholics for not taking the initiative to create a schism.
Title: Re: Why
Post by: podkarpatska on April 27, 2012, 11:27:43 AM
Just a off the top of my heads musings:

Primacy : In a first millenium context the Orthodox can probably agree that Rome is 'primus' among the Pentarchy. This can really only be viewed as a semi-honorific matter however - not one of real substance and power.

Universality: Perhaps - and just perhaps - a 'construct' to accept Rome's jurisdiction over the Churches of the West could be theorized in a manner which clearly protected the ancient rights, dignities and independence of the Eastern churches. A big 'if' as the proverbial 'devil' is in the details... Perhaps the fifth century collapse of the political center of the Western empire which was no doubt the main causal factor in the development of the modern papacy could still be considered in terms of coming to grips with the historical reality of Rome's role in the administration of the other western Christians. Had the western Empire survived as a unified geopolitical player along with Byzantium, history surely would have seen a different path of ecclesiastical understanding in the west.

In the east, the Christian emperors were replaced by the Muslims who retained large swaths of unitary political control over the formerly Christian realms. In the west, there really was never a cohesive, long lasting center to replace Rome and her imperial system.

East and west entered the modern era from two decidedly differing models of secular administration and world view.

Supremacy: From the East's point of view - a deal breaker unless it is only viewed in the context of the ancient notion of 'primus'

'...all the King's horses and all the King's men - couldn't put Humpty together again.'

Title: Re: Why
Post by: ialmisry on April 27, 2012, 12:04:43 PM
Quote
This power of the Supreme Pontiff by no means detracts from that ordinary and immediate power of episcopal jurisdiction, by which bishops, who have succeeded to the place of the apostles by appointment of the Holy Spirit, tend and govern individually the particular flocks which have been assigned to them. On the contrary, this power of theirs is asserted, supported and defended by the Supreme and Universal Pastor; for St. Gregory the Great says: "My honor is the honor of the whole Church. My honor is the steadfast strength of my brethren. Then do I receive true honor, when it is denied to none of those to whom honor is due.

Not only did the Holy Father mean something by this but by this he signals the proper understanding of papal primacy.
yes, that it doesn't include papal supremacy.

BB
 

It certainly does. 
In Orthodox Rome of the first millenium, when Pope St. Gregory wrote it, it did not.  In the Vatican of the second millenium, when your supreme pontiff Pius cited amongst the scrawling of his own pen, it does.  That is why the Ultramontanist Vatican is not Orthodox Rome.

A thousand years in the Orthodox communion, and not one instance of papal supremacy, and plenty of instances denying it to him.  That is what the first millenium teaches us.
Title: Re: Why
Post by: Papist on April 27, 2012, 12:15:33 PM
The issue I have with what you're saying is essentially the issue I raised with elijahmaria: who is automatically excommunicated? Archbishop Zoghby, for example? I think not -- not unless the Pope has really gone off the deep-end in terms of political correctness and not-wanting-to-offend-anyone.
I don't know how automatic excommunication works. And I don't think the Pope really wants to risk another painful schism. That being said, I still hold to my post above. Dissenters should do the honest thing, admit that they no longer hold the Catholic faith, and find a Church with which they agree... or maybe join some nice protestant denomination.

Personally, I don't mind letting the Pope have his cake and eat it too -- that is, declaring certain belief as requirements, but then remaining in communion with some who don't believe those things. But it seems to me that adding on yet another layer (eating the cake once more, as it were): attacking those other Catholics for not taking the initiative to create a schism.
I'm not creating this layer to the cake. The teachings of the Church do. And I'm not suggesting a new schism with a new ecclesial body. What I am saying is that those who don't agree with the dogmatic teachings of the Church should enter into communion with a church with which they agree.
Title: Re: Why
Post by: Papist on April 27, 2012, 12:16:06 PM
Quote
This power of the Supreme Pontiff by no means detracts from that ordinary and immediate power of episcopal jurisdiction, by which bishops, who have succeeded to the place of the apostles by appointment of the Holy Spirit, tend and govern individually the particular flocks which have been assigned to them. On the contrary, this power of theirs is asserted, supported and defended by the Supreme and Universal Pastor; for St. Gregory the Great says: "My honor is the honor of the whole Church. My honor is the steadfast strength of my brethren. Then do I receive true honor, when it is denied to none of those to whom honor is due.

Not only did the Holy Father mean something by this but by this he signals the proper understanding of papal primacy.
yes, that it doesn't include papal supremacy.

BB
 

It certainly does. 
In Orthodox Rome of the first millenium, when Pope St. Gregory wrote it, it did not.  In the Vatican of the second millenium, when your supreme pontiff Pius cited amongst the scrawling of his own pen, it does.  That is why the Ultramontanist Vatican is not Orthodox Rome.

A thousand years in the Orthodox communion, and not one instance of papal supremacy, and plenty of instances denying it to him.  That is what the first millenium teaches us.
You must be talking about the history of Mars.
Title: Re: Why
Post by: J Michael on April 27, 2012, 12:27:41 PM
Quote
This power of the Supreme Pontiff by no means detracts from that ordinary and immediate power of episcopal jurisdiction, by which bishops, who have succeeded to the place of the apostles by appointment of the Holy Spirit, tend and govern individually the particular flocks which have been assigned to them. On the contrary, this power of theirs is asserted, supported and defended by the Supreme and Universal Pastor; for St. Gregory the Great says: "My honor is the honor of the whole Church. My honor is the steadfast strength of my brethren. Then do I receive true honor, when it is denied to none of those to whom honor is due.

Not only did the Holy Father mean something by this but by this he signals the proper understanding of papal primacy.
yes, that it doesn't include papal supremacy.

BB
 

It certainly does.  
In Orthodox Rome of the first millenium, when Pope St. Gregory wrote it, it did not.  In the Vatican of the second millenium, when your supreme pontiff Pius cited amongst the scrawling of his own pen, it does.  That is why the Ultramontanist Vatican is not Orthodox Rome.

A thousand years in the Orthodox communion, and not one instance of papal supremacy, and plenty of instances denying it to him.  That is what the first millenium teaches us.
You must be talking about the history of Mars.

Where some of the world's greatest candy bars are made  :laugh: :laugh:.
Title: Re: Why
Post by: Papist on April 27, 2012, 12:31:36 PM
Quote
This power of the Supreme Pontiff by no means detracts from that ordinary and immediate power of episcopal jurisdiction, by which bishops, who have succeeded to the place of the apostles by appointment of the Holy Spirit, tend and govern individually the particular flocks which have been assigned to them. On the contrary, this power of theirs is asserted, supported and defended by the Supreme and Universal Pastor; for St. Gregory the Great says: "My honor is the honor of the whole Church. My honor is the steadfast strength of my brethren. Then do I receive true honor, when it is denied to none of those to whom honor is due.

Not only did the Holy Father mean something by this but by this he signals the proper understanding of papal primacy.
yes, that it doesn't include papal supremacy.

BB
 

It certainly does.  
In Orthodox Rome of the first millenium, when Pope St. Gregory wrote it, it did not.  In the Vatican of the second millenium, when your supreme pontiff Pius cited amongst the scrawling of his own pen, it does.  That is why the Ultramontanist Vatican is not Orthodox Rome.

A thousand years in the Orthodox communion, and not one instance of papal supremacy, and plenty of instances denying it to him.  That is what the first millenium teaches us.
You must be talking about the history of Mars.

Where some of the world's greatest candy bars are made  :laugh: :laugh:.

(http://Mars Candy for Aliens)
Yes. Yes, they are.
Title: Re: Why
Post by: Peter J on April 27, 2012, 12:43:46 PM
I want to be fair, when Papist said "Either be Catholic or don't...." he touched a raw nerve with us Orthodox and with his Eastern Catholic brothers and sisters. We took that they way we have taken that sentiment for centuries whether it came from the mouths of our secular rulers or our Bishops or ignorant, misinformed representatives of the Roman Rite like Archbishop Ireland and others. It was code for give up your traditions and jump on board the 'mother ship' and be 'real' Catholics. Far too many of us fell for that siren song either out of weakness, our own ignorance or simply convenience.

I painfully remember a friend, an Irish politician who was a good guy who thought he was a jokester when he would come to picnics or dinners at the Orthodox or the Greek Catholics parishes and quip about being among the 'Triple AAA' - the high minor leagues. No one thought he was funny - just ignorant. Still it hurt.

I don't think that is what Papist meant - and I hope he clarifies his intent. However, what he said is still not acceptable to the Eastern Catholics whom I know who are schooled in the teachings of their Church and its modern theoretical relationship to the Holy See. That is why neither Rome no longer views the unia as being a 'bridge' to unity as they espoused in the past. It is what it is and the faith and strength of those churches and their faithful should be respected by Roman Catholics - not questioned.

I would like to clarify. I don't think that Eastern Catholics should be "latinized". They should hold to their Eastern traditions without interferance from Rome.
However, I do think that Eastern Catholics must hold to the entire Catholic faith, including the dogmas of Vatican I. If they do not, then they no longer profess the Catholic faith, and going into communion with the Eastern Orthodox is the most honest thing that they can do.

This issue comes up a lot (see the afore-quoted statement from Fr. J Steele, or the less harsh one from Dr. Dragani*) and yet no one ever seems to explain it. You think that certain Catholics -- namely any who don't "hold to the entire Catholic faith" -- should break off communion with Rome because they disagree with Rome on some things, but you also think that they should enter into communion with the Orthodox despite disagreeing with them on some things. I can see no consistency to your logic.

--------------------------------------------

* In case anyone missed these quotes before, here's (http://www.byzcath.org/forums/ubbthreads.php/topics/83161/Death%20of%20Byzantine%20Catholicism) the one from Dr. Anthony Dragani:

Quote
What saddens me is the statement that we are making to others. Among so many Byzantine Catholics, the following premises now seem to dominate:

1. Rome has a messed up ecclesiology, and is wrong to micromanage so much. (I have to agree with this one, at least to some extent).

2. Orthodox ecclesiology is the right model.

3. The claims of the Pope to infallibility in specific instances are false.

4. There is no substantial benefit to being Byzantine Catholic as opposed to being Eastern Orthodox.

Anyone who follows these premises to their logical conclusion would - and should become Eastern Orthodox. It would be senseless to stay in a situation where a false ecclesiology dominates.

And here's the one from Fr J. Steele:

Quote
The OICWR crowd is a tiny but vocal minority resident mostly online at ByzCath. They are not representative of the countless good Eastern Catholics one finds in church on Sunday.

I would beg to differ that these malcontents do not display a toxic anti-Westernism. That is pretty much all they are about, save a tenuous and virtually meaningless communion with Rome.

Most dox. And they should, in the interest of honesty.

-http://ad-orientem.blogspot.com/2009/07/orthodox-in-communion-with-rome.html

(emphasis added to both) OICWR is "Orthodox in communion with Rome".

Title: Re: Why
Post by: Papist on April 27, 2012, 12:45:23 PM
I want to be fair, when Papist said "Either be Catholic or don't...." he touched a raw nerve with us Orthodox and with his Eastern Catholic brothers and sisters. We took that they way we have taken that sentiment for centuries whether it came from the mouths of our secular rulers or our Bishops or ignorant, misinformed representatives of the Roman Rite like Archbishop Ireland and others. It was code for give up your traditions and jump on board the 'mother ship' and be 'real' Catholics. Far too many of us fell for that siren song either out of weakness, our own ignorance or simply convenience.

I painfully remember a friend, an Irish politician who was a good guy who thought he was a jokester when he would come to picnics or dinners at the Orthodox or the Greek Catholics parishes and quip about being among the 'Triple AAA' - the high minor leagues. No one thought he was funny - just ignorant. Still it hurt.

I don't think that is what Papist meant - and I hope he clarifies his intent. However, what he said is still not acceptable to the Eastern Catholics whom I know who are schooled in the teachings of their Church and its modern theoretical relationship to the Holy See. That is why neither Rome no longer views the unia as being a 'bridge' to unity as they espoused in the past. It is what it is and the faith and strength of those churches and their faithful should be respected by Roman Catholics - not questioned.

I would like to clarify. I don't think that Eastern Catholics should be "latinized". They should hold to their Eastern traditions without interferance from Rome.
However, I do think that Eastern Catholics must hold to the entire Catholic faith, including the dogmas of Vatican I. If they do not, then they no longer profess the Catholic faith, and going into communion with the Eastern Orthodox is the most honest thing that they can do.

This issue comes up a lot (see the afore-quoted statement from Fr. J Steele, or the less harsh one from Dr. Dragani*) and yet no one ever seems to explain it. You think that certain Catholics -- namely any who don't "hold to the entire Catholic faith" -- should break off communion with Rome because they disagree with Rome on some things, but you also think that they should enter into communion with the Orthodox despite disagreeing with them on some things. I can see no consistency to your logic.

--------------------------------------------

* In case anyone missed these quotes before, here's (http://www.byzcath.org/forums/ubbthreads.php/topics/83161/Death%20of%20Byzantine%20Catholicism) the one from Dr. Anthony Dragani:

Quote
What saddens me is the statement that we are making to others. Among so many Byzantine Catholics, the following premises now seem to dominate:

1. Rome has a messed up ecclesiology, and is wrong to micromanage so much. (I have to agree with this one, at least to some extent).

2. Orthodox ecclesiology is the right model.

3. The claims of the Pope to infallibility in specific instances are false.

4. There is no substantial benefit to being Byzantine Catholic as opposed to being Eastern Orthodox.

Anyone who follows these premises to their logical conclusion would - and should become Eastern Orthodox. It would be senseless to stay in a situation where a false ecclesiology dominates.

And here's the one from Fr J. Steele:

Quote
The OICWR crowd is a tiny but vocal minority resident mostly online at ByzCath. They are not representative of the countless good Eastern Catholics one finds in church on Sunday.

I would beg to differ that these malcontents do not display a toxic anti-Westernism. That is pretty much all they are about, save a tenuous and virtually meaningless communion with Rome.

Most dox. And they should, in the interest of honesty.

-http://ad-orientem.blogspot.com/2009/07/orthodox-in-communion-with-rome.html

(emphasis added to both) OICWR is "Orthodox in communion with Rome".


I don't think that people like Todd and Joe disagree with the Eastern Orthodox. I think they agree with the Eastern Orthodox completely. This is why I think that they should join the Eastern Orthodox Church.
Title: Re: Why
Post by: J Michael on April 27, 2012, 12:50:44 PM
I want to be fair, when Papist said "Either be Catholic or don't...." he touched a raw nerve with us Orthodox and with his Eastern Catholic brothers and sisters. We took that they way we have taken that sentiment for centuries whether it came from the mouths of our secular rulers or our Bishops or ignorant, misinformed representatives of the Roman Rite like Archbishop Ireland and others. It was code for give up your traditions and jump on board the 'mother ship' and be 'real' Catholics. Far too many of us fell for that siren song either out of weakness, our own ignorance or simply convenience.

I painfully remember a friend, an Irish politician who was a good guy who thought he was a jokester when he would come to picnics or dinners at the Orthodox or the Greek Catholics parishes and quip about being among the 'Triple AAA' - the high minor leagues. No one thought he was funny - just ignorant. Still it hurt.

I don't think that is what Papist meant - and I hope he clarifies his intent. However, what he said is still not acceptable to the Eastern Catholics whom I know who are schooled in the teachings of their Church and its modern theoretical relationship to the Holy See. That is why neither Rome no longer views the unia as being a 'bridge' to unity as they espoused in the past. It is what it is and the faith and strength of those churches and their faithful should be respected by Roman Catholics - not questioned.

I would like to clarify. I don't think that Eastern Catholics should be "latinized". They should hold to their Eastern traditions without interferance from Rome.
However, I do think that Eastern Catholics must hold to the entire Catholic faith, including the dogmas of Vatican I. If they do not, then they no longer profess the Catholic faith, and going into communion with the Eastern Orthodox is the most honest thing that they can do.

This issue comes up a lot (see the afore-quoted statement from Fr. J Steele, or the less harsh one from Dr. Dragani*) and yet no one ever seems to explain it. You think that certain Catholics -- namely any who don't "hold to the entire Catholic faith" -- should break off communion with Rome because they disagree with Rome on some things, but you also think that they should enter into communion with the Orthodox despite disagreeing with them on some things. I can see no consistency to your logic.

--------------------------------------------

* In case anyone missed these quotes before, here's (http://www.byzcath.org/forums/ubbthreads.php/topics/83161/Death%20of%20Byzantine%20Catholicism) the one from Dr. Anthony Dragani:

Quote
What saddens me is the statement that we are making to others. Among so many Byzantine Catholics, the following premises now seem to dominate:

1. Rome has a messed up ecclesiology, and is wrong to micromanage so much. (I have to agree with this one, at least to some extent).

2. Orthodox ecclesiology is the right model.

3. The claims of the Pope to infallibility in specific instances are false.

4. There is no substantial benefit to being Byzantine Catholic as opposed to being Eastern Orthodox.

Anyone who follows these premises to their logical conclusion would - and should become Eastern Orthodox. It would be senseless to stay in a situation where a false ecclesiology dominates.

And here's the one from Fr J. Steele:

Quote
The OICWR crowd is a tiny but vocal minority resident mostly online at ByzCath. They are not representative of the countless good Eastern Catholics one finds in church on Sunday.

I would beg to differ that these malcontents do not display a toxic anti-Westernism. That is pretty much all they are about, save a tenuous and virtually meaningless communion with Rome.

Most dox. And they should, in the interest of honesty.

-http://ad-orientem.blogspot.com/2009/07/orthodox-in-communion-with-rome.html

(emphasis added to both) OICWR is "Orthodox in communion with Rome".



Since the discussion has centered mainly around the Melkites, what essential, dogmatic/doctrinal features of the Orthodox Church do they disagree with?

Just as a side note, most, if not all the Byzantine (Ruthenian) Catholics I am personally familiar with accept all the dogmas and doctrines of the Catholic Church--as far as I've been able to determine, that is. 
Title: Re: Why
Post by: Papist on April 27, 2012, 12:52:44 PM
I want to be fair, when Papist said "Either be Catholic or don't...." he touched a raw nerve with us Orthodox and with his Eastern Catholic brothers and sisters. We took that they way we have taken that sentiment for centuries whether it came from the mouths of our secular rulers or our Bishops or ignorant, misinformed representatives of the Roman Rite like Archbishop Ireland and others. It was code for give up your traditions and jump on board the 'mother ship' and be 'real' Catholics. Far too many of us fell for that siren song either out of weakness, our own ignorance or simply convenience.

I painfully remember a friend, an Irish politician who was a good guy who thought he was a jokester when he would come to picnics or dinners at the Orthodox or the Greek Catholics parishes and quip about being among the 'Triple AAA' - the high minor leagues. No one thought he was funny - just ignorant. Still it hurt.

I don't think that is what Papist meant - and I hope he clarifies his intent. However, what he said is still not acceptable to the Eastern Catholics whom I know who are schooled in the teachings of their Church and its modern theoretical relationship to the Holy See. That is why neither Rome no longer views the unia as being a 'bridge' to unity as they espoused in the past. It is what it is and the faith and strength of those churches and their faithful should be respected by Roman Catholics - not questioned.

I would like to clarify. I don't think that Eastern Catholics should be "latinized". They should hold to their Eastern traditions without interferance from Rome.
However, I do think that Eastern Catholics must hold to the entire Catholic faith, including the dogmas of Vatican I. If they do not, then they no longer profess the Catholic faith, and going into communion with the Eastern Orthodox is the most honest thing that they can do.

This issue comes up a lot (see the afore-quoted statement from Fr. J Steele, or the less harsh one from Dr. Dragani*) and yet no one ever seems to explain it. You think that certain Catholics -- namely any who don't "hold to the entire Catholic faith" -- should break off communion with Rome because they disagree with Rome on some things, but you also think that they should enter into communion with the Orthodox despite disagreeing with them on some things. I can see no consistency to your logic.

--------------------------------------------

* In case anyone missed these quotes before, here's (http://www.byzcath.org/forums/ubbthreads.php/topics/83161/Death%20of%20Byzantine%20Catholicism) the one from Dr. Anthony Dragani:

Quote
What saddens me is the statement that we are making to others. Among so many Byzantine Catholics, the following premises now seem to dominate:

1. Rome has a messed up ecclesiology, and is wrong to micromanage so much. (I have to agree with this one, at least to some extent).

2. Orthodox ecclesiology is the right model.

3. The claims of the Pope to infallibility in specific instances are false.

4. There is no substantial benefit to being Byzantine Catholic as opposed to being Eastern Orthodox.

Anyone who follows these premises to their logical conclusion would - and should become Eastern Orthodox. It would be senseless to stay in a situation where a false ecclesiology dominates.

And here's the one from Fr J. Steele:

Quote
The OICWR crowd is a tiny but vocal minority resident mostly online at ByzCath. They are not representative of the countless good Eastern Catholics one finds in church on Sunday.

I would beg to differ that these malcontents do not display a toxic anti-Westernism. That is pretty much all they are about, save a tenuous and virtually meaningless communion with Rome.

Most dox. And they should, in the interest of honesty.

-http://ad-orientem.blogspot.com/2009/07/orthodox-in-communion-with-rome.html

(emphasis added to both) OICWR is "Orthodox in communion with Rome".



Since the discussion has centered mainly around the Melkites, what essential, dogmatic/doctrinal features of the Orthodox Church do they disagree with?

Just as a side note, most, if not all the Byzantine (Ruthenian) Catholics I am personally familiar with accept all the dogmas and doctrines of the Catholic Church--as far as I've been able to determine, that is. 
My experience is the same. The only Todds and Joes I have ever encountered are on the internet.
Title: Re: Why
Post by: J Michael on April 27, 2012, 12:54:46 PM
I want to be fair, when Papist said "Either be Catholic or don't...." he touched a raw nerve with us Orthodox and with his Eastern Catholic brothers and sisters. We took that they way we have taken that sentiment for centuries whether it came from the mouths of our secular rulers or our Bishops or ignorant, misinformed representatives of the Roman Rite like Archbishop Ireland and others. It was code for give up your traditions and jump on board the 'mother ship' and be 'real' Catholics. Far too many of us fell for that siren song either out of weakness, our own ignorance or simply convenience.

I painfully remember a friend, an Irish politician who was a good guy who thought he was a jokester when he would come to picnics or dinners at the Orthodox or the Greek Catholics parishes and quip about being among the 'Triple AAA' - the high minor leagues. No one thought he was funny - just ignorant. Still it hurt.

I don't think that is what Papist meant - and I hope he clarifies his intent. However, what he said is still not acceptable to the Eastern Catholics whom I know who are schooled in the teachings of their Church and its modern theoretical relationship to the Holy See. That is why neither Rome no longer views the unia as being a 'bridge' to unity as they espoused in the past. It is what it is and the faith and strength of those churches and their faithful should be respected by Roman Catholics - not questioned.

I would like to clarify. I don't think that Eastern Catholics should be "latinized". They should hold to their Eastern traditions without interferance from Rome.
However, I do think that Eastern Catholics must hold to the entire Catholic faith, including the dogmas of Vatican I. If they do not, then they no longer profess the Catholic faith, and going into communion with the Eastern Orthodox is the most honest thing that they can do.

This issue comes up a lot (see the afore-quoted statement from Fr. J Steele, or the less harsh one from Dr. Dragani*) and yet no one ever seems to explain it. You think that certain Catholics -- namely any who don't "hold to the entire Catholic faith" -- should break off communion with Rome because they disagree with Rome on some things, but you also think that they should enter into communion with the Orthodox despite disagreeing with them on some things. I can see no consistency to your logic.

--------------------------------------------

* In case anyone missed these quotes before, here's (http://www.byzcath.org/forums/ubbthreads.php/topics/83161/Death%20of%20Byzantine%20Catholicism) the one from Dr. Anthony Dragani:

Quote
What saddens me is the statement that we are making to others. Among so many Byzantine Catholics, the following premises now seem to dominate:

1. Rome has a messed up ecclesiology, and is wrong to micromanage so much. (I have to agree with this one, at least to some extent).

2. Orthodox ecclesiology is the right model.

3. The claims of the Pope to infallibility in specific instances are false.

4. There is no substantial benefit to being Byzantine Catholic as opposed to being Eastern Orthodox.

Anyone who follows these premises to their logical conclusion would - and should become Eastern Orthodox. It would be senseless to stay in a situation where a false ecclesiology dominates.

And here's the one from Fr J. Steele:

Quote
The OICWR crowd is a tiny but vocal minority resident mostly online at ByzCath. They are not representative of the countless good Eastern Catholics one finds in church on Sunday.

I would beg to differ that these malcontents do not display a toxic anti-Westernism. That is pretty much all they are about, save a tenuous and virtually meaningless communion with Rome.

Most dox. And they should, in the interest of honesty.

-http://ad-orientem.blogspot.com/2009/07/orthodox-in-communion-with-rome.html

(emphasis added to both) OICWR is "Orthodox in communion with Rome".



Since the discussion has centered mainly around the Melkites, what essential, dogmatic/doctrinal features of the Orthodox Church do they disagree with?

Just as a side note, most, if not all the Byzantine (Ruthenian) Catholics I am personally familiar with accept all the dogmas and doctrines of the Catholic Church--as far as I've been able to determine, that is. 
My experience is the same. The only Todds and Joes I have ever encountered are on the internet.

Which is just next to Mars.  ;D
Title: Re: Why
Post by: Papist on April 27, 2012, 12:58:50 PM
I want to be fair, when Papist said "Either be Catholic or don't...." he touched a raw nerve with us Orthodox and with his Eastern Catholic brothers and sisters. We took that they way we have taken that sentiment for centuries whether it came from the mouths of our secular rulers or our Bishops or ignorant, misinformed representatives of the Roman Rite like Archbishop Ireland and others. It was code for give up your traditions and jump on board the 'mother ship' and be 'real' Catholics. Far too many of us fell for that siren song either out of weakness, our own ignorance or simply convenience.

I painfully remember a friend, an Irish politician who was a good guy who thought he was a jokester when he would come to picnics or dinners at the Orthodox or the Greek Catholics parishes and quip about being among the 'Triple AAA' - the high minor leagues. No one thought he was funny - just ignorant. Still it hurt.

I don't think that is what Papist meant - and I hope he clarifies his intent. However, what he said is still not acceptable to the Eastern Catholics whom I know who are schooled in the teachings of their Church and its modern theoretical relationship to the Holy See. That is why neither Rome no longer views the unia as being a 'bridge' to unity as they espoused in the past. It is what it is and the faith and strength of those churches and their faithful should be respected by Roman Catholics - not questioned.

I would like to clarify. I don't think that Eastern Catholics should be "latinized". They should hold to their Eastern traditions without interferance from Rome.
However, I do think that Eastern Catholics must hold to the entire Catholic faith, including the dogmas of Vatican I. If they do not, then they no longer profess the Catholic faith, and going into communion with the Eastern Orthodox is the most honest thing that they can do.

This issue comes up a lot (see the afore-quoted statement from Fr. J Steele, or the less harsh one from Dr. Dragani*) and yet no one ever seems to explain it. You think that certain Catholics -- namely any who don't "hold to the entire Catholic faith" -- should break off communion with Rome because they disagree with Rome on some things, but you also think that they should enter into communion with the Orthodox despite disagreeing with them on some things. I can see no consistency to your logic.

--------------------------------------------

* In case anyone missed these quotes before, here's (http://www.byzcath.org/forums/ubbthreads.php/topics/83161/Death%20of%20Byzantine%20Catholicism) the one from Dr. Anthony Dragani:

Quote
What saddens me is the statement that we are making to others. Among so many Byzantine Catholics, the following premises now seem to dominate:

1. Rome has a messed up ecclesiology, and is wrong to micromanage so much. (I have to agree with this one, at least to some extent).

2. Orthodox ecclesiology is the right model.

3. The claims of the Pope to infallibility in specific instances are false.

4. There is no substantial benefit to being Byzantine Catholic as opposed to being Eastern Orthodox.

Anyone who follows these premises to their logical conclusion would - and should become Eastern Orthodox. It would be senseless to stay in a situation where a false ecclesiology dominates.

And here's the one from Fr J. Steele:

Quote
The OICWR crowd is a tiny but vocal minority resident mostly online at ByzCath. They are not representative of the countless good Eastern Catholics one finds in church on Sunday.

I would beg to differ that these malcontents do not display a toxic anti-Westernism. That is pretty much all they are about, save a tenuous and virtually meaningless communion with Rome.

Most dox. And they should, in the interest of honesty.

-http://ad-orientem.blogspot.com/2009/07/orthodox-in-communion-with-rome.html

(emphasis added to both) OICWR is "Orthodox in communion with Rome".



Since the discussion has centered mainly around the Melkites, what essential, dogmatic/doctrinal features of the Orthodox Church do they disagree with?

Just as a side note, most, if not all the Byzantine (Ruthenian) Catholics I am personally familiar with accept all the dogmas and doctrines of the Catholic Church--as far as I've been able to determine, that is. 
My experience is the same. The only Todds and Joes I have ever encountered are on the internet.

Which is just next to Mars.  ;D
Joe and Todd of Mars. I think I saw a movie...
Title: u
Post by: ialmisry on April 27, 2012, 01:11:32 PM
Quote
This power of the Supreme Pontiff by no means detracts from that ordinary and immediate power of episcopal jurisdiction, by which bishops, who have succeeded to the place of the apostles by appointment of the Holy Spirit, tend and govern individually the particular flocks which have been assigned to them. On the contrary, this power of theirs is asserted, supported and defended by the Supreme and Universal Pastor; for St. Gregory the Great says: "My honor is the honor of the whole Church. My honor is the steadfast strength of my brethren. Then do I receive true honor, when it is denied to none of those to whom honor is due.

Not only did the Holy Father mean something by this but by this he signals the proper understanding of papal primacy.
yes, that it doesn't include papal supremacy.

BB
 

It certainly does.  
In Orthodox Rome of the first millenium, when Pope St. Gregory wrote it, it did not.  In the Vatican of the second millenium, when your supreme pontiff Pius cited amongst the scrawling of his own pen, it does.  That is why the Ultramontanist Vatican is not Orthodox Rome.

A thousand years in the Orthodox communion, and not one instance of papal supremacy, and plenty of instances denying it to him.  That is what the first millenium teaches us.
You must be talking about the history of Mars.
As I recall, the pontifex maximus did claim him as their grand sire.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/danielcmack/5081372330/
But we worship at a different altar.

Alternative histories don't count.
Title: Re: u
Post by: Papist on April 27, 2012, 01:14:40 PM
Quote
This power of the Supreme Pontiff by no means detracts from that ordinary and immediate power of episcopal jurisdiction, by which bishops, who have succeeded to the place of the apostles by appointment of the Holy Spirit, tend and govern individually the particular flocks which have been assigned to them. On the contrary, this power of theirs is asserted, supported and defended by the Supreme and Universal Pastor; for St. Gregory the Great says: "My honor is the honor of the whole Church. My honor is the steadfast strength of my brethren. Then do I receive true honor, when it is denied to none of those to whom honor is due.

Not only did the Holy Father mean something by this but by this he signals the proper understanding of papal primacy.
yes, that it doesn't include papal supremacy.

BB
 

It certainly does.  
In Orthodox Rome of the first millenium, when Pope St. Gregory wrote it, it did not.  In the Vatican of the second millenium, when your supreme pontiff Pius cited amongst the scrawling of his own pen, it does.  That is why the Ultramontanist Vatican is not Orthodox Rome.

A thousand years in the Orthodox communion, and not one instance of papal supremacy, and plenty of instances denying it to him.  That is what the first millenium teaches us.
You must be talking about the history of Mars.
As I recall, the pontifex maximus did claim him as their grand sire.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/danielcmack/5081372330/
But we worship at a different altar.

Alternative histories don't count.
Yes, your alternative Martian history doesn't count.
Title: Re: Why
Post by: ialmisry on April 27, 2012, 01:18:35 PM
I want to be fair, when Papist said "Either be Catholic or don't...." he touched a raw nerve with us Orthodox and with his Eastern Catholic brothers and sisters. We took that they way we have taken that sentiment for centuries whether it came from the mouths of our secular rulers or our Bishops or ignorant, misinformed representatives of the Roman Rite like Archbishop Ireland and others. It was code for give up your traditions and jump on board the 'mother ship' and be 'real' Catholics. Far too many of us fell for that siren song either out of weakness, our own ignorance or simply convenience.

I painfully remember a friend, an Irish politician who was a good guy who thought he was a jokester when he would come to picnics or dinners at the Orthodox or the Greek Catholics parishes and quip about being among the 'Triple AAA' - the high minor leagues. No one thought he was funny - just ignorant. Still it hurt.

I don't think that is what Papist meant - and I hope he clarifies his intent. However, what he said is still not acceptable to the Eastern Catholics whom I know who are schooled in the teachings of their Church and its modern theoretical relationship to the Holy See. That is why neither Rome no longer views the unia as being a 'bridge' to unity as they espoused in the past. It is what it is and the faith and strength of those churches and their faithful should be respected by Roman Catholics - not questioned.

I would like to clarify. I don't think that Eastern Catholics should be "latinized". They should hold to their Eastern traditions without interferance from Rome.
However, I do think that Eastern Catholics must hold to the entire Catholic faith, including the dogmas of Vatican I. If they do not, then they no longer profess the Catholic faith, and going into communion with the Eastern Orthodox is the most honest thing that they can do.

This issue comes up a lot (see the afore-quoted statement from Fr. J Steele, or the less harsh one from Dr. Dragani*) and yet no one ever seems to explain it. You think that certain Catholics -- namely any who don't "hold to the entire Catholic faith" -- should break off communion with Rome because they disagree with Rome on some things, but you also think that they should enter into communion with the Orthodox despite disagreeing with them on some things. I can see no consistency to your logic.

--------------------------------------------

* In case anyone missed these quotes before, here's (http://www.byzcath.org/forums/ubbthreads.php/topics/83161/Death%20of%20Byzantine%20Catholicism) the one from Dr. Anthony Dragani:

Quote
What saddens me is the statement that we are making to others. Among so many Byzantine Catholics, the following premises now seem to dominate:

1. Rome has a messed up ecclesiology, and is wrong to micromanage so much. (I have to agree with this one, at least to some extent).

2. Orthodox ecclesiology is the right model.

3. The claims of the Pope to infallibility in specific instances are false.

4. There is no substantial benefit to being Byzantine Catholic as opposed to being Eastern Orthodox.

Anyone who follows these premises to their logical conclusion would - and should become Eastern Orthodox. It would be senseless to stay in a situation where a false ecclesiology dominates.

And here's the one from Fr J. Steele:

Quote
The OICWR crowd is a tiny but vocal minority resident mostly online at ByzCath. They are not representative of the countless good Eastern Catholics one finds in church on Sunday.

I would beg to differ that these malcontents do not display a toxic anti-Westernism. That is pretty much all they are about, save a tenuous and virtually meaningless communion with Rome.

Most dox. And they should, in the interest of honesty.

-http://ad-orientem.blogspot.com/2009/07/orthodox-in-communion-with-rome.html

(emphasis added to both) OICWR is "Orthodox in communion with Rome".


I don't think that people like Todd and Joe disagree with the Eastern Orthodox. I think they agree with the Eastern Orthodox completely. This is why I think that they should join the Eastern Orthodox Church.
If they agreed with us completely they would join us.  They have too much integrity and honesty not to.  They have far less cognitive dissonance in their position than does the attempt to fit Pastor Aeternus into the first millenium of the Church.
Title: Re: u
Post by: ialmisry on April 27, 2012, 01:19:40 PM
Quote
This power of the Supreme Pontiff by no means detracts from that ordinary and immediate power of episcopal jurisdiction, by which bishops, who have succeeded to the place of the apostles by appointment of the Holy Spirit, tend and govern individually the particular flocks which have been assigned to them. On the contrary, this power of theirs is asserted, supported and defended by the Supreme and Universal Pastor; for St. Gregory the Great says: "My honor is the honor of the whole Church. My honor is the steadfast strength of my brethren. Then do I receive true honor, when it is denied to none of those to whom honor is due.

Not only did the Holy Father mean something by this but by this he signals the proper understanding of papal primacy.
yes, that it doesn't include papal supremacy.

BB
 

It certainly does.  
In Orthodox Rome of the first millenium, when Pope St. Gregory wrote it, it did not.  In the Vatican of the second millenium, when your supreme pontiff Pius cited amongst the scrawling of his own pen, it does.  That is why the Ultramontanist Vatican is not Orthodox Rome.

A thousand years in the Orthodox communion, and not one instance of papal supremacy, and plenty of instances denying it to him.  That is what the first millenium teaches us.
You must be talking about the history of Mars.
As I recall, the pontifex maximus did claim him as their grand sire.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/danielcmack/5081372330/
But we worship at a different altar.

Alternative histories don't count.
Yes, your alternative Martian history doesn't count.
So you believe Mars sired Romulus and Remus?
Title: Re: Why
Post by: Apotheoun on April 27, 2012, 01:20:06 PM
I do not question the faith of those like Todd and Joe. I think they really do love God. I really do. However I am questioning the decision to remain in a communion that contradicts their faith. I question it because we already have enough dissenters, and lumping more in is bad for the Roman Catholic Church.
I have added the word (in boldface print) that Papist always forgets to include in his posts. 

Now taking into account that clarification, I positively affirm all of the teachings of the Melkite Catholic Church, and refuse to dissent from anything that the Melkite Catholic Patriarch and Melkite Catholic Holy Synod proclaim about the faith.  Furthermore, I see no reason to leave the spiritual home that I have found in the Melkite Catholic Church simply because there is a disgruntled Roman Catholic on an internet forum who takes offense at the teachings of the Melkite Catholic Church. 
Title: Re: Why
Post by: Apotheoun on April 27, 2012, 01:28:37 PM
Just as a side note, most, if not all the Byzantine (Ruthenian) Catholics I am personally familiar with accept all the dogmas and doctrines of the Catholic Church--as far as I've been able to determine, that is. 
As a Ruthenian Catholic friend pointed out to me some time ago, the Ruthenian Catholic Church - in its "Light for Life" catechism - recognizes seven ecumenical councils as binding on the faith and practice of the Ruthenian Church. 

And as far as the fourteen synods of the Latin Church are concerned, she quoted the following text from the catechism:  "The Roman Catholic Church further recognizes fourteen other councils as ecumenical, stipulating that a council is ecumenical when it is so called by the pope. Although none of the early Councils were convened by the pope, his confirmation of their decrees was to be sought." [Light for Life, Part 1: The Mystery Believed, page 82]
Title: Re: Why
Post by: Papist on April 27, 2012, 01:29:38 PM
I do not question the faith of those like Todd and Joe. I think they really do love God. I really do. However I am questioning the decision to remain in a communion that contradicts their faith. I question it because we already have enough dissenters, and lumping more in is bad for the Roman Catholic Church.
I have added the word (in boldface print) that Papist always forgets to include in his posts.  

Now taking into account that clarification, I positively affirm all of the teachings of the Melkite Catholic Church, and refuse to dissent from anything that the Melkite Catholic Patriarch and Melkite Catholic Holy Synod proclaim about the faith.  Furthermore, I see no reason to leave my to leave the spiritual home that I have found in the Melkite Catholic Church simply because there is a disgruntled Roman Catholic on an internet forum who takes offense at the teachings of the Melkite Catholic Church.  
I'm not a disgruntled Roman Catholic. I love being both Roman and Catholic. I'm just an orthodox Catholic who doesn't think that it is ok to dissent from the teachings of the Church because they ultimately come to us from Christ. You on the other hand see the Catholic Church as existing on the same plane as the protestant demoninations. Your loss I suppose.
Title: Re: Why
Post by: Papist on April 27, 2012, 01:30:33 PM
Just as a side note, most, if not all the Byzantine (Ruthenian) Catholics I am personally familiar with accept all the dogmas and doctrines of the Catholic Church--as far as I've been able to determine, that is. 
As a Ruthenian Catholic friend pointed out to me some time ago, the Ruthenian Catholic Church - in its "Light for Life" catechism - recognizes seven ecumenical councils as binding on the faith and practice of the Ruthenian Church. 

Finally, as far as the fourteen synods of the Latin Church are concerned, the catechism states the following:  "The Roman Catholic Church further recognizes fourteen other councils as ecumenical, stipulating that a council is ecumenical when it is so called by the pope. Although none of the early Councils were convened by the pope, his confirmation of their decrees was to be sought." [Light for Life, Part 1: The Mystery Believed, page 82]
Again, you can call the counicls "moogla" if you want. That doesn't stop them from dogmatic and binding. That is all.
Title: Re: Why
Post by: Apotheoun on April 27, 2012, 01:33:24 PM
Just as a side note, most, if not all the Byzantine (Ruthenian) Catholics I am personally familiar with accept all the dogmas and doctrines of the Catholic Church--as far as I've been able to determine, that is. 
As a Ruthenian Catholic friend pointed out to me some time ago, the Ruthenian Catholic Church - in its "Light for Life" catechism - recognizes seven ecumenical councils as binding on the faith and practice of the Ruthenian Church. 

Finally, as far as the fourteen synods of the Latin Church are concerned, the catechism states the following:  "The Roman Catholic Church further recognizes fourteen other councils as ecumenical, stipulating that a council is ecumenical when it is so called by the pope. Although none of the early Councils were convened by the pope, his confirmation of their decrees was to be sought." [Light for Life, Part 1: The Mystery Believed, page 82]
Again, you can call the counicls "moogla" if you want. That doesn't stop them from dogmatic and binding. That is all.
And you can call those councils "ecumenical" if you want, but that does not make anything that they said dogmatic.  ;D
Title: Re: Why
Post by: primuspilus on April 27, 2012, 01:34:56 PM
Just as a side note, most, if not all the Byzantine (Ruthenian) Catholics I am personally familiar with accept all the dogmas and doctrines of the Catholic Church--as far as I've been able to determine, that is. 
As a Ruthenian Catholic friend pointed out to me some time ago, the Ruthenian Catholic Church - in its "Light for Life" catechism - recognizes seven ecumenical councils as binding on the faith and practice of the Ruthenian Church. 

Finally, as far as the fourteen synods of the Latin Church are concerned, the catechism states the following:  "The Roman Catholic Church further recognizes fourteen other councils as ecumenical, stipulating that a council is ecumenical when it is so called by the pope. Although none of the early Councils were convened by the pope, his confirmation of their decrees was to be sought." [Light for Life, Part 1: The Mystery Believed, page 82]
Again, you can call the counicls "moogla" if you want. That doesn't stop them from dogmatic and binding. That is all.
And you can call those councils "ecumenical" if you want, but that does not make anything that they said dogmatic.  ;D
This whole thing is kind of shocking coming from someone in full communion with Rome. unless Im totally confused.

PP
Title: Re: Why
Post by: Papist on April 27, 2012, 01:36:00 PM
Just as a side note, most, if not all the Byzantine (Ruthenian) Catholics I am personally familiar with accept all the dogmas and doctrines of the Catholic Church--as far as I've been able to determine, that is. 
As a Ruthenian Catholic friend pointed out to me some time ago, the Ruthenian Catholic Church - in its "Light for Life" catechism - recognizes seven ecumenical councils as binding on the faith and practice of the Ruthenian Church. 

Finally, as far as the fourteen synods of the Latin Church are concerned, the catechism states the following:  "The Roman Catholic Church further recognizes fourteen other councils as ecumenical, stipulating that a council is ecumenical when it is so called by the pope. Although none of the early Councils were convened by the pope, his confirmation of their decrees was to be sought." [Light for Life, Part 1: The Mystery Believed, page 82]
Again, you can call the counicls "moogla" if you want. That doesn't stop them from dogmatic and binding. That is all.
And you can call those councils "ecumenical" if you want, but that does not make anything that they said dogmatic.  ;D
You are right. I don't make it dogmatic. The Church does. And the Church was still the Church even when the Melkites were out of communion with us.
Title: Re: Why
Post by: Apotheoun on April 27, 2012, 01:36:49 PM
I do not question the faith of those like Todd and Joe. I think they really do love God. I really do. However I am questioning the decision to remain in a communion that contradicts their faith. I question it because we already have enough dissenters, and lumping more in is bad for the Roman Catholic Church.
I have added the word (in boldface print) that Papist always forgets to include in his posts.  

Now taking into account that clarification, I positively affirm all of the teachings of the Melkite Catholic Church, and refuse to dissent from anything that the Melkite Catholic Patriarch and Melkite Catholic Holy Synod proclaim about the faith.  Furthermore, I see no reason to leave my to leave the spiritual home that I have found in the Melkite Catholic Church simply because there is a disgruntled Roman Catholic on an internet forum who takes offense at the teachings of the Melkite Catholic Church.  
I'm not a disgruntled Roman Catholic. I love being both Roman and Catholic. I'm just an orthodox Catholic who doesn't think that it is ok to dissent from the teachings of the Church because they ultimately come to us from Christ. You on the other hand see the Roman Catholic Church as existing on the same plane as the protestant demoninations. Your loss I suppose.
There is nothing "Protestant" about the teachings of the Melkite Catholic Church.  Your problem is not with me, it is with the Melkite Catholic Church.  And quite frankly you are not in a position to address the issues you have with the Melkite Catholic Church, because you have zero ecclesial influence in the Roman Church.  ;D
Title: Re: Why
Post by: Apotheoun on April 27, 2012, 01:37:59 PM
Just as a side note, most, if not all the Byzantine (Ruthenian) Catholics I am personally familiar with accept all the dogmas and doctrines of the Catholic Church--as far as I've been able to determine, that is. 
As a Ruthenian Catholic friend pointed out to me some time ago, the Ruthenian Catholic Church - in its "Light for Life" catechism - recognizes seven ecumenical councils as binding on the faith and practice of the Ruthenian Church. 

Finally, as far as the fourteen synods of the Latin Church are concerned, the catechism states the following:  "The Roman Catholic Church further recognizes fourteen other councils as ecumenical, stipulating that a council is ecumenical when it is so called by the pope. Although none of the early Councils were convened by the pope, his confirmation of their decrees was to be sought." [Light for Life, Part 1: The Mystery Believed, page 82]
Again, you can call the counicls "moogla" if you want. That doesn't stop them from dogmatic and binding. That is all.
And you can call those councils "ecumenical" if you want, but that does not make anything that they said dogmatic.  ;D
You are right. I don't make it dogmatic. The Roman Church does. And the Roman Church was still the Roman Church even when the Melkites were out of communion with us.
You are incorrect.  The local synods of the Roman Church have no force outside of its own patriarchal boundries.
Title: Re: Why
Post by: Papist on April 27, 2012, 01:38:36 PM
I do not question the faith of those like Todd and Joe. I think they really do love God. I really do. However I am questioning the decision to remain in a communion that contradicts their faith. I question it because we already have enough dissenters, and lumping more in is bad for the Roman Catholic Church.
I have added the word (in boldface print) that Papist always forgets to include in his posts.  

Now taking into account that clarification, I positively affirm all of the teachings of the Melkite Catholic Church, and refuse to dissent from anything that the Melkite Catholic Patriarch and Melkite Catholic Holy Synod proclaim about the faith.  Furthermore, I see no reason to leave my to leave the spiritual home that I have found in the Melkite Catholic Church simply because there is a disgruntled Roman Catholic on an internet forum who takes offense at the teachings of the Melkite Catholic Church.  
I'm not a disgruntled Roman Catholic. I love being both Roman and Catholic. I'm just an orthodox Catholic who doesn't think that it is ok to dissent from the teachings of the Church because they ultimately come to us from Christ. You on the other hand see the Roman Catholic Church as existing on the same plane as the protestant demoninations. Your loss I suppose.
There is nothing "Protestant" about the teachings of the Melkite Catholic Church.  Your problem is not with me, it is with the Melkite Catholic Church.  And quite frankly you are not in a position to address the issues you have with the Melkite Catholic Church, because you have zero ecclesial influence in the Roman Church.  ;D
I don't' have ecclesial influence. The Church and her teachings do. And if you read the councils and the articles of faith, any Melkite who agrees with you is anathema. The Church's words, not mine.
Title: Re: Why
Post by: Papist on April 27, 2012, 01:39:35 PM
Just as a side note, most, if not all the Byzantine (Ruthenian) Catholics I am personally familiar with accept all the dogmas and doctrines of the Catholic Church--as far as I've been able to determine, that is. 
As a Ruthenian Catholic friend pointed out to me some time ago, the Ruthenian Catholic Church - in its "Light for Life" catechism - recognizes seven ecumenical councils as binding on the faith and practice of the Ruthenian Church. 

Finally, as far as the fourteen synods of the Latin Church are concerned, the catechism states the following:  "The Roman Catholic Church further recognizes fourteen other councils as ecumenical, stipulating that a council is ecumenical when it is so called by the pope. Although none of the early Councils were convened by the pope, his confirmation of their decrees was to be sought." [Light for Life, Part 1: The Mystery Believed, page 82]
Again, you can call the counicls "moogla" if you want. That doesn't stop them from dogmatic and binding. That is all.
And you can call those councils "ecumenical" if you want, but that does not make anything that they said dogmatic.  ;D
You are right. I don't make it dogmatic. The Roman Church does. And the Roman Church was still the Roman Church even when the Melkites were out of communion with us.
You are incorrect.  The local synods of the Roman Church have no force outside of its own patriarchal boundries.
You are incorrect. When you guys were all in schim, we continued to be the Church and continued to have Ecumenical Councils. Sorry, you were invited to the party, but chose not to show up.
Title: Re: Why
Post by: Apotheoun on April 27, 2012, 01:40:30 PM
Just as a side note, most, if not all the Byzantine (Ruthenian) Catholics I am personally familiar with accept all the dogmas and doctrines of the Catholic Church--as far as I've been able to determine, that is. 
As a Ruthenian Catholic friend pointed out to me some time ago, the Ruthenian Catholic Church - in its "Light for Life" catechism - recognizes seven ecumenical councils as binding on the faith and practice of the Ruthenian Church. 

Finally, as far as the fourteen synods of the Latin Church are concerned, the catechism states the following:  "The Roman Catholic Church further recognizes fourteen other councils as ecumenical, stipulating that a council is ecumenical when it is so called by the pope. Although none of the early Councils were convened by the pope, his confirmation of their decrees was to be sought." [Light for Life, Part 1: The Mystery Believed, page 82]
Again, you can call the counicls "moogla" if you want. That doesn't stop them from dogmatic and binding. That is all.
And you can call those councils "ecumenical" if you want, but that does not make anything that they said dogmatic.  ;D
This whole thing is kind of shocking coming from someone in full communion with Rome. unless Im totally confused.

PP
The patriarchate of which I am a member is in full communion with Rome, as the Melkite Catholic Patriarch (and the Holy Synod) has affirmed many times.  Nevertheless, as the Melkite Patriarch said in the address I posted some time ago, we do not accept the later councils of the Roman Church as ecumenical.
Title: Re: Why
Post by: Papist on April 27, 2012, 01:41:30 PM
Just as a side note, most, if not all the Byzantine (Ruthenian) Catholics I am personally familiar with accept all the dogmas and doctrines of the Catholic Church--as far as I've been able to determine, that is. 
As a Ruthenian Catholic friend pointed out to me some time ago, the Ruthenian Catholic Church - in its "Light for Life" catechism - recognizes seven ecumenical councils as binding on the faith and practice of the Ruthenian Church. 

Finally, as far as the fourteen synods of the Latin Church are concerned, the catechism states the following:  "The Roman Catholic Church further recognizes fourteen other councils as ecumenical, stipulating that a council is ecumenical when it is so called by the pope. Although none of the early Councils were convened by the pope, his confirmation of their decrees was to be sought." [Light for Life, Part 1: The Mystery Believed, page 82]
Again, you can call the counicls "moogla" if you want. That doesn't stop them from dogmatic and binding. That is all.
And you can call those councils "ecumenical" if you want, but that does not make anything that they said dogmatic.  ;D
This whole thing is kind of shocking coming from someone in full communion with Rome. unless Im totally confused.

PP
The patriarchate of which I am a member is in full communion with Rome, as the Melkite Catholic Patriarch (and the Holy Synod) has affirmed many times.  Nevertheless, as the Melkite Patriarch said in the address I posted some time ago, we do not accept the later councils of the Roman Church as ecumenical.
Can you provide that post again? I'm interested to see if the Melkite Patriarch is just another modernist bishop or not.
Title: Re: Why
Post by: elijahmaria on April 27, 2012, 01:42:28 PM
I do not question the faith of those like Todd and Joe. I think they really do love God. I really do. However I am questioning the decision to remain in a communion that contradicts their faith. I question it because we already have enough dissenters, and lumping more in is bad for the Roman Catholic Church.
I have added the word (in boldface print) that Papist always forgets to include in his posts.  

Now taking into account that clarification, I positively affirm all of the teachings of the Melkite Catholic Church, and refuse to dissent from anything that the Melkite Catholic Patriarch and Melkite Catholic Holy Synod proclaim about the faith.  Furthermore, I see no reason to leave my to leave the spiritual home that I have found in the Melkite Catholic Church simply because there is a disgruntled Roman Catholic on an internet forum who takes offense at the teachings of the Melkite Catholic Church.  
I'm not a disgruntled Roman Catholic. I love being both Roman and Catholic. I'm just an orthodox Catholic who doesn't think that it is ok to dissent from the teachings of the Church because they ultimately come to us from Christ. You on the other hand see the Roman Catholic Church as existing on the same plane as the protestant demoninations. Your loss I suppose.
There is nothing "Protestant" about the teachings of the Melkite Catholic Church.  Your problem is not with me, it is with the Melkite Catholic Church.  And quite frankly you are not in a position to address the issues you have with the Melkite Catholic Church, because you have zero ecclesial influence in the Roman Church.  ;D

Frankly you are not the only Melkite I know...you and the Irish one...and I take issue with the fact that either one of you feel free to interpret for the clergy and bishops of the Melkite Church.

I doubt that any of them are nearly as smug and self-satisfied and would not speak of the papal Church as you are wont to do when you are feeling put upon by others.

 ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

 :)
Title: Re: Why
Post by: Papist on April 27, 2012, 01:42:37 PM
Just as a side note, most, if not all the Byzantine (Ruthenian) Catholics I am personally familiar with accept all the dogmas and doctrines of the Catholic Church--as far as I've been able to determine, that is. 
As a Ruthenian Catholic friend pointed out to me some time ago, the Ruthenian Catholic Church - in its "Light for Life" catechism - recognizes seven ecumenical councils as binding on the faith and practice of the Ruthenian Church. 

Finally, as far as the fourteen synods of the Latin Church are concerned, the catechism states the following:  "The Roman Catholic Church further recognizes fourteen other councils as ecumenical, stipulating that a council is ecumenical when it is so called by the pope. Although none of the early Councils were convened by the pope, his confirmation of their decrees was to be sought." [Light for Life, Part 1: The Mystery Believed, page 82]
Again, you can call the counicls "moogla" if you want. That doesn't stop them from dogmatic and binding. That is all.
And you can call those councils "ecumenical" if you want, but that does not make anything that they said dogmatic.  ;D
This whole thing is kind of shocking coming from someone in full communion with Rome. unless Im totally confused.

PP
The patriarchate of which I am a member is in full communion with Rome, as the Melkite Catholic Patriarch (and the Holy Synod) has affirmed many times.  Nevertheless, as the Melkite Patriarch said in the address I posted some time ago, we do not accept the later councils of the Roman Church as ecumenical.
BTW, this is not a good argument to support your position. There are bishops in the Latin Church who are outright modernists, but they are still technically "in communion". Being "in communion" does not necessarily mean you are in the right.
Title: Re: Why
Post by: Apotheoun on April 27, 2012, 01:42:53 PM
Just as a side note, most, if not all the Byzantine (Ruthenian) Catholics I am personally familiar with accept all the dogmas and doctrines of the Catholic Church--as far as I've been able to determine, that is. 
As a Ruthenian Catholic friend pointed out to me some time ago, the Ruthenian Catholic Church - in its "Light for Life" catechism - recognizes seven ecumenical councils as binding on the faith and practice of the Ruthenian Church. 

Finally, as far as the fourteen synods of the Latin Church are concerned, the catechism states the following:  "The Roman Catholic Church further recognizes fourteen other councils as ecumenical, stipulating that a council is ecumenical when it is so called by the pope. Although none of the early Councils were convened by the pope, his confirmation of their decrees was to be sought." [Light for Life, Part 1: The Mystery Believed, page 82]
Again, you can call the counicls "moogla" if you want. That doesn't stop them from dogmatic and binding. That is all.
And you can call those councils "ecumenical" if you want, but that does not make anything that they said dogmatic.  ;D
You are right. I don't make it dogmatic. The Roman Church does. And the Roman Church was still the Roman Church even when the Melkites were out of communion with us.
You are incorrect.  The local synods of the Roman Church have no force outside of its own patriarchal boundries.
You are incorrect. When you guys were all in schim, we continued to be the Church and continued to have Ecumenical Councils. Sorry, you were invited to the party, but chose not to show up.
I agree, when you (i.e., Roman Catholics) were in schism from us (i.e., the Melkites) you were still the Roman Church, and thankfully our two Churches are now in full communion, and we respect each other as self-governing Churches within the Catholic communion of Churches.
Title: Re: Why
Post by: Apotheoun on April 27, 2012, 01:44:48 PM
Just as a side note, most, if not all the Byzantine (Ruthenian) Catholics I am personally familiar with accept all the dogmas and doctrines of the Catholic Church--as far as I've been able to determine, that is. 
As a Ruthenian Catholic friend pointed out to me some time ago, the Ruthenian Catholic Church - in its "Light for Life" catechism - recognizes seven ecumenical councils as binding on the faith and practice of the Ruthenian Church. 

Finally, as far as the fourteen synods of the Latin Church are concerned, the catechism states the following:  "The Roman Catholic Church further recognizes fourteen other councils as ecumenical, stipulating that a council is ecumenical when it is so called by the pope. Although none of the early Councils were convened by the pope, his confirmation of their decrees was to be sought." [Light for Life, Part 1: The Mystery Believed, page 82]
Again, you can call the counicls "moogla" if you want. That doesn't stop them from dogmatic and binding. That is all.
And you can call those councils "ecumenical" if you want, but that does not make anything that they said dogmatic.  ;D
This whole thing is kind of shocking coming from someone in full communion with Rome. unless Im totally confused.

PP
The patriarchate of which I am a member is in full communion with Rome, as the Melkite Catholic Patriarch (and the Holy Synod) has affirmed many times.  Nevertheless, as the Melkite Patriarch said in the address I posted some time ago, we do not accept the later councils of the Roman Church as ecumenical.
BTW, this is not a good argument to support your position. There are bishops in the Latin Church who are outright modernists, but they are still technically "in communion". Being "in communion" does not necessarily mean you are in the right.
It is sad that you seem think of your patriarch as an ineffective leader who lets heretics remain in communion with him.  Well, I guess you will have to do something about that when you become pope.  Until then you will just have to suffer as a disgruntled Roman Catholic.  ;D
Title: Re: Why
Post by: Papist on April 27, 2012, 01:44:57 PM
Just as a side note, most, if not all the Byzantine (Ruthenian) Catholics I am personally familiar with accept all the dogmas and doctrines of the Catholic Church--as far as I've been able to determine, that is. 
As a Ruthenian Catholic friend pointed out to me some time ago, the Ruthenian Catholic Church - in its "Light for Life" catechism - recognizes seven ecumenical councils as binding on the faith and practice of the Ruthenian Church. 

Finally, as far as the fourteen synods of the Latin Church are concerned, the catechism states the following:  "The Roman Catholic Church further recognizes fourteen other councils as ecumenical, stipulating that a council is ecumenical when it is so called by the pope. Although none of the early Councils were convened by the pope, his confirmation of their decrees was to be sought." [Light for Life, Part 1: The Mystery Believed, page 82]
Again, you can call the counicls "moogla" if you want. That doesn't stop them from dogmatic and binding. That is all.
And you can call those councils "ecumenical" if you want, but that does not make anything that they said dogmatic.  ;D
You are right. I don't make it dogmatic. The Roman Church does. And the Roman Church was still the Roman Church even when the Melkites were out of communion with us.
You are incorrect.  The local synods of the Roman Church have no force outside of its own patriarchal boundries.
You are incorrect. When you guys were all in schim, we continued to be the Church and continued to have Ecumenical Councils. Sorry, you were invited to the party, but chose not to show up.
I agree, when you (i.e., Roman Catholics) were in schism from us (i.e., the Melkites) you were still the Roman Church, and thankfully our two Churches are now in full communion, and we respect each other as self-governing Churches within the Catholic communion of Churches.
Oh, you missed the whole point. When there was a schism between us, we were the Church. You were not. We were the Church. You were a schismatic group like the SSPX used to be.
Title: Re: Why
Post by: Papist on April 27, 2012, 01:45:57 PM
Just as a side note, most, if not all the Byzantine (Ruthenian) Catholics I am personally familiar with accept all the dogmas and doctrines of the Catholic Church--as far as I've been able to determine, that is.  
As a Ruthenian Catholic friend pointed out to me some time ago, the Ruthenian Catholic Church - in its "Light for Life" catechism - recognizes seven ecumenical councils as binding on the faith and practice of the Ruthenian Church.  

Finally, as far as the fourteen synods of the Latin Church are concerned, the catechism states the following:  "The Roman Catholic Church further recognizes fourteen other councils as ecumenical, stipulating that a council is ecumenical when it is so called by the pope. Although none of the early Councils were convened by the pope, his confirmation of their decrees was to be sought." [Light for Life, Part 1: The Mystery Believed, page 82]
Again, you can call the counicls "moogla" if you want. That doesn't stop them from dogmatic and binding. That is all.
And you can call those councils "ecumenical" if you want, but that does not make anything that they said dogmatic.  ;D
This whole thing is kind of shocking coming from someone in full communion with Rome. unless Im totally confused.

PP
The patriarchate of which I am a member is in full communion with Rome, as the Melkite Catholic Patriarch (and the Holy Synod) has affirmed many times.  Nevertheless, as the Melkite Patriarch said in the address I posted some time ago, we do not accept the later councils of the Roman Church as ecumenical.
BTW, this is not a good argument to support your position. There are bishops in the Latin Church who are outright modernists, but they are still technically "in communion". Being "in communion" does not necessarily mean you are in the right.
It is sad that you seem think of your patriarch as an ineffective leader who lets heretics remain in communion with him.  Well, I guess you will have to do something about that when you become pope.
I don't fault the Pope for wanting to avoid another painful schism. I think he is a very effective leader trying to heard some disobedient cats. You have the modernists on the one side, and then "catholics" like you and Joe on the other.
Title: Re: Why
Post by: primuspilus on April 27, 2012, 01:47:07 PM
Just as a side note, most, if not all the Byzantine (Ruthenian) Catholics I am personally familiar with accept all the dogmas and doctrines of the Catholic Church--as far as I've been able to determine, that is.  
As a Ruthenian Catholic friend pointed out to me some time ago, the Ruthenian Catholic Church - in its "Light for Life" catechism - recognizes seven ecumenical councils as binding on the faith and practice of the Ruthenian Church.  

Finally, as far as the fourteen synods of the Latin Church are concerned, the catechism states the following:  "The Roman Catholic Church further recognizes fourteen other councils as ecumenical, stipulating that a council is ecumenical when it is so called by the pope. Although none of the early Councils were convened by the pope, his confirmation of their decrees was to be sought." [Light for Life, Part 1: The Mystery Believed, page 82]
Again, you can call the counicls "moogla" if you want. That doesn't stop them from dogmatic and binding. That is all.
And you can call those councils "ecumenical" if you want, but that does not make anything that they said dogmatic.  ;D
This whole thing is kind of shocking coming from someone in full communion with Rome. unless Im totally confused.

PP
The patriarchate of which I am a member is in full communion with Rome, as the Melkite Catholic Patriarch (and the Holy Synod) has affirmed many times.  Nevertheless, as the Melkite Patriarch said in the address I posted some time ago, we do not accept the later councils of the Roman Church as ecumenical.
Then IMHO communion is belittled by this and was political, in nature, and not a conviction of spirit.

I find it pretty silly that you can be in communion with an asterisk beside it.

I am a communicant with the Orthodox Chuch because I believe fully in its teachings. If I were not, I would not.

PP
Title: Re: Why
Post by: Papist on April 27, 2012, 01:47:43 PM
Just as a side note, most, if not all the Byzantine (Ruthenian) Catholics I am personally familiar with accept all the dogmas and doctrines of the Catholic Church--as far as I've been able to determine, that is. 
As a Ruthenian Catholic friend pointed out to me some time ago, the Ruthenian Catholic Church - in its "Light for Life" catechism - recognizes seven ecumenical councils as binding on the faith and practice of the Ruthenian Church. 

Finally, as far as the fourteen synods of the Latin Church are concerned, the catechism states the following:  "The Roman Catholic Church further recognizes fourteen other councils as ecumenical, stipulating that a council is ecumenical when it is so called by the pope. Although none of the early Councils were convened by the pope, his confirmation of their decrees was to be sought." [Light for Life, Part 1: The Mystery Believed, page 82]
Again, you can call the counicls "moogla" if you want. That doesn't stop them from dogmatic and binding. That is all.
And you can call those councils "ecumenical" if you want, but that does not make anything that they said dogmatic.  ;D
You are right. I don't make it dogmatic. The Roman Church does. And the Roman Church was still the Roman Church even when the Melkites were out of communion with us.
You are incorrect.  The local synods of the Roman Church have no force outside of its own patriarchal boundries.
You are incorrect. When you guys were all in schim, we continued to be the Church and continued to have Ecumenical Councils. Sorry, you were invited to the party, but chose not to show up.
I agree, when you (i.e., Roman Catholics) were in schism from us (i.e., the Melkites) you were still the Roman Church, and thankfully our two Churches are now in full communion, and we respect each other as self-governing Churches within the Catholic communion of Churches.
Oh, you missed the whole point. When there was a schism between us, we were the Church. You were not. We were the Church. You were a schismatic group like the SSPX used to be.
Though I would say that the SSPX was more faithful to the teachings of the Church all along, than are people like Todd and Joe.
Title: Re: Why
Post by: Papist on April 27, 2012, 01:48:05 PM
Just as a side note, most, if not all the Byzantine (Ruthenian) Catholics I am personally familiar with accept all the dogmas and doctrines of the Catholic Church--as far as I've been able to determine, that is.  
As a Ruthenian Catholic friend pointed out to me some time ago, the Ruthenian Catholic Church - in its "Light for Life" catechism - recognizes seven ecumenical councils as binding on the faith and practice of the Ruthenian Church.  

Finally, as far as the fourteen synods of the Latin Church are concerned, the catechism states the following:  "The Roman Catholic Church further recognizes fourteen other councils as ecumenical, stipulating that a council is ecumenical when it is so called by the pope. Although none of the early Councils were convened by the pope, his confirmation of their decrees was to be sought." [Light for Life, Part 1: The Mystery Believed, page 82]
Again, you can call the counicls "moogla" if you want. That doesn't stop them from dogmatic and binding. That is all.
And you can call those councils "ecumenical" if you want, but that does not make anything that they said dogmatic.  ;D
This whole thing is kind of shocking coming from someone in full communion with Rome. unless Im totally confused.

PP
The patriarchate of which I am a member is in full communion with Rome, as the Melkite Catholic Patriarch (and the Holy Synod) has affirmed many times.  Nevertheless, as the Melkite Patriarch said in the address I posted some time ago, we do not accept the later councils of the Roman Church as ecumenical.
Then IMHO communion is belittled by this and was political, in nature, and not a conviction of spirit.

I find it pretty silly that you can be in communion with an asterisk beside it.

I am a communicant with the Orthodox Chuch because I believe fully in its teachings. If I were not, I would not.

PP
This
Title: Re: Why
Post by: Apotheoun on April 27, 2012, 01:48:19 PM
I do not question the faith of those like Todd and Joe. I think they really do love God. I really do. However I am questioning the decision to remain in a communion that contradicts their faith. I question it because we already have enough dissenters, and lumping more in is bad for the Roman Catholic Church.
I have added the word (in boldface print) that Papist always forgets to include in his posts.  

Now taking into account that clarification, I positively affirm all of the teachings of the Melkite Catholic Church, and refuse to dissent from anything that the Melkite Catholic Patriarch and Melkite Catholic Holy Synod proclaim about the faith.  Furthermore, I see no reason to leave my to leave the spiritual home that I have found in the Melkite Catholic Church simply because there is a disgruntled Roman Catholic on an internet forum who takes offense at the teachings of the Melkite Catholic Church.  
I'm not a disgruntled Roman Catholic. I love being both Roman and Catholic. I'm just an orthodox Catholic who doesn't think that it is ok to dissent from the teachings of the Church because they ultimately come to us from Christ. You on the other hand see the Roman Catholic Church as existing on the same plane as the protestant demoninations. Your loss I suppose.
There is nothing "Protestant" about the teachings of the Melkite Catholic Church.  Your problem is not with me, it is with the Melkite Catholic Church.  And quite frankly you are not in a position to address the issues you have with the Melkite Catholic Church, because you have zero ecclesial influence in the Roman Church.  ;D

Frankly you are not the only Melkite I know...you and the Irish one...and I take issue with the fact that either one of you feel free to interpret for the clergy and bishops of the Melkite Church.

I doubt that any of them are nearly as smug and self-satisfied and would not speak of the papal Church as you are wont to do when you are feeling put upon by others.

 ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

 :)
I don't know you from Adam (or to be more exact Eve), and so I have no way of knowing who you do or do not have a friendship with.  Vague statements and generalizations are not going to convince me to alter my position.  I will remain steadfast in support of the Zoghby Initiative, which - by the way - remains the official position of the Melkite Catholic Patriarch and Holy Synod.
Title: Re: Why
Post by: biro on April 27, 2012, 01:49:00 PM
Quote from: Papist
Oh, you missed the whole point. When there was a schism between us, we were the Church. You were not. We were the Church. You were a schismatic group like the SSPX used to be.

One of the distinguishing factors about the Second Vatican Council was that the Pope invited the Orthodox and the Protestants. He was trying to create a truly ecumenical council.

I haven't seen too many times where the gesture was reciprocated.

There are so many Orthodox on this site who complain about how bad ecumenism supposedly is. And yet they always have something to say about how other churches do things. Listen to me, but go away! Huh?

If they want to shut down discussion, then shut down discussion. Quit or get off the pot.
Title: Re: Why
Post by: primuspilus on April 27, 2012, 01:49:14 PM
Just as a side note, most, if not all the Byzantine (Ruthenian) Catholics I am personally familiar with accept all the dogmas and doctrines of the Catholic Church--as far as I've been able to determine, that is.  
As a Ruthenian Catholic friend pointed out to me some time ago, the Ruthenian Catholic Church - in its "Light for Life" catechism - recognizes seven ecumenical councils as binding on the faith and practice of the Ruthenian Church.  

Finally, as far as the fourteen synods of the Latin Church are concerned, the catechism states the following:  "The Roman Catholic Church further recognizes fourteen other councils as ecumenical, stipulating that a council is ecumenical when it is so called by the pope. Although none of the early Councils were convened by the pope, his confirmation of their decrees was to be sought." [Light for Life, Part 1: The Mystery Believed, page 82]
Again, you can call the counicls "moogla" if you want. That doesn't stop them from dogmatic and binding. That is all.
And you can call those councils "ecumenical" if you want, but that does not make anything that they said dogmatic.  ;D
This whole thing is kind of shocking coming from someone in full communion with Rome. unless Im totally confused.

PP
The patriarchate of which I am a member is in full communion with Rome, as the Melkite Catholic Patriarch (and the Holy Synod) has affirmed many times.  Nevertheless, as the Melkite Patriarch said in the address I posted some time ago, we do not accept the later councils of the Roman Church as ecumenical.
Then IMHO communion is belittled by this and was political, in nature, and not a conviction of spirit.

I find it pretty silly that you can be in communion with an asterisk beside it.

I am a communicant with the Orthodox Chuch because I believe fully in its teachings. If I were not, I would not.

PP
This
Twice in as many days....Hitler is throwing snowballs at Arius right now......

PP
Title: Re: Why
Post by: ZealousZeal on April 27, 2012, 01:50:52 PM
What a mess! This is precisely why I asked on page 3:

and b) why would they want to be in communion with a group that rejects one of their dogmas as false?

This question only applies if the Melkites consider it to be a dogma.

Relatedly, and this may be a stupid question so apologies if it is, but do Melkites consider VI to be an Ecumenical Council? If they don't, wouldn't they not consider it a dogma?

Not a stupid question at all, and no they don't.

Okay, then another potentially stupid question ( ;D):

I find it pretty confusing that different churches can be in the same communion without recognizing the same # of Ecumenical Councils, especially when the discrepancy is as huge as Roman Catholics recognizing 21, and others recognizing only 7. If the canons of these councils are dogma, then it seems pretty mission-critical to be in agreement on what's Ecumenical and what isn't.

So I guess my question is... How does this work in the Catholic Church? How is it functional?

I suppose the answer to my question is: not very well.

I find it amazing that Catholics accuse the Orthodox of having an ecumenical council problem ("Why haven't you called one in 1,000 years? You can't!") when the Catholic communion doesn't strike me as a bastion of clarity on the matter, either.
Title: Re: Why
Post by: Papist on April 27, 2012, 01:51:37 PM
Just as a side note, most, if not all the Byzantine (Ruthenian) Catholics I am personally familiar with accept all the dogmas and doctrines of the Catholic Church--as far as I've been able to determine, that is.  
As a Ruthenian Catholic friend pointed out to me some time ago, the Ruthenian Catholic Church - in its "Light for Life" catechism - recognizes seven ecumenical councils as binding on the faith and practice of the Ruthenian Church.  

Finally, as far as the fourteen synods of the Latin Church are concerned, the catechism states the following:  "The Roman Catholic Church further recognizes fourteen other councils as ecumenical, stipulating that a council is ecumenical when it is so called by the pope. Although none of the early Councils were convened by the pope, his confirmation of their decrees was to be sought." [Light for Life, Part 1: The Mystery Believed, page 82]
Again, you can call the counicls "moogla" if you want. That doesn't stop them from dogmatic and binding. That is all.
And you can call those councils "ecumenical" if you want, but that does not make anything that they said dogmatic.  ;D
This whole thing is kind of shocking coming from someone in full communion with Rome. unless Im totally confused.

PP
The patriarchate of which I am a member is in full communion with Rome, as the Melkite Catholic Patriarch (and the Holy Synod) has affirmed many times.  Nevertheless, as the Melkite Patriarch said in the address I posted some time ago, we do not accept the later councils of the Roman Church as ecumenical.
Then IMHO communion is belittled by this and was political, in nature, and not a conviction of spirit.

I find it pretty silly that you can be in communion with an asterisk beside it.

I am a communicant with the Orthodox Chuch because I believe fully in its teachings. If I were not, I would not.

PP
This
Twice in as many days....Hitler is throwing snowballs at Arius right now......

PP
I actually respect your views alot. You acknolwedge that there are genuine differences between the Eastern Orthodox Church and the Catholic Church, but I have not ever known you to exaggerate them. I respect that.
Title: Re: Why
Post by: Apotheoun on April 27, 2012, 01:51:44 PM
Just as a side note, most, if not all the Byzantine (Ruthenian) Catholics I am personally familiar with accept all the dogmas and doctrines of the Catholic Church--as far as I've been able to determine, that is. 
As a Ruthenian Catholic friend pointed out to me some time ago, the Ruthenian Catholic Church - in its "Light for Life" catechism - recognizes seven ecumenical councils as binding on the faith and practice of the Ruthenian Church. 

Finally, as far as the fourteen synods of the Latin Church are concerned, the catechism states the following:  "The Roman Catholic Church further recognizes fourteen other councils as ecumenical, stipulating that a council is ecumenical when it is so called by the pope. Although none of the early Councils were convened by the pope, his confirmation of their decrees was to be sought." [Light for Life, Part 1: The Mystery Believed, page 82]
Again, you can call the counicls "moogla" if you want. That doesn't stop them from dogmatic and binding. That is all.
And you can call those councils "ecumenical" if you want, but that does not make anything that they said dogmatic.  ;D
This whole thing is kind of shocking coming from someone in full communion with Rome. unless Im totally confused.

PP
The patriarchate of which I am a member is in full communion with Rome, as the Melkite Catholic Patriarch (and the Holy Synod) has affirmed many times.  Nevertheless, as the Melkite Patriarch said in the address I posted some time ago, we do not accept the later councils of the Roman Church as ecumenical.
Then IMHO communion is belittled by this and was political, in nature, and not a conviction of spirit.

I find it pretty silly that you can be in communion with an asterisk beside it.

I am a communicant with the Orthodox Chuch because I believe fully in its teachings. If I were not, I would not.

PP
The fact that you misunderstand the nature of ecclesial communion apparently rejecting the idea that it involves a reciprocal relationship between two (or more) Churches is sad, but there is probably little I can do to correct your error on this point. 

Nevertheless, I would suggest that you read the book "His Broken Body" by Fr. Laurent Cleenewerck, because he gives a good summary of the patristic understanding of communion.
Title: Re: Why
Post by: Papist on April 27, 2012, 01:52:44 PM
What a mess! This is precisely why I asked on page 3:

and b) why would they want to be in communion with a group that rejects one of their dogmas as false?

This question only applies if the Melkites consider it to be a dogma.

Relatedly, and this may be a stupid question so apologies if it is, but do Melkites consider VI to be an Ecumenical Council? If they don't, wouldn't they not consider it a dogma?

Not a stupid question at all, and no they don't.

Okay, then another potentially stupid question ( ;D):

I find it pretty confusing that different churches can be in the same communion without recognizing the same # of Ecumenical Councils, especially when the discrepancy is as huge as Roman Catholics recognizing 21, and others recognizing only 7. If the canons of these councils are dogma, then it seems pretty mission-critical to be in agreement on what's Ecumenical and what isn't.

So I guess my question is... How does this work in the Catholic Church? How is it functional?

I suppose the answer to my question is: not very well.

I find it amazing that Catholics accuse the Orthodox of having an ecumenical council problem ("Why haven't you called one in 1,000 years? You can't!") when the Catholic communion doesn't strike me as a bastion of clarity on the matter, either.
The Catholic Church is clear on the matter. The problem here is not the Church but disobedient Catholics. And becuase the Pope wants to avoid another painful schism, this is not addressed as directly as some of us Traditionalists would like. I respect the Holy Father, and I understand his reasoning.
Title: Re: Why
Post by: Apotheoun on April 27, 2012, 01:54:11 PM
What a mess! This is precisely why I asked on page 3:

and b) why would they want to be in communion with a group that rejects one of their dogmas as false?

This question only applies if the Melkites consider it to be a dogma.

Relatedly, and this may be a stupid question so apologies if it is, but do Melkites consider VI to be an Ecumenical Council? If they don't, wouldn't they not consider it a dogma?

Not a stupid question at all, and no they don't.

Okay, then another potentially stupid question ( ;D):

I find it pretty confusing that different churches can be in the same communion without recognizing the same # of Ecumenical Councils, especially when the discrepancy is as huge as Roman Catholics recognizing 21, and others recognizing only 7. If the canons of these councils are dogma, then it seems pretty mission-critical to be in agreement on what's Ecumenical and what isn't.

So I guess my question is... How does this work in the Catholic Church? How is it functional?

I suppose the answer to my question is: not very well.

I find it amazing that Catholics accuse the Orthodox of having an ecumenical council problem ("Why haven't you called one in 1,000 years? You can't!") when the Catholic communion doesn't strike me as a bastion of clarity on the matter, either.
Anyone who looks at the ancient Church will see a very messy house indeed.  The Church Fathers were not scholstic theologians . . . thank God!
Title: Re: Why
Post by: ZealousZeal on April 27, 2012, 01:56:17 PM
What a mess! This is precisely why I asked on page 3:

and b) why would they want to be in communion with a group that rejects one of their dogmas as false?

This question only applies if the Melkites consider it to be a dogma.

Relatedly, and this may be a stupid question so apologies if it is, but do Melkites consider VI to be an Ecumenical Council? If they don't, wouldn't they not consider it a dogma?

Not a stupid question at all, and no they don't.

Okay, then another potentially stupid question ( ;D):

I find it pretty confusing that different churches can be in the same communion without recognizing the same # of Ecumenical Councils, especially when the discrepancy is as huge as Roman Catholics recognizing 21, and others recognizing only 7. If the canons of these councils are dogma, then it seems pretty mission-critical to be in agreement on what's Ecumenical and what isn't.

So I guess my question is... How does this work in the Catholic Church? How is it functional?

I suppose the answer to my question is: not very well.

I find it amazing that Catholics accuse the Orthodox of having an ecumenical council problem ("Why haven't you called one in 1,000 years? You can't!") when the Catholic communion doesn't strike me as a bastion of clarity on the matter, either.
The Catholic Church is clear on the matter. The problem here is not the Church but disobedient Catholics. And becuase the Pope wants to avoid another painful schism, this is not addressed as directly as some of us Traditionalists would like. I respect the Holy Father, and I understand his reasoning.

How do you know that is his reasoning? I'm not saying that you are necessarily wrong about it, but how do you know he isn't addressing this because he's trying to avoid schism? Has he said as much?
Title: Re: Why
Post by: Papist on April 27, 2012, 01:56:29 PM
Just as a side note, most, if not all the Byzantine (Ruthenian) Catholics I am personally familiar with accept all the dogmas and doctrines of the Catholic Church--as far as I've been able to determine, that is. 
As a Ruthenian Catholic friend pointed out to me some time ago, the Ruthenian Catholic Church - in its "Light for Life" catechism - recognizes seven ecumenical councils as binding on the faith and practice of the Ruthenian Church. 

Finally, as far as the fourteen synods of the Latin Church are concerned, the catechism states the following:  "The Roman Catholic Church further recognizes fourteen other councils as ecumenical, stipulating that a council is ecumenical when it is so called by the pope. Although none of the early Councils were convened by the pope, his confirmation of their decrees was to be sought." [Light for Life, Part 1: The Mystery Believed, page 82]
Again, you can call the counicls "moogla" if you want. That doesn't stop them from dogmatic and binding. That is all.
And you can call those councils "ecumenical" if you want, but that does not make anything that they said dogmatic.  ;D
This whole thing is kind of shocking coming from someone in full communion with Rome. unless Im totally confused.

PP
The patriarchate of which I am a member is in full communion with Rome, as the Melkite Catholic Patriarch (and the Holy Synod) has affirmed many times.  Nevertheless, as the Melkite Patriarch said in the address I posted some time ago, we do not accept the later councils of the Roman Church as ecumenical.
Then IMHO communion is belittled by this and was political, in nature, and not a conviction of spirit.

I find it pretty silly that you can be in communion with an asterisk beside it.

I am a communicant with the Orthodox Chuch because I believe fully in its teachings. If I were not, I would not.

PP
The fact that you misunderstand the nature of ecclesial communion apparently rejecting the idea that it involves a reciprocal relationship between two (or more) Churches is sad, but there is probably little I can do to correct your error on this point. 

Nevertheless, I would suggest that you read the book "His Broken Body" by Fr. Laurent Cleenewerck, because he gives a good summary of the patristic understanding of communion.
You misunderstand ecclesial communion. You think communion between Churches is an excuse to act like protestants. What happnes when another Church in the communion decides to start performing same sex marriage? Will that be ok? The line has to be drawn, whether you like it or not.
Title: Re: Why
Post by: Papist on April 27, 2012, 01:57:49 PM
What a mess! This is precisely why I asked on page 3:

and b) why would they want to be in communion with a group that rejects one of their dogmas as false?

This question only applies if the Melkites consider it to be a dogma.

Relatedly, and this may be a stupid question so apologies if it is, but do Melkites consider VI to be an Ecumenical Council? If they don't, wouldn't they not consider it a dogma?

Not a stupid question at all, and no they don't.

Okay, then another potentially stupid question ( ;D):

I find it pretty confusing that different churches can be in the same communion without recognizing the same # of Ecumenical Councils, especially when the discrepancy is as huge as Roman Catholics recognizing 21, and others recognizing only 7. If the canons of these councils are dogma, then it seems pretty mission-critical to be in agreement on what's Ecumenical and what isn't.

So I guess my question is... How does this work in the Catholic Church? How is it functional?

I suppose the answer to my question is: not very well.

I find it amazing that Catholics accuse the Orthodox of having an ecumenical council problem ("Why haven't you called one in 1,000 years? You can't!") when the Catholic communion doesn't strike me as a bastion of clarity on the matter, either.
The Catholic Church is clear on the matter. The problem here is not the Church but disobedient Catholics. And becuase the Pope wants to avoid another painful schism, this is not addressed as directly as some of us Traditionalists would like. I respect the Holy Father, and I understand his reasoning.

How do you know that is his reasoning? I'm not saying that you are necessarily wrong about it, but how do you know he isn't addressing this because he's trying to avoid schism? Has he said as much?
Well, the Pope believes in all the teachings of the Church and believes that all Catholics are bound to them. If this is true, and he doesn't excommunicate dissenting Bishops, the only thing I can think is that he is trying a softer pastoral approach for the good of the Church.
Title: Re: Why
Post by: Apotheoun on April 27, 2012, 01:58:27 PM
Just as a side note, most, if not all the Byzantine (Ruthenian) Catholics I am personally familiar with accept all the dogmas and doctrines of the Catholic Church--as far as I've been able to determine, that is. 
As a Ruthenian Catholic friend pointed out to me some time ago, the Ruthenian Catholic Church - in its "Light for Life" catechism - recognizes seven ecumenical councils as binding on the faith and practice of the Ruthenian Church. 

Finally, as far as the fourteen synods of the Latin Church are concerned, the catechism states the following:  "The Roman Catholic Church further recognizes fourteen other councils as ecumenical, stipulating that a council is ecumenical when it is so called by the pope. Although none of the early Councils were convened by the pope, his confirmation of their decrees was to be sought." [Light for Life, Part 1: The Mystery Believed, page 82]
Again, you can call the counicls "moogla" if you want. That doesn't stop them from dogmatic and binding. That is all.
And you can call those councils "ecumenical" if you want, but that does not make anything that they said dogmatic.  ;D
You are right. I don't make it dogmatic. The Roman Church does. And the Roman Church was still the Roman Church even when the Melkites were out of communion with us.
You are incorrect.  The local synods of the Roman Church have no force outside of its own patriarchal boundries.
You are incorrect. When you guys were all in schim, we continued to be the Church and continued to have Ecumenical Councils. Sorry, you were invited to the party, but chose not to show up.
I agree, when you (i.e., Roman Catholics) were in schism from us (i.e., the Melkites) you were still the Roman Church, and thankfully our two Churches are now in full communion, and we respect each other as self-governing Churches within the Catholic communion of Churches.
Oh, you missed the whole point. When there was a schism between us, we were the Church. You were not. We were the Church. You were a schismatic group like the SSPX used to be.
I did not miss your point, I simply do not accept it as a valid position to hold.

The Roman Church remained a Church while it was in schism from the Melkite Church, and vice versa.
Title: Re: Why
Post by: primuspilus on April 27, 2012, 01:58:33 PM
Quote
The Catholic Church is clear on the matter. The problem here is not the Church but disobedient Catholics
"The Pope doesn't have authority in my bedroom" would seem to agree with you....sadly.

Quote
The fact that you misunderstand the nature of ecclesial communion apparently rejecting the idea that it involves a reciprocal relationship between two (or more) Churches is sad, but there is probably little I can do to correct your error on this point
Or perhaps someone in your ecclesial past misunderstood the difference between communion and political expediency.

However, I'll take a gander at the book.

Quote
I actually respect your views alot. You acknolwedge that there are genuine differences between the Eastern Orthodox Church and the Catholic Church, but I have not ever known you to exaggerate them. I respect that
I appreciate that. I ususally leave my holy hand grenades at home  :laugh:

Quote
One of the distinguishing factors about the Second Vatican Council was that the Pope invited the Orthodox and the Protestants. He was trying to create a truly ecumenical council.

I haven't seen too many times where the gesture was reciprocated.

There are so many Orthodox on this site who complain about how bad ecumenism supposedly is. And yet they always have something to say about how other churches do things. Listen to me, but go away! Huh?

If they want to shut down discussion, then shut down discussion. Quit or get off the pot
Man oh man...the clarity. Much to our shame.

PP
Title: Re: Why
Post by: Papist on April 27, 2012, 01:58:48 PM
What a mess! This is precisely why I asked on page 3:

and b) why would they want to be in communion with a group that rejects one of their dogmas as false?

This question only applies if the Melkites consider it to be a dogma.

Relatedly, and this may be a stupid question so apologies if it is, but do Melkites consider VI to be an Ecumenical Council? If they don't, wouldn't they not consider it a dogma?

Not a stupid question at all, and no they don't.

Okay, then another potentially stupid question ( ;D):

I find it pretty confusing that different churches can be in the same communion without recognizing the same # of Ecumenical Councils, especially when the discrepancy is as huge as Roman Catholics recognizing 21, and others recognizing only 7. If the canons of these councils are dogma, then it seems pretty mission-critical to be in agreement on what's Ecumenical and what isn't.

So I guess my question is... How does this work in the Catholic Church? How is it functional?

I suppose the answer to my question is: not very well.

I find it amazing that Catholics accuse the Orthodox of having an ecumenical council problem ("Why haven't you called one in 1,000 years? You can't!") when the Catholic communion doesn't strike me as a bastion of clarity on the matter, either.
Anyone who looks at the ancient Church will see a very messy house indeed.  The Church Fathers were not scholstic theologians . . . thank God!
You mean like the Universal Doctor of the Church? St. Thomas Aquinas, pray for us.
Title: Re: Why
Post by: Papist on April 27, 2012, 02:00:06 PM
Just as a side note, most, if not all the Byzantine (Ruthenian) Catholics I am personally familiar with accept all the dogmas and doctrines of the Catholic Church--as far as I've been able to determine, that is. 
As a Ruthenian Catholic friend pointed out to me some time ago, the Ruthenian Catholic Church - in its "Light for Life" catechism - recognizes seven ecumenical councils as binding on the faith and practice of the Ruthenian Church. 

Finally, as far as the fourteen synods of the Latin Church are concerned, the catechism states the following:  "The Roman Catholic Church further recognizes fourteen other councils as ecumenical, stipulating that a council is ecumenical when it is so called by the pope. Although none of the early Councils were convened by the pope, his confirmation of their decrees was to be sought." [Light for Life, Part 1: The Mystery Believed, page 82]
Again, you can call the counicls "moogla" if you want. That doesn't stop them from dogmatic and binding. That is all.
And you can call those councils "ecumenical" if you want, but that does not make anything that they said dogmatic.  ;D
You are right. I don't make it dogmatic. The Roman Church does. And the Roman Church was still the Roman Church even when the Melkites were out of communion with us.
You are incorrect.  The local synods of the Roman Church have no force outside of its own patriarchal boundries.
You are incorrect. When you guys were all in schim, we continued to be the Church and continued to have Ecumenical Councils. Sorry, you were invited to the party, but chose not to show up.
I agree, when you (i.e., Roman Catholics) were in schism from us (i.e., the Melkites) you were still the Roman Church, and thankfully our two Churches are now in full communion, and we respect each other as self-governing Churches within the Catholic communion of Churches.
Oh, you missed the whole point. When there was a schism between us, we were the Church. You were not. We were the Church. You were a schismatic group like the SSPX used to be.
I did not miss your point, I simply do not accept it as a valid position to hold.

The Roman Church remained a Church while it was in schism from the Melkite Church, and vice versa.
Oh, I see. So you disagree with the Creed when it states that Church is "One". Wow, you are not helping your case at all by rejecting articles of the Creed.
Title: Re: Why
Post by: Apotheoun on April 27, 2012, 02:00:12 PM
What a mess! This is precisely why I asked on page 3:

and b) why would they want to be in communion with a group that rejects one of their dogmas as false?

This question only applies if the Melkites consider it to be a dogma.

Relatedly, and this may be a stupid question so apologies if it is, but do Melkites consider VI to be an Ecumenical Council? If they don't, wouldn't they not consider it a dogma?

Not a stupid question at all, and no they don't.

Okay, then another potentially stupid question ( ;D):

I find it pretty confusing that different churches can be in the same communion without recognizing the same # of Ecumenical Councils, especially when the discrepancy is as huge as Roman Catholics recognizing 21, and others recognizing only 7. If the canons of these councils are dogma, then it seems pretty mission-critical to be in agreement on what's Ecumenical and what isn't.

So I guess my question is... How does this work in the Catholic Church? How is it functional?

I suppose the answer to my question is: not very well.

I find it amazing that Catholics accuse the Orthodox of having an ecumenical council problem ("Why haven't you called one in 1,000 years? You can't!") when the Catholic communion doesn't strike me as a bastion of clarity on the matter, either.
The Catholic Church is clear on the matter. The problem here is not the Church but disobedient Catholics. And becuase the Pope wants to avoid another painful schism, this is not addressed as directly as some of us Traditionalists would like. I respect the Holy Father, and I understand his reasoning.

How do you know that is his reasoning? I'm not saying that you are necessarily wrong about it, but how do you know he isn't addressing this because he's trying to avoid schism? Has he said as much?
Well, the Pope believes in all the teachings of the Church and believes that all Catholics are bound to them. If this is true, and he doesn't excommunicate dissenting Bishops, the only thing I can think is that he is trying a softer pastoral approach for the good of the Church.
I am sure that the pope accepts Roman Catholic teachings, but sadly for you he has not tried to force those Latinized theories (theologoumena) on the Melkite Catholic Church.  And by the way, he has had plenty of opportunities to do so.  Perhaps your problem is not merely with the Melkite Catholic Church, perhaps your problem is also with the pope, who seems to be unwilling to do what you want done.
Title: Re: Why
Post by: Papist on April 27, 2012, 02:01:38 PM
What a mess! This is precisely why I asked on page 3:

and b) why would they want to be in communion with a group that rejects one of their dogmas as false?

This question only applies if the Melkites consider it to be a dogma.

Relatedly, and this may be a stupid question so apologies if it is, but do Melkites consider VI to be an Ecumenical Council? If they don't, wouldn't they not consider it a dogma?

Not a stupid question at all, and no they don't.

Okay, then another potentially stupid question ( ;D):

I find it pretty confusing that different churches can be in the same communion without recognizing the same # of Ecumenical Councils, especially when the discrepancy is as huge as Roman Catholics recognizing 21, and others recognizing only 7. If the canons of these councils are dogma, then it seems pretty mission-critical to be in agreement on what's Ecumenical and what isn't.

So I guess my question is... How does this work in the Catholic Church? How is it functional?

I suppose the answer to my question is: not very well.

I find it amazing that Catholics accuse the Orthodox of having an ecumenical council problem ("Why haven't you called one in 1,000 years? You can't!") when the Catholic communion doesn't strike me as a bastion of clarity on the matter, either.
The Catholic Church is clear on the matter. The problem here is not the Church but disobedient Catholics. And becuase the Pope wants to avoid another painful schism, this is not addressed as directly as some of us Traditionalists would like. I respect the Holy Father, and I understand his reasoning.

How do you know that is his reasoning? I'm not saying that you are necessarily wrong about it, but how do you know he isn't addressing this because he's trying to avoid schism? Has he said as much?
Well, the Pope believes in all the teachings of the Church and believes that all Catholics are bound to them. If this is true, and he doesn't excommunicate dissenting Bishops, the only thing I can think is that he is trying a softer pastoral approach for the good of the Church.
I am sure that the pope accepts Roman Catholic teachings, but sadly for you he has not tried to force that Latinized view on the Melkite Catholic Church.  And he has had plenty of opportunities to do so.  Perhaps your problem is not merely with the Melkite Catholic Church, perhaps your problem is also with the pope, who seems to be unwilling to do what you want done.
I don't have a problem with the Pope. I love him. Think he's great. You are the one who is disobedient to the Holy Father. What is more, I don't necessarily have a problem with the Melkite Church. I have a problem with modernists in the Melkite Church who think they can pick and choose which Catholic teachings they will follow.
Title: Re: Why
Post by: ZealousZeal on April 27, 2012, 02:02:26 PM
What a mess! This is precisely why I asked on page 3:

and b) why would they want to be in communion with a group that rejects one of their dogmas as false?

This question only applies if the Melkites consider it to be a dogma.

Relatedly, and this may be a stupid question so apologies if it is, but do Melkites consider VI to be an Ecumenical Council? If they don't, wouldn't they not consider it a dogma?

Not a stupid question at all, and no they don't.

Okay, then another potentially stupid question ( ;D):

I find it pretty confusing that different churches can be in the same communion without recognizing the same # of Ecumenical Councils, especially when the discrepancy is as huge as Roman Catholics recognizing 21, and others recognizing only 7. If the canons of these councils are dogma, then it seems pretty mission-critical to be in agreement on what's Ecumenical and what isn't.

So I guess my question is... How does this work in the Catholic Church? How is it functional?

I suppose the answer to my question is: not very well.

I find it amazing that Catholics accuse the Orthodox of having an ecumenical council problem ("Why haven't you called one in 1,000 years? You can't!") when the Catholic communion doesn't strike me as a bastion of clarity on the matter, either.
The Catholic Church is clear on the matter. The problem here is not the Church but disobedient Catholics. And becuase the Pope wants to avoid another painful schism, this is not addressed as directly as some of us Traditionalists would like. I respect the Holy Father, and I understand his reasoning.

How do you know that is his reasoning? I'm not saying that you are necessarily wrong about it, but how do you know he isn't addressing this because he's trying to avoid schism? Has he said as much?
Well, the Pope believes in all the teachings of the Church and believes that all Catholics are bound to them. If this is true, and he doesn't excommunicate dissenting Bishops, the only thing I can think is that he is trying a softer pastoral approach for the good of the Church.

What if he believes "all the teachings of the Church" that Catholics are bound to are the first 7 Ecumenical Councils? What if he agrees with the Melkites? And his soft pastoral approach is actually towards Traditionalists, that instead of addressing this outright, ripping the band-aid off, he sees himself starting the trajectory towards reunion with the Orthodox more slowly, perhaps to keep more souls in his flock?

Would this not also be possible?
Title: Re: Why
Post by: Apotheoun on April 27, 2012, 02:03:11 PM
Just as a side note, most, if not all the Byzantine (Ruthenian) Catholics I am personally familiar with accept all the dogmas and doctrines of the Catholic Church--as far as I've been able to determine, that is. 
As a Ruthenian Catholic friend pointed out to me some time ago, the Ruthenian Catholic Church - in its "Light for Life" catechism - recognizes seven ecumenical councils as binding on the faith and practice of the Ruthenian Church. 

Finally, as far as the fourteen synods of the Latin Church are concerned, the catechism states the following:  "The Roman Catholic Church further recognizes fourteen other councils as ecumenical, stipulating that a council is ecumenical when it is so called by the pope. Although none of the early Councils were convened by the pope, his confirmation of their decrees was to be sought." [Light for Life, Part 1: The Mystery Believed, page 82]
Again, you can call the counicls "moogla" if you want. That doesn't stop them from dogmatic and binding. That is all.
And you can call those councils "ecumenical" if you want, but that does not make anything that they said dogmatic.  ;D
You are right. I don't make it dogmatic. The Roman Church does. And the Roman Church was still the Roman Church even when the Melkites were out of communion with us.
You are incorrect.  The local synods of the Roman Church have no force outside of its own patriarchal boundries.
You are incorrect. When you guys were all in schim, we continued to be the Church and continued to have Ecumenical Councils. Sorry, you were invited to the party, but chose not to show up.
I agree, when you (i.e., Roman Catholics) were in schism from us (i.e., the Melkites) you were still the Roman Church, and thankfully our two Churches are now in full communion, and we respect each other as self-governing Churches within the Catholic communion of Churches.
Oh, you missed the whole point. When there was a schism between us, we were the Church. You were not. We were the Church. You were a schismatic group like the SSPX used to be.
I did not miss your point, I simply do not accept it as a valid position to hold.

The Roman Church remained a Church while it was in schism from the Melkite Church, and vice versa.
Oh, I see. So you disagree with the Creed when it states that Church is "One". Wow, you are not helping your case at all by rejecting articles of the Creed.
No, actually I agree completely with the creed, because I hold that the one Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church is made present, whole and entire, wherever the Eucharist is validly celebrated.
Title: Re: Why
Post by: Papist on April 27, 2012, 02:03:21 PM
What a mess! This is precisely why I asked on page 3:

and b) why would they want to be in communion with a group that rejects one of their dogmas as false?

This question only applies if the Melkites consider it to be a dogma.

Relatedly, and this may be a stupid question so apologies if it is, but do Melkites consider VI to be an Ecumenical Council? If they don't, wouldn't they not consider it a dogma?

Not a stupid question at all, and no they don't.

Okay, then another potentially stupid question ( ;D):

I find it pretty confusing that different churches can be in the same communion without recognizing the same # of Ecumenical Councils, especially when the discrepancy is as huge as Roman Catholics recognizing 21, and others recognizing only 7. If the canons of these councils are dogma, then it seems pretty mission-critical to be in agreement on what's Ecumenical and what isn't.

So I guess my question is... How does this work in the Catholic Church? How is it functional?

I suppose the answer to my question is: not very well.

I find it amazing that Catholics accuse the Orthodox of having an ecumenical council problem ("Why haven't you called one in 1,000 years? You can't!") when the Catholic communion doesn't strike me as a bastion of clarity on the matter, either.
The Catholic Church is clear on the matter. The problem here is not the Church but disobedient Catholics. And becuase the Pope wants to avoid another painful schism, this is not addressed as directly as some of us Traditionalists would like. I respect the Holy Father, and I understand his reasoning.

How do you know that is his reasoning? I'm not saying that you are necessarily wrong about it, but how do you know he isn't addressing this because he's trying to avoid schism? Has he said as much?
Well, the Pope believes in all the teachings of the Church and believes that all Catholics are bound to them. If this is true, and he doesn't excommunicate dissenting Bishops, the only thing I can think is that he is trying a softer pastoral approach for the good of the Church.
I am sure that the pope accepts Roman Catholic teachings, but sadly for you he has not tried to force those Latinized theories (theologoumena) on the Melkite Catholic Church.  And by the way, he has had plenty of opportunities to do so.  Perhaps your problem is not merely with the Melkite Catholic Church, perhaps your problem is also with the pope, who seems to be unwilling to do what you want done.
Oh, and btw, asking Cahtolics to believe in the teachings of the Catholic Church is not a Latinization. It's just asking you to be Catholic. If you wanna be Catholic, then be Catholic. If you don't, find a denomination that is better suited to you. At least that would be honest.
Title: Re: Why
Post by: Papist on April 27, 2012, 02:04:11 PM
Just as a side note, most, if not all the Byzantine (Ruthenian) Catholics I am personally familiar with accept all the dogmas and doctrines of the Catholic Church--as far as I've been able to determine, that is.  
As a Ruthenian Catholic friend pointed out to me some time ago, the Ruthenian Catholic Church - in its "Light for Life" catechism - recognizes seven ecumenical councils as binding on the faith and practice of the Ruthenian Church.  

Finally, as far as the fourteen synods of the Latin Church are concerned, the catechism states the following:  "The Roman Catholic Church further recognizes fourteen other councils as ecumenical, stipulating that a council is ecumenical when it is so called by the pope. Although none of the early Councils were convened by the pope, his confirmation of their decrees was to be sought." [Light for Life, Part 1: The Mystery Believed, page 82]
Again, you can call the counicls "moogla" if you want. That doesn't stop them from dogmatic and binding. That is all.
And you can call those councils "ecumenical" if you want, but that does not make anything that they said dogmatic.  ;D
You are right. I don't make it dogmatic. The Roman Church does. And the Roman Church was still the Roman Church even when the Melkites were out of communion with us.
You are incorrect.  The local synods of the Roman Church have no force outside of its own patriarchal boundries.
You are incorrect. When you guys were all in schim, we continued to be the Church and continued to have Ecumenical Councils. Sorry, you were invited to the party, but chose not to show up.
I agree, when you (i.e., Roman Catholics) were in schism from us (i.e., the Melkites) you were still the Roman Church, and thankfully our two Churches are now in full communion, and we respect each other as self-governing Churches within the Catholic communion of Churches.
Oh, you missed the whole point. When there was a schism between us, we were the Church. You were not. We were the Church. You were a schismatic group like the SSPX used to be.
I did not miss your point, I simply do not accept it as a valid position to hold.

The Roman Church remained a Church while it was in schism from the Melkite Church, and vice versa.
Oh, I see. So you disagree with the Creed when it states that Church is "One". Wow, you are not helping your case at all by rejecting articles of the Creed.
No, actually I agree completely with the creed, because I hold that the one Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church is made present, whole and entire, wherever the Eucharist is validly celebrated.
So you are branch theorist now. Ok, now I understand you better. You are neither Catholic nor Eastern Orthodox. You have just made up your own religion. This is why I think you are LARPing.
Title: Re: Why
Post by: Apotheoun on April 27, 2012, 02:04:22 PM
What a mess! This is precisely why I asked on page 3:

and b) why would they want to be in communion with a group that rejects one of their dogmas as false?

This question only applies if the Melkites consider it to be a dogma.

Relatedly, and this may be a stupid question so apologies if it is, but do Melkites consider VI to be an Ecumenical Council? If they don't, wouldn't they not consider it a dogma?

Not a stupid question at all, and no they don't.

Okay, then another potentially stupid question ( ;D):

I find it pretty confusing that different churches can be in the same communion without recognizing the same # of Ecumenical Councils, especially when the discrepancy is as huge as Roman Catholics recognizing 21, and others recognizing only 7. If the canons of these councils are dogma, then it seems pretty mission-critical to be in agreement on what's Ecumenical and what isn't.

So I guess my question is... How does this work in the Catholic Church? How is it functional?

I suppose the answer to my question is: not very well.

I find it amazing that Catholics accuse the Orthodox of having an ecumenical council problem ("Why haven't you called one in 1,000 years? You can't!") when the Catholic communion doesn't strike me as a bastion of clarity on the matter, either.
The Catholic Church is clear on the matter. The problem here is not the Church but disobedient Catholics. And becuase the Pope wants to avoid another painful schism, this is not addressed as directly as some of us Traditionalists would like. I respect the Holy Father, and I understand his reasoning.

How do you know that is his reasoning? I'm not saying that you are necessarily wrong about it, but how do you know he isn't addressing this because he's trying to avoid schism? Has he said as much?
Well, the Pope believes in all the teachings of the Church and believes that all Catholics are bound to them. If this is true, and he doesn't excommunicate dissenting Bishops, the only thing I can think is that he is trying a softer pastoral approach for the good of the Church.

What if he believes "all the teachings of the Church" that Catholics are bound to are the first 7 Ecumenical Councils? What if he agrees with the Melkites? And his soft pastoral approach is actually towards Traditionalists, that instead of addressing this outright, ripping the band-aid off, he sees himself starting the trajectory towards reunion with the Orthodox more slowly, perhaps to keep more souls in his flock?

Would this not also be possible?
Hope springs eternal!
Title: Re: Why
Post by: podkarpatska on April 27, 2012, 02:05:01 PM
Just as a side note, most, if not all the Byzantine (Ruthenian) Catholics I am personally familiar with accept all the dogmas and doctrines of the Catholic Church--as far as I've been able to determine, that is.  
As a Ruthenian Catholic friend pointed out to me some time ago, the Ruthenian Catholic Church - in its "Light for Life" catechism - recognizes seven ecumenical councils as binding on the faith and practice of the Ruthenian Church.  

Finally, as far as the fourteen synods of the Latin Church are concerned, the catechism states the following:  "The Roman Catholic Church further recognizes fourteen other councils as ecumenical, stipulating that a council is ecumenical when it is so called by the pope. Although none of the early Councils were convened by the pope, his confirmation of their decrees was to be sought." [Light for Life, Part 1: The Mystery Believed, page 82]
Again, you can call the counicls "moogla" if you want. That doesn't stop them from dogmatic and binding. That is all.
And you can call those councils "ecumenical" if you want, but that does not make anything that they said dogmatic.  ;D
This whole thing is kind of shocking coming from someone in full communion with Rome. unless Im totally confused.

PP
The patriarchate of which I am a member is in full communion with Rome, as the Melkite Catholic Patriarch (and the Holy Synod) has affirmed many times.  Nevertheless, as the Melkite Patriarch said in the address I posted some time ago, we do not accept the later councils of the Roman Church as ecumenical.
Then IMHO communion is belittled by this and was political, in nature, and not a conviction of spirit.

I find it pretty silly that you can be in communion with an asterisk beside it.

I am a communicant with the Orthodox Chuch because I believe fully in its teachings. If I were not, I would not.

PP
The fact that you misunderstand the nature of ecclesial communion apparently rejecting the idea that it involves a reciprocal relationship between two (or more) Churches is sad, but there is probably little I can do to correct your error on this point.  

Nevertheless, I would suggest that you read the book "His Broken Body" by Fr. Laurent Cleenewerck, because he gives a good summary of the patristic understanding of communion.

This little paper, posted by SCOBA on its website, a Joint Statement of the North American Catholic Orthodox Diolouge, as it relates the Orthodox position on that body reflects my strong, personal beliefs. A few excerpts may illustrate an important point here:

"In such a communion of (reunited Roman and Orthodox) Churches, the role of the bishop of Rome would have to be carefully defined, both in continuity with the ancient structural principles of Christianity and in response to the need for a unified Christian message in the world of today.  Although the details of that role would have to be worked out in a synodal way, and would require a genuine willingness on both sides to accommodate one another’s concerns, a few likely characteristics of this renewed Roman primacy would be these:

a) The bishop of Rome would be, by ancient custom, the “first” of the world’s bishops and of the regional patriarchs. His “primacy of honor” would mean, as it meant in the early Church, not simply honorific precedence but the authority to make real decisions, appropriate to the contexts in which he is acting.  His relationship to the Eastern Churches and their bishops, however, would have to be substantially different from the relationship now accepted in the Latin Church.  The present Eastern Catholic Churches would relate to the bishop of Rome in the same way as the present Orthodox Churches would.  The leadership of the pope would always be realized by way of a serious and practical commitment to synodality and collegiality.

b) In accord with the teaching of both Vatican councils, the bishop of Rome would be understood by all as having authority only within a synodal/collegial context: as member as well as head of the college of bishops, as senior patriarch among the primates of the Churches, and as servant of universal communion.  The “ordinary and immediate” jurisdiction of every bishop within his particular Church, would be “affirmed, strengthened and vindicated” by the exercise of the bishop of Rome’s ministry (Vatican II, Lumen Gentium 27; cf. Vatican I, Pastor Aeternus 3).  In a reunited Church, this understanding of papal and episcopal authority, as complementary and mutually enhancing, would have to be expanded to include the much more complex patterns of local, primatial, and patriarchal leadership that have developed in the Eastern Churches since patristic times.

 http://www.scoba.us/articles/towards-a-unified-church.html


I suspect that the Melkite Church and at least the BCC based on her catechism material, would generally concur with the Orthodox statement, only adding that they believe that they have found a way in which to achieve what the Orthodox seek. While I disagree, I respect them.

I do not understand Roman Catholics who find NO WAY to do anything except concur in all of the tortured and logically inconsistent interpretations of the teachings of the Roman Church which deal with supremacy and  infallibility. Their view of unity with us is consistent with Grant's terms to Robert E. Lee. I've said that before....

Some of you will no doubt have to conclude that a future Pope and a future Roman Church which might find a path to real unity with the Orthodox have abandoned the Catholic faith and you will be sedevacantists and defenders of Isa's favorite pejorative- ultramontanism. Don't worry though, you will have counterparts from Orthodoxy should that occur and you will all be able to continue your back and forths with even more vigor.

As much as it is painful to admit as much, it seems that the most some of us are able to concede is that holding hands and singing Amazing Grace is fun, but not too effective in promoting real unity.
Title: Re: Why
Post by: Papist on April 27, 2012, 02:06:09 PM
What a mess! This is precisely why I asked on page 3:

and b) why would they want to be in communion with a group that rejects one of their dogmas as false?

This question only applies if the Melkites consider it to be a dogma.

Relatedly, and this may be a stupid question so apologies if it is, but do Melkites consider VI to be an Ecumenical Council? If they don't, wouldn't they not consider it a dogma?

Not a stupid question at all, and no they don't.

Okay, then another potentially stupid question ( ;D):

I find it pretty confusing that different churches can be in the same communion without recognizing the same # of Ecumenical Councils, especially when the discrepancy is as huge as Roman Catholics recognizing 21, and others recognizing only 7. If the canons of these councils are dogma, then it seems pretty mission-critical to be in agreement on what's Ecumenical and what isn't.

So I guess my question is... How does this work in the Catholic Church? How is it functional?

I suppose the answer to my question is: not very well.

I find it amazing that Catholics accuse the Orthodox of having an ecumenical council problem ("Why haven't you called one in 1,000 years? You can't!") when the Catholic communion doesn't strike me as a bastion of clarity on the matter, either.
The Catholic Church is clear on the matter. The problem here is not the Church but disobedient Catholics. And becuase the Pope wants to avoid another painful schism, this is not addressed as directly as some of us Traditionalists would like. I respect the Holy Father, and I understand his reasoning.

How do you know that is his reasoning? I'm not saying that you are necessarily wrong about it, but how do you know he isn't addressing this because he's trying to avoid schism? Has he said as much?
Well, the Pope believes in all the teachings of the Church and believes that all Catholics are bound to them. If this is true, and he doesn't excommunicate dissenting Bishops, the only thing I can think is that he is trying a softer pastoral approach for the good of the Church.

What if he believes "all the teachings of the Church" that Catholics are bound to are the first 7 Ecumenical Councils? What if he agrees with the Melkites? And his soft pastoral approach is actually towards Traditionalists, that instead of addressing this outright, ripping the band-aid off, he sees himself starting the trajectory towards reunion with the Orthodox more slowly, p