OrthodoxChristianity.net
October 21, 2014, 01:46:10 AM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Reminder: No political discussions in the public fora.  If you do not have access to the private Politics Forum, please send a PM to Fr. George.
 
   Home   Help Calendar Contact Treasury Tags Login Register  
Pages: 1 2 3 »  All   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Latin Catholics Vs. Eastern Catholics  (Read 18999 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,254


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« on: January 07, 2008, 01:10:49 PM »

MODERATION: This topic has been split off from this thread: http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,13287.0.html



On the other side, E&W appears to have retired from the fray - not a post in EC in a week - curious, it's almost as if he had satisfied an agenda and achieved a goal.
Many years,

Neil
Wow. I didn't know I was becoming so popular that I was being discussed on other forums!!! LOL. Neil, my only goal was to point out a clear contradiction in faith between the Latin Church and some Eastern Catholics. The reason I felt this necessary and important is because the Church cannot continue professing two different faiths. The issue should be resolved. The body of Christ does not speak with a forked tongue.
« Last Edit: January 07, 2008, 10:24:12 PM by ozgeorge » Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,145



« Reply #1 on: January 07, 2008, 04:29:07 PM »

Dear Papist,

The reason I felt this necessary and important is because the Church cannot continue professing two different faiths. The issue should be resolved.

It seems to me you're exaggerating the situation. I would say that Latin Catholics and Eastern Catholics already profess the same faith, but we ought to also profess the same creed. In the fact, in 2003 the North American Orthodox-Catholic Theological Consultation recommended "that the Catholic Church, as a consequence of the normative and irrevocable dogmatic value of the Creed of 381, use the original Greek text alone in making translations of that Creed for catechetical and liturgical use."

God bless,
Peter.
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,254


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #2 on: January 07, 2008, 04:36:12 PM »

Dear Papist,

It seems to me you're exaggerating the situation. I would say that Latin Catholics and Eastern Catholics already profess the same faith, but we ought to also profess the same creed. In the fact, in 2003 the North American Orthodox-Catholic Theological Consultation recommended "that the Catholic Church, as a consequence of the normative and irrevocable dogmatic value of the Creed of 381, use the original Greek text alone in making translations of that Creed for catechetical and liturgical use."

God bless,
Peter.
The problem is that SOME, not all, Eastern Churches reject the concept of the filioque, the Immaculate Conception, Papal Infallibility etc. Perhaps they would word the problem by stating that the Latin Church espouses these dogmas. But either way, we are professing differing faiths.
Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,145



« Reply #3 on: January 07, 2008, 09:48:11 PM »

The problem is that SOME, not all, Eastern Churches reject the concept of the filioque, the Immaculate Conception, Papal Infallibility etc. Perhaps they would word the problem by stating that the Latin Church espouses these dogmas. But either way, we are professing differing faiths.

You don't seem to have your facts right.

The Eastern Catholic Churches do accept the filioque, the Immaculate Conception, Papal Infallibility -- or more precisely, they accept what has been dogmatically defined concerning each of these things.

Consider, for example, purgatory (which was covered on this board not long ago). As Anthony Dragani puts it (East to West): "In the Catholic understanding, only two points are necessary dogma concerning "purgatory": 1) There is a place of transition/transformation for those en-route to Heaven, and 2) prayer is efficacious for the dead who are in this state."

Other statements/ideas on the subject -- e.g. that purgatory is a place of punishment, that someone can "skip" purgatory completely vis-à-vis a plenary indulgence, even the term "purgatory" itself -- are not necessary dogma. (Personally, I see the problem as being just the opposite of what you said; namely, Latins telling ECs that because they don't believe this or that idea, they are not "really Catholic".) 

God bless,
Peter.
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
Jakub
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,748



« Reply #4 on: January 07, 2008, 11:30:31 PM »

I am curious, which of the two is a accurate English translation of the original Greek, the post VatII text/wording "in fulfillment of the scriptures vs pre VatII "according to the scriptures"  ?

Logged

An old timer is a man who's had a lot of interesting experiences -- some of them true.

Grant me the senility to forget the people I never liked anyway, the good fortune to run into the ones I do, and the eyesight to tell the difference.
Νεκτάριος
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Posts: 5,437



« Reply #5 on: January 07, 2008, 11:33:19 PM »

I am curious, which of the two is a accurate English translation of the original Greek, the post VatII text/wording "in fulfillment of the scriptures vs pre VatII "according to the scriptures"  ?

According to the scriptures is more accurate.  In Greek it is "kata", the same is also used to say the Gospel according to St. x. 
Logged
Jakub
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,748



« Reply #6 on: January 07, 2008, 11:57:38 PM »

It figures...oh well they will blame the mistranslation on the 6th grader who did the latin/english translations of the 69/02 missals...
Logged

An old timer is a man who's had a lot of interesting experiences -- some of them true.

Grant me the senility to forget the people I never liked anyway, the good fortune to run into the ones I do, and the eyesight to tell the difference.
Νεκτάριος
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Posts: 5,437



« Reply #7 on: January 08, 2008, 12:16:01 AM »

If memory serves "secundum" is the word used in the Latin creed, which would be identical in meaning and usage to the Greek "kata" - according to.  Do you know what the version used is in the UK and commonwealth nations?  I think they have a much better English translation than is used in the US. 
Logged
Jakub
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,748



« Reply #8 on: January 08, 2008, 12:50:16 AM »

I guess the same 6th grader did the translation for the CCC...

yes secundum is correct...

PJ is correct, they (EC & RC) need to profess the same Creed...

Logged

An old timer is a man who's had a lot of interesting experiences -- some of them true.

Grant me the senility to forget the people I never liked anyway, the good fortune to run into the ones I do, and the eyesight to tell the difference.
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #9 on: January 08, 2008, 07:48:41 AM »

Consider, for example, purgatory (which was covered on this board not long ago). As Anthony Dragani puts it (East to West): "In the Catholic understanding, only two points are necessary dogma concerning "purgatory": 1) There is a place of transition/transformation for those en-route to Heaven, and 2) prayer is efficacious for the dead who are in this state."

Other statements/ideas on the subject -- e.g. that purgatory is a place of punishment, that someone can "skip" purgatory completely vis-à-vis a plenary indulgence, even the term "purgatory" itself -- are not necessary dogma. (Personally, I see the problem as being just the opposite of what you said; namely, Latins telling ECs that because they don't believe this or that idea, they are not "really Catholic".) 
*
And yet, concerning the fire of purgatory and the name "Purgatory" Pope Innocent IV (Council of Lyons (1274)) wrote:

"Forasmuch as (the Greeks) say that this place of purification is not indicated by their doctors by an appropriate and accurate word, we will, in accordance with the tradition and authority of the holy fathers, that henceforth it be called purgatorium, for in this temporary fire are cleansed not deadly capital sins, which must be remitted by penance, but those lesser venial sins which, if not removed in life, afflict men after death."
 
So there's the dilemma for our Catholic friends! Do you accept the papal teaching or do you reject it?  After all, the change of Purgatory from being both "a place and a state" was effected simply by Pope John  Paul II declaring in a couple of lunch-time audiences that it was only a state.  If all Catholics have now accepted his statement as truth then surely Pope Innocent's much more dogmatic and written statements ought to be accepted as truth also? 

Is it true that you accept the Magisterium or do you now deny it for newer teachings which appeal more? On what then is the Catholic faith based if papal teaching can be put aside? Was Peter (speaking through Innocent IV) mistaken? Was Peter misleading the Church in the 13th century?
« Last Edit: January 08, 2008, 07:52:03 AM by Irish Hermit » Logged
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,145



« Reply #10 on: January 08, 2008, 09:55:01 AM »

On what then is the Catholic faith based if papal teaching can be put aside? Was Peter (speaking through Innocent IV) mistaken? Was Peter misleading the Church in the 13th century?

You really don't get it, do you? Popes are fallible, i.e. capable of making mistakes.

-Peter.
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
Heracleides
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Patriarch of Jerusalem
Posts: 390


Kona-Kai


« Reply #11 on: January 08, 2008, 12:32:12 PM »

Obviously. Roll Eyes

Question is, which mistaken Pope knew what he was talking about in regards to your Purgatory?  Or perhaps both were mistaken?  Or were they both correct?  How is one to know?  Flip a coin?  Or does truth in your church depend on the century and what is currently in vogue?
Logged

"And having found Heracleides there again, we instructed him to proclaim the Gospel of God..."  ~Acts of Barnabas
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,145



« Reply #12 on: January 08, 2008, 01:50:40 PM »

Yes, Heracleides, we flip a coin. Isn't that an obvious corollary of the statement "The pope is fallible"? Roll Eyes
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
lubeltri
Latin Catholic layman
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Boston
Posts: 3,795



« Reply #13 on: January 08, 2008, 02:23:22 PM »

Question is, which mistaken Pope knew what he was talking about in regards to your Purgatory?  Or perhaps both were mistaken?  Or were they both correct?  How is one to know?  Flip a coin?  Or does truth in your church depend on the century and what is currently in vogue?

The Councils of Florence and Trent spoke authoritatively on Purgatory.

From Trent's 25th session:
 
DECREE CONCERNING PURGATORY.

Whereas the Catholic Church, instructed by the Holy Ghost, has, from the sacred writings and the ancient tradition of the Fathers, taught, in sacred councils, and very recently in this oecumenical Synod, that there is a Purgatory, and that the souls there detained are helped by the suffrages of the faithful, but principally by the acceptable sacrifice of the altar; the holy Synod enjoins on bishops that they diligently endeavour that the sound doctrine concerning Purgatory, transmitted by the holy Fathers and sacred councils, be believed, maintained, taught, and every where proclaimed by the faithful of Christ. But let the more difficult and subtle questions, and which tend not to edification, and from which for the most part there is no increase of piety, be excluded from popular discourses before the uneducated multitude. In like manner, such things as are uncertain, or which labour under an appearance of error, let them not allow to be made public and treated of. While those things which tend to a certain kind of curiosity or superstition, or which savour of filthy lucre, let them prohibit as scandals and stumbling-blocks of the faithful. But let the bishops take care, that the suffrages of the faithful who are living, to wit the sacrifices of masses, prayers, alms, and other works of piety, which have been wont to be performed by the faithful for the other faithful departed, be piously and devoutly performed, in accordance with the institutes of the church; and that whatsoever is due on their behalf, from the endowments of testators, or in other way, be discharged, not in a perfunctory manner, but diligently and accurately, by the priests and ministers of the church, and others who are bound to render this (service).

http://history.hanover.edu/texts/trent/ct25.html
« Last Edit: January 08, 2008, 02:24:02 PM by lubeltri » Logged
Jakub
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,748



« Reply #14 on: January 08, 2008, 02:34:06 PM »

How many Bishop's from the East were present at Florence & Trent ? How did they vote or what was their opinion ?

So Eastern Catholics accept the current English version of the Nicene Creed ?
Logged

An old timer is a man who's had a lot of interesting experiences -- some of them true.

Grant me the senility to forget the people I never liked anyway, the good fortune to run into the ones I do, and the eyesight to tell the difference.
lubeltri
Latin Catholic layman
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Boston
Posts: 3,795



« Reply #15 on: January 08, 2008, 02:40:44 PM »

How many Bishop's from the East were present at Florence & Trent ? How did they vote or what was their opinion ?

Are you referring to Eastern Catholic bishops?

How many Western bishops were present at Nicaea or Constantinople?

Well, you probably already know how the EO bishops voted at Florence.  Smiley

« Last Edit: January 08, 2008, 02:41:17 PM by lubeltri » Logged
lubeltri
Latin Catholic layman
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Boston
Posts: 3,795



« Reply #16 on: January 08, 2008, 02:45:42 PM »

Also, considering how little those two councils defined about Purgatory, PJ's statement bears repeating:

Consider, for example, purgatory (which was covered on this board not long ago). As Anthony Dragani puts it (East to West): "In the Catholic understanding, only two points are necessary dogma concerning "purgatory": 1) There is a place of transition/transformation for those en-route to Heaven, and 2) prayer is efficacious for the dead who are in this state."

Other statements/ideas on the subject -- e.g. that purgatory is a place of punishment, that someone can "skip" purgatory completely vis-à-vis a plenary indulgence, even the term "purgatory" itself -- are not necessary dogma.

As my quote from Trent shows, the Council Fathers ordered that any theologoumenon outside the basic de fide teaching not be widely disseminated.

In other words, the EC's aren't exactly required to believe in the particulars of Purgatory as described by Dante.
« Last Edit: January 08, 2008, 02:46:56 PM by lubeltri » Logged
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #17 on: January 08, 2008, 03:53:03 PM »

You really don't get it, do you? Popes are fallible, i.e. capable of making mistakes.

So, do you think that Pope John Paul's teaching that Purgatory is not a place is most likely a mistake on his part.  After all he contradicts many of his predecessors' statements on the matter. 

Why do you think that his rather informal teaching on this (at a lunch-time audience) has been so quickly and even enthusiastically adopted by Catholics?  And, will it be corrected by a Pope in the future?
« Last Edit: January 08, 2008, 03:55:10 PM by Irish Hermit » Logged
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #18 on: January 08, 2008, 04:11:19 PM »

Also, considering how little those two councils defined about Purgatory, PJ's statement bears repeating:

Consider, for example, purgatory (which was covered on this board not long ago). As Anthony Dragani puts it (East to West): "In the Catholic understanding, only two points are necessary dogma concerning "purgatory": 1) There is a place of transition/transformation for those en-route to Heaven, and 2) prayer is efficacious for the dead who are in this state."

Other statements/ideas on the subject -- e.g. that purgatory is a place of punishment, that someone can "skip" purgatory completely vis-à-vis a plenary indulgence, even the term "purgatory" itself -- are not necessary dogma.
*
The trouble with Dragani's minimalistic approach is that it eviscerates the papal teachings on Purgatory.  It would enable people to deny that punishment is being made for sin.  It would enable them to deny that venial sin is forgiven in Purgatory.  It would enable them to deny that there is suffering in purgatory.  It would enable them to deny that there is temporal fire in Purgatory.  It would enable them to deny the doctrine of indulgences for those in Purgatory.

In other words Dragani's simplistic claims just won't stand up to historical scrutiny and they do not agree with consistent papal teaching.  Is he wiser then the many Popes who have taught on Purgatory?  Is he such an authority that he is able to negate what the Popes have taught their flock?

His reply would probably be that what the Popes taught was not ex cathedra (as if his own writings are??!  Shocked )

But I think that Catholics have gone overboard on insisting that Petrine teaching is obligatory only when it lines up with the narrow definition of an ex cathedra statement. Catholics need to agree with the Pope's teachings even when he does not speak ex cathedra:

“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; 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.”
~Dogmatic Constitution on the church #25
« Last Edit: January 08, 2008, 05:29:51 PM by Irish Hermit » Logged
Athanasios
Latin Rite Catholic faithful to the Holy Father and the Magisterium
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Latin Church Diocese of Youngstown
Posts: 1,800


The Divine Mercy


« Reply #19 on: January 08, 2008, 04:33:35 PM »

Hello,

You really don't get it, do you? Popes are fallible, i.e. capable of making mistakes.

-Peter.

I think the term you are looking for is impeccable. Popes are not impeccable, that is they are able to sin and make mistakes in matters not pertaining to authoritatively teaching faith and morals.
Logged

Through the intercession of Our Lady of Mount Carmel, may Jesus Christ bless you abundantly.

Pray that we may be one, as Christ and His Father are one. (John 17:20ff)

A.K.A. - JMJ_coder
Athanasios
Latin Rite Catholic faithful to the Holy Father and the Magisterium
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Latin Church Diocese of Youngstown
Posts: 1,800


The Divine Mercy


« Reply #20 on: January 08, 2008, 04:34:25 PM »

Hello,

So, do you think that Pope John Paul's teaching that Purgatory is not a place is most likely a mistake on his part.  After all he contradicts many of his predecessors' statements on the matter. 

How does Pope John Paul II's teaching contradict the dogmatic teaching of Purgatory?
Logged

Through the intercession of Our Lady of Mount Carmel, may Jesus Christ bless you abundantly.

Pray that we may be one, as Christ and His Father are one. (John 17:20ff)

A.K.A. - JMJ_coder
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #21 on: January 08, 2008, 05:20:41 PM »

How does Pope John Paul II's teaching contradict the dogmatic teaching of Purgatory?
*
It depends how much faith you place in the ordinary magisterium of the Popes.  If you accept the exercise of the papal magisterium as stated in the teaching on the Dogmatic Constitution of the Church (see previous message) then plainly John Paul's opinion that Purgatory is only a state and not a place contradicts quite a number of statements from the papal magisterium over many centuries.

On the other hand, if you confine dogma only to matters which have had an ex cathedra definition, then of course Pope John Paul was not contradicting any dogmatic teaching.  But of course this means that his own teaching on the matter is just as dubious and non-binding as any of the previous Popes.  He may be totally wrong that Purgatory is not a place and some future Pope will correct his error and return the Catholic Church to its former teaching.  At least that has both history and many papal pronouncements in its favour.

The bottom line is - is the Dogmatic Constitution on the Church correct in what it says about the ordinary magisterium of the Pope?  Are Catholics really obliged to give it a "submission of mind and will"?
Logged
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,145



« Reply #22 on: January 08, 2008, 10:04:49 PM »

His reply would probably be that what the Popes taught was not ex cathedra (as if his own writings are??!  Shocked )

That's an interesting prediction, Fr. Ambrose (even though I'm not really sure what you're basing it on). If that were Dragani's reply, I would consider it a complete non-sequitur (especially since we don't know how many ex cathedra statements there have been, or even whether there have been any). However, if you leave aside what he would probably say and focus on what he did say, you notice that he actually spoke about "necessary dogma", without any speculations about "ex cathedra statements" (much less any claims that his own writings are ex cathedra).
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,145



« Reply #23 on: January 08, 2008, 10:08:21 PM »

But I think that Catholics have gone overboard on insisting that Petrine teaching is obligatory only when it lines up with the narrow definition of an ex cathedra statement.

Prepare yourself for a shock, Father, because in this instance I absolutely agree with you.

Not only is that a problem, but doubly a problem, involving both liberals ("spirit of Vatican II" types) and conservatives ("spirit of Vatican I" types). Specifically, liberals will argue "I don't have to accept such-and-such because it wasn't ex cathedra" whereas conservatives will argue "we do have to accept such-and-such, therefore it must have been ex cathedra". Both ideas are nonsense. (For example, Catholics are required to accept the teaching in Ordinatio Sacerdotalis on reserving priestly ordination to men alone, but only a few fringe-conservatives would claim that it was an ex cathedra statement.)

God bless,
Peter.
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #24 on: January 09, 2008, 12:40:28 AM »

However, if you leave aside what he would probably say and focus on what he did say, you notice that he actually spoke about "necessary dogma", without any speculations about "ex cathedra statements"
*
But this is part of the whole confusion in Dragani's writings.   Where are the ex cathedra statements confirming that his personal choices in this matter are "necessary dogma"?  Who decided that what he calls "necessary dogma" is in fact so? 

He denies indulgences and other teachings as necessary dogma and this contradicts numerous statements when the Popes have exercised their ordinary magisterium on the matter.  He is all over the place and does not seem to have anything close to approaching what we might call the papal mindset.

Not only is dissenting from the teachings of the Popes but he appears quite unaware of the teaching of Vatican II on the Pope's exercise of his ordinary magisterium and that he is bound to give it "submission of mind and will."

“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; 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.” ~Dogmatic Constitution on the church #25
Logged
prodromas
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Under the Green Pope
Posts: 1,239

Greek Orthodox


« Reply #25 on: January 09, 2008, 01:29:36 AM »

Is the dogmatic constitution on the church an ex cathedra statement?
Logged

The sins I don't commit are largely due to the weakness of my limbs.

1915-1923 Հայոց Ցեղասպանութիւն ,never again,
ܩܛܠܐ ܕܥܡܐ ܐܬܘܪܝܐ 1920-1914, never again,
השואה  1933-1945, never again,
(1914-1923) Ελληνική Γενοκτονία, never again
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,145



« Reply #26 on: January 09, 2008, 09:45:20 AM »

Dear Father Ambrose,

Seems to me that you start off with nonsense ("Where are the ex cathedra statements confirming that his personal choices in this matter are 'necessary dogma'?" Where? I don't know where. Why should there be any? How do you know that any pope has ever made an ex cathedra statement, period?) but then proceed to sense after your first paragraph.

Not only is dissenting from the teachings of the Popes but he appears quite unaware of the teaching of Vatican II on the Pope's exercise of his ordinary magisterium and that he is bound to give it "submission of mind and will."

“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; 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.” ~Dogmatic Constitution on the church #25

This is, after all, what this is really about, right? Not purgatory or ECs or Dragani? If "judgments" is understood in the broadest way, this statement implies that a Catholic must agree with every statement the pope makes on faith and morals, right?

No, wait, that still wouldn't be the broadest way to understand it, because the statement says "judgments" without any qualification about "faith and morals". So the broadest understanding of the word "judgments" would lead to the conclusion, for example, that since Pope Benedict "judges" that Turkey should not be admitted to the European Union, Catholics are obliged to think so as well.

Right?
« Last Edit: January 09, 2008, 09:46:53 AM by PJ » Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
Athanasios
Latin Rite Catholic faithful to the Holy Father and the Magisterium
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Latin Church Diocese of Youngstown
Posts: 1,800


The Divine Mercy


« Reply #27 on: January 09, 2008, 12:52:33 PM »

Hello,

(For example, Catholics are required to accept the teaching in Ordinatio Sacerdotalis on reserving priestly ordination to men alone, but only a few fringe-conservatives would claim that it was an ex cathedra statement.)

Wherefore, in order that all doubt may be removed regarding a matter of great importance, a matter which pertains to the Church's divine constitution itself, in virtue of my ministry of confirming the brethren (cf. Lk 22:32) I declare that the Church has no authority whatsoever to confer priestly ordination on women and that this judgment is to be definitively held by all the Church's faithful. (Ordinatio Sacerdotalis, 4).


If that is not an ex-cathedra statement, it's as close as you can get without going over.  Tongue I don't want to derail the topic, so back to your regularly scheduled thread.  Grin
Logged

Through the intercession of Our Lady of Mount Carmel, may Jesus Christ bless you abundantly.

Pray that we may be one, as Christ and His Father are one. (John 17:20ff)

A.K.A. - JMJ_coder
lubeltri
Latin Catholic layman
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Boston
Posts: 3,795



« Reply #28 on: January 09, 2008, 12:55:10 PM »

Hello,

Wherefore, in order that all doubt may be removed regarding a matter of great importance, a matter which pertains to the Church's divine constitution itself, in virtue of my ministry of confirming the brethren (cf. Lk 22:32) I declare that the Church has no authority whatsoever to confer priestly ordination on women and that this judgment is to be definitively held by all the Church's faithful. (Ordinatio Sacerdotalis, 4).


If that is not an ex-cathedra statement, it's as close as you can get without going over.  Tongue I don't want to derail the topic, so back to your regularly scheduled thread.  Grin

Well, if it isn't ex-cathedra, it's still infallible because it only confirms the constant and ancient teaching of the Magisterium and the universal witness of Scripture.
Logged
Athanasios
Latin Rite Catholic faithful to the Holy Father and the Magisterium
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Latin Church Diocese of Youngstown
Posts: 1,800


The Divine Mercy


« Reply #29 on: January 09, 2008, 01:01:44 PM »

Hello,

*
It depends how much faith you place in the ordinary magisterium of the Popes.  If you accept the exercise of the papal magisterium as stated in the teaching on the Dogmatic Constitution of the Church (see previous message) then plainly John Paul's opinion that Purgatory is only a state and not a place contradicts quite a number of statements from the papal magisterium over many centuries.

On the other hand, if you confine dogma only to matters which have had an ex cathedra definition, then of course Pope John Paul was not contradicting any dogmatic teaching.  But of course this means that his own teaching on the matter is just as dubious and non-binding as any of the previous Popes.  He may be totally wrong that Purgatory is not a place and some future Pope will correct his error and return the Catholic Church to its former teaching.  At least that has both history and many papal pronouncements in its favour.

The bottom line is - is the Dogmatic Constitution on the Church correct in what it says about the ordinary magisterium of the Pope?  Are Catholics really obliged to give it a "submission of mind and will"?

Nice try, but you need to understand what the document is saying. By the way, I recommend you read the whole of that paragraph that detail the Bishops role - for further conversations.

In matters of faith and morals, the bishops speak in the name of Christ and the faithful are to accept their teaching and adhere to it with a religious assent. 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; 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 the first thing to notice is that it deals with matters of faith and morals. So if the Pope says - I think we should all eat Cheerios for breakfast - that doesn't deal with faith and morals.

Next, it mentions the authentic magisterium of the Roman Pontiff - that is as his role as Pope. The new book by Pope Benedict - Jesus of Nazareth - doesn't fit that bill. But his two encyclicals - as does his Motu Proprio - do. Also, it says that we must learn of the Pope's mind and will and that they will be made known via character of documents, from repetition or from manner of speaking.

Third, it should be noted that while sincere respect must be shown towards that Pope's non-ex-cathedra teachings, they do not bind in the same way. I agree with PJ that we must not just bow to the letter, but that doesn't mean that everything that comes out of the Pontiff's mouth is infallible teaching and binding for always and forever.
Logged

Through the intercession of Our Lady of Mount Carmel, may Jesus Christ bless you abundantly.

Pray that we may be one, as Christ and His Father are one. (John 17:20ff)

A.K.A. - JMJ_coder
Athanasios
Latin Rite Catholic faithful to the Holy Father and the Magisterium
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Latin Church Diocese of Youngstown
Posts: 1,800


The Divine Mercy


« Reply #30 on: January 09, 2008, 01:02:38 PM »

Hello,

Well, if it isn't ex-cathedra, it's still infallible because it only confirms the constant and ancient teaching of the Magisterium and the universal witness of Scripture.

Absolutely!
Logged

Through the intercession of Our Lady of Mount Carmel, may Jesus Christ bless you abundantly.

Pray that we may be one, as Christ and His Father are one. (John 17:20ff)

A.K.A. - JMJ_coder
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,145



« Reply #31 on: January 09, 2008, 04:22:05 PM »

I agree with PJ that we must not just bow to the letter, but that doesn't mean that everything that comes out of the Pontiff's mouth is infallible teaching and binding for always and forever.

Thanks, Athanasios. That means a lot, coming from you and given the ultra-montane statements you've made previously. (By the way, I really enjoyed the way you "put me in my place" with your You must have meant to say 'impeccable', but said 'infallible' by mistake. That was classic.)


Father Ambrose,

I've been thinking about your quote from Lumen Gentium and trying to figure out the best way to explain my thoughts on it. I'm not a theologian, but it seems to me:

1. By saying "the judgments made by him are sincerely adhered to", the statement is indicating judgments of the type "all Catholics must do/believe such-and-such". If the pope judges X to be true, but does not judge it to be necessary for all Catholics to believe X, and then someone else comes along and says "The pope said X is true, so no one can be Catholic unless he/she believes X", then that statement would actually be going against the pope's judgment.

2. Perhaps more to the point, the second part of the statement is an elaboration on the first part "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". In particular, it indicates that the "judgments made by him" in question are only those made in the exercise of "the authentic magisterium of the Roman Pontiff", not judgment made as a private theologian (as Athanasios pointed out).

Again, I'm no theologian. Hopefully someone else can explain this better than I can. (Neil, are you around?)

God bless,
Peter.

P.S. By the way, Father, if your intention was to convince me that I ought to leave the Catholic Church and become Orthodox, then I'd say you came closer than anyone else has recently.  Wink
« Last Edit: January 09, 2008, 11:44:20 PM by PJ » Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
Joab Anias
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Rome
Posts: 145


« Reply #32 on: January 10, 2008, 03:01:08 PM »

A lot of people involved I think won't see a difference from a divorced from a "anullled" couple.  I am sure the children won't.

Thats true, children don't understand so then it could be said all those who do not understand are also children.

Quote
Some say that the anullment process IS "healing."  I hope it is, but how mystifies me.
I can see how the process might make one reflect.

By the pursuit of virtues.

Quote
The review and then suspension was over the final comment:

 "And I haven't. Now we can talk Catholic to Latin."

Seems you proclaimed yourself to be something. Doesn't this insinuate Latin’s are not Catholic? Do you miss the lack of Charity in that?

Quote
I try to be 100% Catholic, but I won't bend my knee to Rome until he confesses the Orthdox Faith.

Then bend it to Jesus.

Quote
I don't use Roman because 1) the so called Byzantines (I term I NEVER use) were the Romans, 2) my ex-wife is Romanian, and although she is not Orthodox (she was told never to come back) many of the Romanians thoroughly are, and they are also 100% Roman (I refer to the Romans to my sons as "your ancestors" stramosii vostri).

I trust I don't have to explain papist (though in my protestant days, that was on the table).

Speaks volumes and by the way you used the term of Roman which in the same breath you claimed you never do.

Quote
I've gotten several kind PMs stating that they are embracing Orthodoxy in part because of my posts.

Proselytization abounds. Reconciliation is the only way to go.

Quote
Not to proselytise, but that Orthodoxy's message and image gets out: the Holy Spirit must take full responsibility if that gets out of hand.

Not to? but aren't you?

Quote
CAF presents a more dire need of education.

From who?

Quote
I talk too much already.

Well in your post there are fingers pointed about pride and hypocracy and you know what they say about pointing a finger.

Quote
I have not shyed away from calling it as I see it.  And I can tell many don't like that type of bare knuckled scrutiny of it.

Ah good, license to be honest.




Peace.
« Last Edit: January 10, 2008, 05:01:48 PM by Joab Anias » Logged
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,960



« Reply #33 on: January 10, 2008, 05:31:43 PM »

Thats true, children don't understand so then it could be said all those who do not understand are also children.

Matthew 18:1 At that time the disciples came to Jesus and said, “Who then is greatest in the kingdom of heaven?” 2 And He called a child to Himself and set him before them, 3 and said, “Truly I say to you, unless you are converted and become like children, you will not enter the kingdom of heaven. 4 “Whoever then humbles himself as this child, he is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven. 5 “And whoever receives one such child in My name receives Me; 6 but whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in Me to stumble, it would be better for him to have a heavy millstone hung around his neck, and to be drowned in the depth of the sea.

The Romanians have a saying "The insane, the drunk and children say the truth."

Funny, the tribunals and their canon law point out that children of such an "invalid" marriage are "legitimate."  How so?  A counterfeit bill is never worth anything in reality.  A store front preacher can never confer holy orders.  Yet we are told that an invalid marriage produces legitimate children.  How?  It never was a marriage, hence all the years the couple lived in fornication (and that of course, is what it is, according to the principles of the tribunal).

If it was valid enough to produce legitimage issue, it is valid enough as a marriage that no man should put asunder.

Btw, on the original forum an ADULT child of a dissolution states what her parents dissolution resulted in: she sees no reason to get into marriage when her parents after 26 years was judged a lie.

Quote
By the pursuit of virtues.

As I said, hypocrisy is the tribute vice pays to virtue.  If that qualifies....

Quote
Seems you proclaimed yourself to be something. Doesn't this insinuate Latin’s are not Catholic? Do you miss the lack of Charity in that?


No, I proclaimed something for my Church: the One, Holy, CATHOLIC and Apostolic one.

I don't insinuate: I come right out and say that ultramontanist and legalist strands that produce the Latin marriage tribunals are not what was believed everywhere, at all times, by everyone, and hence not Catholic.

I'd have to leap frog over the charity in labeling Orthodox non-Catholics, lumped with the Protestants, Jews, Muslims and Atheists first.

I was told that I should kow tow a party line that I will not subscribe to, nor do I see it in the fine print of the rules that I have to buy legalism's take on this, or other things.  It's Mr. Keating's dime, but I'm not for sale.

Quote
Then bend it to Jesus.

Seven times a day, facing East.

Speaks volumes and by the way you used the term of Roman which in the same breath you claimed you never do.

Quote
Proselytization abounds. Reconciliation is the only way to go.

That road is not paved in denial.

Quote
Not to? but aren't you?


1 Peter 3:15 But sanctify the Lord God in your hearts; and always be ready to give an answer to everyone who asks you a reason concerning the hope that is in you, with humility and fear.

It's hard to be humble when you belong to the Orthodox.  I fear I will not do her justice.

The posts stated that Orthodox had departed from the Faith of the Fathers, and offered sanctimony as proof.

Quote
From who?


Those who know what they are talking about.

Quote
Well in your post there are fingers pointed about pride and hypocracy and you know what they say about pointing a finger.

You forgot sanctimony.

Why ultramontanists and legalists take such pride in anullments baffles me, especially given the current practice.

Quote
Ah good, license to be honest.

'tis the season....




Peace.

[/quote]
Logged

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

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,960



« Reply #34 on: January 10, 2008, 05:37:18 PM »

wow. That was an emotionally Charged post.  Maybe try and see where we are coming from. In our view there was a time when, for the most part, there were no Eastern Catholic Churches and yet the Catholic Church still remained Catholic and still taught the faith through Councils. Because these Councils are true dogmatic Councils, ALL Catholics should be reuquired to assent to the teachings contained therein. The truth is singular and not subjective. What is true for one Catholic Church should be ture for another.
We traditional Catholics, however, have no problem with our Eastern Catholic bretheren. What do have a problem with is those Particular Eastern Catholics who profess the Eastern Orthodox faith rather than the Catholic faith. We understand that the body of Christ cannot profess the faith of two different religions.

That's an issue between you and your brothers in the East.

The terms of some the unions make reference to a number of the issues you raise.  Of course, once they signed, that didn't mean that what they were promised would be implimented (like married clergy).

Interesting how you are "traditionalist," whereas the Eastern Catholic apparently are not.
« Last Edit: January 11, 2008, 12:52:35 AM by ozgeorge » Logged

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

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,254


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #35 on: January 10, 2008, 06:45:05 PM »


Interesting how you are "traditionalist," whereas the Eastern Catholic apparently are not.
It is, isn't it?
« Last Edit: January 11, 2008, 12:53:05 AM by ozgeorge » Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,145



« Reply #36 on: January 10, 2008, 11:26:51 PM »

Interesting how you are "traditionalist," whereas the Eastern Catholic apparently are not.

Well of course. The Eastern Catholic doesn't follow the tradition of inserting the filioque into the creed. (I'm being sarcastic, obviously.)
-Peter.
« Last Edit: January 11, 2008, 12:53:26 AM by ozgeorge » Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
ozgeorge
I'll take you for who you are if you take me for everything.
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Oecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople, the New Rome, the Great Church of Christ.
Posts: 16,382


My plans for retirement.


WWW
« Reply #37 on: January 11, 2008, 01:13:45 AM »

I wonder just how much of this debate is a result of ethnocentrism and cultural chauvinism?
My guess is that it is the majority....
Logged

If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.
LakaYaRabb
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America
Posts: 209



WWW
« Reply #38 on: January 11, 2008, 03:13:57 AM »

Quote
The problem is that SOME, not all, Eastern Churches reject the concept of the filioque, the Immaculate Conception, Papal Infallibility etc. Perhaps they would word the problem by stating that the Latin Church espouses these dogmas. But either way, we are professing differing faiths.

This is pretty accurate, but needs a lot of qualification. Theologumen would be an appropriate word. Also, please recognize that often the Theology and Spirituality of the Melkite Catholics is referred to as the Melkite Faith. This is confusing to members of the Church of Rome because they think if faith in terms of Latin Theology (which is patently wrong because being Catholic doesn't mean being a member of the Church of Rome). The idea that Melkites (or Eastern Catholics) must accept into thier Theology "developments" forumlated in Latin terms will never work because it makes Eastern Catholics Latin Catholics with Icons.

What can be said is that since the Church does not teach anything new, Eastern Catholics see what the General Synods say and assent to those ideas (which are already there or course) which are orthodox. Because of this, Eastern Catholics cannot accept the Western forumlation of Mary being free from sin (but in the East this is because she never sinned, not because she couldn't sin. She Could have), The role of the Pope of Rome (His Holiness is not over the Patriarch or other Bishops, the Papacy and Synodality are inseperable). The reality is that we have the SAME faith, but express it differently. This should be obvious when you consider that we have different Liturgies, but we make up the One Church.   


Quote
You don't seem to have your facts right.

The Eastern Catholic Churches do accept the filioque, the Immaculate Conception, Papal Infallibility -- or more precisely, they accept what has been dogmatically defined concerning each of these things.

The Eastern Churches do not accept the Latin Formulations of the filioque. In fact, the MOST that can be admited is an energetic procession. The emphasis of the Latin theologumen belongs in the West.

Regarding the Immaculate conception, we are all immaculately concieved because we are all born without a stain of sin. Why? There is no stain in Eastern Theology. In fact, the Most Holy Theotokos Mary is a model for humanity and the first Christian. She could have sinned but did not.

Regarding Papal Infallibility, Synodality and the Papacy are inseperable. The Patriarchal Ministry is equal to the Peterine ministry in Eastern Ecclesiology. No Bishop is over another. Not in heirarchy or jurisdiction. 

Quote
Consider, for example, purgatory (which was covered on this board not long ago). As Anthony Dragani puts it (East to West): "In the Catholic understanding, only two points are necessary dogma concerning "purgatory": 1) There is a place of transition/transformation for those en-route to Heaven, and 2) prayer is efficacious for the dead who are in this state."

Other statements/ideas on the subject -- e.g. that purgatory is a place of punishment, that someone can "skip" purgatory completely vis-à-vis a plenary indulgence, even the term "purgatory" itself -- are not necessary dogma. (Personally, I see the problem as being just the opposite of what you said; namely, Latins telling ECs that because they don't believe this or that idea, they are not "really Catholic".) 

God bless,
Peter.

Purgatory is a Western theologumen. The East remembers her dead in a 40 days memorial and other prayers. We pray for our dead. These prayers are obviously efficaious. However, The Christian East stresses (and Orientale Lumen recognized) that theosis and deification takes places here and now, not only in the life to come. This is not the same as redemptive suffering and purgatory (which are Western).
Logged
Pravoslavbob
Section Moderator
Archon
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 3,183


St. Sisoes the Great


« Reply #39 on: January 11, 2008, 04:20:27 AM »


Forgive me for my blunt assessment, but your post is pretty much aligned with the "have their cake and eat it too" attitude expressed by the Melkite Church.  It reminds me very much of the recent Melkite proposal to enter into communion with the Antiochian Orthodox and to remain in communion with Rome through the contention of the Melkite Patriarch that "he believes everything that Orthodoxy teaches" and that he upholds union with Rome "based on the common faith upheld by the undivided Church through the first millenium".  (I apologise for my paraphrase, but IIRC, this was the essence of the Patriarch's argument.) This proposal was rejected by Rome and the Orthodox alike, neither side being in agreement with the unique POV offered by the Melkites.  In this sense, your post is also the "poster boy", so to speak, for those who argue in this thread that there are many in the Eastern Catholic communion who see no need to adhere to beliefs central to being in communion with Rome, the most prominent being that of submitting to the authority of Rome.  Your post provides all the evidence they need to support their contention.  Moreover, it illuminates quite well how the Melkites are "ringleaders" for those Eastern Catholics who believe that they have no need to submit to the authority of Rome.

Please don't misunderstand me.  In many ways, I appreciate the sincere and strong ways since the early years of Vatican II that the Melkites have stood independently and strongly for Orthodox doctrine.  They are, I think, unique among the Eastern Catholic Churches in this respect.  In a strange way, the Orthodox owe the Melkites a debt of gratitude for the strong influence they exerted at the second Vatican council, in terms of insisting that conciliarity amongst bishops become more strongly asserted and in affirming the correctness and venerability of other Orthodox beliefs.  However, Melkites who believe that they are not "under' the Pope, but simply "in communion" with him, are in grave error.  It is a matter of some debate regarding just how much doctrines  promulgated since the end of the first millenium in the West must be adhered to by Eastern Catholics, but a wholesale rejection of these doctrines must also be seen as being erroneous and part and parcel of the "have your cake and eat it too" syndrome.
« Last Edit: January 11, 2008, 04:22:54 AM by Pravoslavbob » Logged

Religion is a disease, and Orthodoxy is its cure.
Pravoslavbob
Section Moderator
Archon
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 3,183


St. Sisoes the Great


« Reply #40 on: January 11, 2008, 04:42:49 AM »

Regarding the Immaculate conception, we are all immaculately concieved because we are all born without a stain of sin. Why? There is no stain in Eastern Theology. In fact, the Most Holy Theotokos Mary is a model for humanity and the first Christian. She could have sinned but did not.

I think the Orthodox position tends to differ somewhat from this POV.  It's true that Orthodoxy would lean toward saying that we are born without responsibility for the sin of Adam.   However, we still suffer the consequences of Adam's sin, because of the solidarity of the one human nature.  Also, many Holy Fathers affirm that the Holy Theotokos never sinned, but there appear to be a few dissenting opinions, prominent among them being St. John Chrysostom, who seems to claim that she may have been just a little bit prideful.  Of course, I'm not disputing in any way that she was the holiest person who ever lived, next to Our Lord Himself!  And you're quite right in saying that she is a model for humanity, and the glory of humanity, which is why we say in amazement and awe that she is "more honourable than the cherubim, and more glorious beyond compare than the seraphim"!
Logged

Religion is a disease, and Orthodoxy is its cure.
Irish Melkite
Information Mongeror
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite Greek-Catholic
Jurisdiction: Eparchy of Newton
Posts: 988


WWW
« Reply #41 on: January 11, 2008, 04:44:32 AM »

Again, I'm no theologian. Hopefully someone else can explain this better than I can. (Neil, are you around?)

Peter,

I'm guessing that we may be acquainted from elsewhere, but I am at a loss as to whom you might be or under what other nick I might know you. But, regardless, thanks for the compliment (LOL - I guess), however, I am no theologian, by any stretch of anyone's imagination. If they stop and think about it, those who have read my stuff over the years will realize that they likely can't recollect seeing me participate in much that would be considered theological or apologetic debate. It's not my thing.

I'll fiercely defend the right of any EC/EO or OC/OO to believe and charitably/civilly express their beliefs and their agreement or disagreement with their opposite number, but I'm here primarily to celebrate, share, and educate my brethren, and those who honestly inquire, about the beauty of our spirituality, praxis, and ecclesio-cultural identities - even our pirohi or fatayah  Grin . That's what I do and I try my best to do it well. Sound like a cop-out? It's not intended to be; hopefully God doesn't find it such.

Many years,

Neil

PS - to Bob's point, I don't think Laka or I would disagree entirely with what he's posted. 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 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"  Huh
« Last Edit: January 11, 2008, 04:45:49 AM by Irish Melkite » Logged

"Not only is it unnecessary to adopt the customs of the Latin Rite to manifest one's Catholicism, it is an offense against the unity of the Church."

- Melkite Archbishop Joseph (Tawil), of blessed memory
LakaYaRabb
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America
Posts: 209



WWW
« Reply #42 on: January 11, 2008, 05:27:18 AM »

Quote
However, we still suffer the consequences of Adam's sin, because of the solidarity of the one human nature.

It's hard to convey any real sense of humor online, but the "we are all immacualtely conceived" is  actually a witty, comical remark. Sorry for the confusion here. I suppose my explanation makes it even less comical...

The effect of Adam's sin is death. We all die, therefore we all suffer the effects of Adam's sin (not concupisence).

I don't really see anything in your posts to disagree with.

I am proud to be Melkite. It is an impossible life. We are not accepted by the West as Catholic and We are puzzling to the Orthodox for epousing what we espouse, but remaining in communion with Rome.  Huh

IrishMelkite explained it perfectly. I don't try yo understand it myself.

Honestly, Pravoslavbob, there probably little to nothing with essentially disagree on. Please don't be offended by the insignificant assumption of this sinner, though.
Logged
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,960



« Reply #43 on: January 11, 2008, 06:34:13 AM »

Peter,

I'm guessing that we may be acquainted from elsewhere, but I am at a loss as to whom you might be or under what other nick I might know you. But, regardless, thanks for the compliment (LOL - I guess), however, I am no theologian, by any stretch of anyone's imagination. If they stop and think about it, those who have read my stuff over the years will realize that they likely can't recollect seeing me participate in much that would be considered theological or apologetic debate. It's not my thing.

I'll fiercely defend the right of any EC/EO or OC/OO to believe and charitably/civilly express their beliefs and their agreement or disagreement with their opposite number, but I'm here primarily to celebrate, share, and educate my brethren, and those who honestly inquire, about the beauty of our spirituality, praxis, and ecclesio-cultural identities - even our pirohi or fatayah  Grin . That's what I do and I try my best to do it well. Sound like a cop-out? It's not intended to be; hopefully God doesn't find it such.

Many years,

Neil

PS - to Bob's point, I don't think Laka or I would disagree entirely with what he's posted. 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 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"  Huh


Yes, there is somewhat an attitude in Antioch towards both Old and New Rome: a pox on both your houses.  Don't drag us into your squabbles.
Logged

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

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,145



« Reply #44 on: January 11, 2008, 09:54:06 AM »

The thing about RC dogmas is that they're written in ways that are so terribly suggestive.

For example:

- (the Immaculate Conception) "[bgcolor=#FFFFFF]The most Blessed Virgin Mary ... was preserved free from all stain of original sin.[/bgcolor]" Does that mean that everyone else has a stain of original sin? (BTW, LakaYaRabb, I did like your line about "we are all immaculately conceived".)

- (Unam Sactum) "[bgcolor=#FFFFFF]It is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff.[/bgcolor]" Does that imply that anyone who says 'I'm not subject to the Roman Pontiff' automatically goes to hell?

- (Papal Infallibility) "[bgcolor=#FFFFFF]When the Roman Pontiff speaks ex cathedra, that is, when, in the exercise of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians, in virtue of his supreme apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole Church, he possesses, by the divine assistance promised to him in blessed Peter, that infallibility which the divine Redeemer willed his Church to enjoy in defining doctrine concerning faith or morals.[/bgcolor]" Does that mean that the pope can exercise 'his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians' whenever he wants?

And so on.
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
Tags: purgatory filioque Hesychasm St. Gregory Palamas Latin vs. Eastern Catholics 
Pages: 1 2 3 »  All   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.18 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.171 seconds with 74 queries.