OrthodoxChristianity.net
September 01, 2014, 05:34:27 PM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Reminder: No political discussions in the public fora.  If you do not have access to the private Politics Forum, please send a PM to Fr. George.
 
   Home   Help Calendar Contact Treasury Tags Login Register  
Pages: « 1 2 3 »  All   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: The Pope  (Read 10241 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,114



« Reply #45 on: April 11, 2008, 08:43:45 PM »

You must have heard this before! The authority of Orthodox Bishops is limited by the Canons- even within the Church.
Even the Oecumenical Patriarch does not have direct authority over the other Patriarchs- but must convene a Pan-Orthodox Synod among the Patriarchates to make decisions. A recent example is the deposing of the former Patriarch of Jerusalem. His All-Holiness, Patriarch Bartholomew, had no authority to depose the Patriarch alone, but called a Pan-Orthodox Synod among the Patriarchates to come to a decision.

No, what I haven't heard before (from an Orthodox, that is, leaving aside Anglicanism, etc.) is that statement that a bishop can't claim jurisdiction over "anyone who does not willingly subject to their authority".

Blessings,
Peter.
« Last Edit: April 11, 2008, 08:48:58 PM by PJ » 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 #46 on: April 11, 2008, 08:46:01 PM »

Well since this topic was started by a fairly new Orthodox inquirer for "Papal" target practice guess it's only fair play to have one for the MP, EP etc...eh

Well, I am not privy to people's motivations for starting topics, but if you want to set up a thread to ask questions about the MP or the EP etc, feel free to do so. Wink
I agree with PJ, I don't think anyone is really using the Pope for "target practice" in this thread. We are dialogging, not throwing rotten vegetables at each other.
Logged

If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.
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 #47 on: April 11, 2008, 08:53:00 PM »

No, what I haven't heard before (from an Orthodox, that is, leaving aside Anglicanism, etc.) is that statement that a bishop can't claim jurisdiction over "anyone who does not willingly subject to their authority".

Blessings,
Peter.

It's simply a statement of reality PJ, and even the Pope cannot really claim authority over anyone outside of the Catholic Church. If he could, then surely you and I would be celebrating Pascha/Easter on the same day!
I can claim to have authority over my cats, but not one thing I say will stop them from bringing lizards into the house or scratching the sofa.
Logged

If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.
Jakub
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,747



« Reply #48 on: April 11, 2008, 09:11:01 PM »

Oz, don't care for wabbit food, I'm a meat & tater guy...so throw some t-bones and idaho's  Smiley
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.
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 #49 on: April 11, 2008, 09:16:53 PM »

Oz, don't care for wabbit food, I'm a meat & tater guy...so throw some t-bones and idaho's  Smiley

Jakub,
I could never throw anything at you!
But I'll set an extra place for you at our Pascha Feast.
Logged

If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.
Jakub
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,747



« Reply #50 on: April 11, 2008, 09:42:43 PM »

Cool...
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.
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,114



« Reply #51 on: April 11, 2008, 10:14:56 PM »

It's simply a statement of reality PJ, and even the Pope cannot really claim authority over anyone outside of the Catholic Church.

Well, as I'm sure you're well aware, repeating a claim doesn't make it true.

If he could, then surely you and I would be celebrating Pascha/Easter on the same day!

By what logic does that follow?

If person A has authority over person B, and person B refuses to do anything that person A says, does that mean that person A's authority isn't real?
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 #52 on: April 11, 2008, 10:16:45 PM »

If person A has authority over person B, and person B refuses to do anything that person A says, does that mean that person A's authority isn't real?
Yep.
Logged

If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,114



« Reply #53 on: April 11, 2008, 10:27:58 PM »

On a related note, perhaps I should make that my last post on this thread. This whole conversation is just getting a little too "bizarro world" for my taste.


Blessings,
Peter.

Jerry: Yeah. Like Bizarro Superman. Superman's exact opposite, who lives in the  backwards bizarro world. Up is Down. Down is Up. He says "Hello" when he leaves, "Good bye" when he arrives.

Elaine: Shouldn't he say "Bad bye"? Isn't that the, opposite of "Good bye"?

- Seinfeld, "The Bizarro Jerry"

Logged

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

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,114



« Reply #54 on: April 11, 2008, 10:35:11 PM »

perhaps I should make that my last post on this thread.

Well maybe one more ...

Was just wondering, does it work the other way too? I.e. if I tell you to do something and you do it, would that prove that I have some kind of authority over you? Smiley
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 #55 on: April 11, 2008, 11:04:29 PM »

Well maybe one more ...

Was just wondering, does it work the other way too? I.e. if I tell you to do something and you do it, would that prove that I have some kind of authority over you? Smiley
No.
All true authority comes ultimately from God.
Christ recognized the authority of Pontius Pilate as genuine authority coming from God (John 19:11). But Christ did not recognize the false authority of the Court of Herod. Pilate tries to avoid judging Christ by saying that Christ "belonged to Herod's jurisdiction" (Luke 23:7). But Christ refuses to recognize Herod's "authority" and refuses to answer him (Luke 23:9). When people warn Christ that Herod was out to kill Him, He replies by saying that He will do as He Wills and He will be killed, not by Herod's "authority", but by His own voluntary submission to death under Pilate (Luke 13:31-32).
Logged

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

Posts: 112


« Reply #56 on: April 12, 2008, 06:26:47 AM »

QUOTE:
  "It is the traditionalist movement in the Orthodox Church which speaks so harshly about the Pope of Rome.  The writings of the Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople, since 1965 (+/-), take quite the opposite position, speaking of the Roman Catholic Church and the Eastern Orthodox Church as the two lungs of Christianity. Ecumenical Patriarchs in this period address the Pope as "Elder Brother."  Relations with the heterodox is a topic on the planning agenda of the Great and Holy Council (Synod) of the Orthodox Church, which has been in the planning stages since 1923.  Although, even saints of the Orthodox Church have referred to the Pope as a heretic, contemporary hierarchs point out that a synod of the Church has never so condemned the Pope or the Roman Catholic Church."

  While it is true that more than one Saint of the Holy Church has indeed condemned Roman Catholicism as a heresy, it is also true, as you write (I think) that the Ecumenical Patriarchs since 1965 have said various so-called "positive" things about Roman Catholicism, the Pope, etc. I, myself, would most certainly rather  accept the authority of any Saint than any of the recent occupants of the Ecumenical Throne, many of whom, in the late 19th and early 20th centuries were Freemasons (which has been more than acceptably proven on more than one occasion).

  However, the statement that Roman Catholicism has never been condemned as heresy in Council, Synod, officially, etc, etc, etc, keeps cropping up, over and over again. It would seem that the statement is simply not true at all, but, of course, we have to know exactly what the statement means. Does it mean that Roman Catholicism has never been condemned as a heresy by an ECUMENICAL Council, or an ECUMENICAL Synod? If so, well, we have to agree with the statement, as the last Council regarded universally by the Church as Ecumenical was in 787.
   
   However, if that is NOT what is meant, and local councils, synods, and sobors are acceptable to your definition of what is acceptable in regard to this question, I would have to strongly disagree with the statement.

  The Fourth Council of Constantinople, 879-880, strongly sanctioned any additions to the Symbol of Faith (the Creed), making additions heretical, which, of course, included the "filioque." So, 879-880, the "filioque," a Roman Catholic addition to the Creed is condemned as heresy.

   The Fifth Council of Constantinople, 1341-1351, denounced Barlaam the Calabrian's Latin soaked condemnations of the hesychasm of Saint Gregory Palamas. Barlaam later became the Roman catholic Bishop of Gerace, condemned as a heretic by the Holy Orthodox Church.

   The Synod of Jerusalem of Jerusalem in 1672, while primarily defending the Church against Calvinist doctrines, again strongly condemned the "filioque," and as heresy, again a condemnation of the Roman church.

   Dr. Constantine Cavarnos "discovered" a Catechism published originally in 1903-as you will see, although not a "Synod" or "Council," Patriarch Anthimos VI of Constantinople "signed on" to the approval of the Catechism, as did members of the Holy Synod-in essence, like a conciliar decision-deliberated over, signed onto!

   "FROM THE ORTHODOX CATECHISM OF 1872 OFFICIALLY APPROVED BY THE ECUMENICAL PATRIARCHATE REGARDING VARIOUS HERETICS.

 Many times we hear from ecumenists that the Orthodox Church never officially identified the Roman Catholics and Protestants as heretics. However, in the "Sacred Catechism of the Orthodox Church" written by Demetrios N. Vernardakis we find the exact definition of Roman Catholics and Protestants as heretics.

 The catechism was written in response to a competition announced by the Patriarchate of Constantinople for the best Catechism to be used on the Greek schools of Constantinople. Vernardakis' submitted his work, entitled "Sacred Catechism," and it was selected as the best one. In fact, in his forward Patriarch Anthimos states that the Ecclesiastical Committee which was appointed to select the best among the catechisms that had been submitted in response to the contest and declared that his work was the best in existence. This catechism was published in 1874 with a formal statement about it by Patriarch Anthimos, dated June 2, 1872 with a foreword by him, accompanied by the names of ten members of the Holy Synod.

     From the catechism we cite the following passages:

 "Question. Was it only of old time that there were (such) heresies and heretics, or do they exist even now?

 Answer. They exist, unhappily, even now, in very great numbers.

 Question. What are the greatest of these heresies?

 Answer. The first is the heresy of the Latins, Westerns, or Papists, who have been separated from the true Church of Christ, and are subject to the Pope of Rome.

 Questions. What other?

 Answer. Next are the Protestants, who have been separated from the Pope, and are no longer subject to him. They are subdivided into Lutherans, Calvinists, and numberless other heresies."

 Take from the above Catechism, p. 47. "

   While these are  a few brief examples, I am sure that with more time and research, many more examples could be found. Also, I am sure that these examples will not be sufficient, or not what you meant, or not acceptable for one reason or another, simply because you do not want to accept thatthe Orthodox Church ever "condemned" the Latins as heretics!

   It is sort of amusing to me that the statements of Saints apparently are not acceptable to you, and only the official statements of Synods, Councils, etc., are sufficient for the condemnation of Rome as heretical. The amusing part is that apparently, it does NOT take any Synod or Council, however, to "lift" the anathemas (which were, in themselves a condemnation of the Papacy, no?), to declare East and West as the "Two Lungs" of the Church, or "Sister Churches," or any other ridiculous ecumenical excess-a statement from the Patriarch of Constantinople seemingly is enough for you to accomplish these feats, is it not?


Sources: for Councils, Orthodox Wiki;for Catechism, Orthodox Christian Witness article about Constantine Cavarnos and this Catechism-online.
« Last Edit: April 12, 2008, 07:08:56 AM by A Sombra » Logged
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 #57 on: April 12, 2008, 09:31:28 AM »

^ Having a bad day?
Logged

If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.
Apotheoun
"Three realities pertain to God: essence, energy, and the triad of divine hypostaseis." St. Gregory Palamas
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: Melkite Catholic
Posts: 1,388


St. John Maximovitch


WWW
« Reply #58 on: April 12, 2008, 10:43:12 AM »

A patristic ecclesiology of communion, which sees each local Church as the full realization of the Catholic Church through the profession of the Orthodox faith during the celebration of the liturgy, is incompatible with the late medieval Roman universalist ecclesiology, which divides the Church into pieces that are only later juridically united through a concept of hierarchical subservience to the bishop of Rome.
Logged

"All that the Father has belongs likewise to the Son, except Causality."
St. Gregory Nazianzen

"We should believe that divine grace is present in the icon of Christ and that it communicates sanctification to those who draw near with faith."
St. Theodore Studite
Symeon
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America
Posts: 582


Radovan Karadzic - Serbian Hero


« Reply #59 on: April 12, 2008, 12:54:44 PM »

Apotheoun, why are you in communion with the Pope? Its rather baffling to me.  Huh
Logged
Apotheoun
"Three realities pertain to God: essence, energy, and the triad of divine hypostaseis." St. Gregory Palamas
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: Melkite Catholic
Posts: 1,388


St. John Maximovitch


WWW
« Reply #60 on: April 12, 2008, 02:51:07 PM »

Apotheoun, why are you in communion with the Pope? Its rather baffling to me.  Huh
The fact that I reject the concept of papal supremacy, which is a medieval creation, does not mean that I must convert to Eastern Orthodoxy. 
Logged

"All that the Father has belongs likewise to the Son, except Causality."
St. Gregory Nazianzen

"We should believe that divine grace is present in the icon of Christ and that it communicates sanctification to those who draw near with faith."
St. Theodore Studite
Apotheoun
"Three realities pertain to God: essence, energy, and the triad of divine hypostaseis." St. Gregory Palamas
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: Melkite Catholic
Posts: 1,388


St. John Maximovitch


WWW
« Reply #61 on: April 12, 2008, 02:52:26 PM »

I am an Eastern Catholic because I accept the doctrine of primacy within synodality (cf. Apostolic Canon 34), and I believe that the hierarchy of the Roman Church itself is moving – albeit slowly – toward acceptance of that theological position.
Logged

"All that the Father has belongs likewise to the Son, except Causality."
St. Gregory Nazianzen

"We should believe that divine grace is present in the icon of Christ and that it communicates sanctification to those who draw near with faith."
St. Theodore Studite
The Iambic Pen
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic - Church of Old Rome
Jurisdiction: Latin Rite
Posts: 123



« Reply #62 on: April 13, 2008, 12:15:22 PM »

If person A has authority over person B, and person B refuses to do anything that person A says, does that mean that person A's authority isn't real?
I would say that authority does not depend on acceptance.  Americans, in particular, are fond of saying that leaders derive their authority from the consent of the governed.  However, in other government systems, including those from our own pre-Revolutionary past, this is not the case.  If the king has authority over his subjects, he does not lose this authority simply because some reject it.  Rather, he will exercise his authority by sending his followers to bring the rebels to justice.

I don't know as much about the Orthodox Church, but I believe I am correct in saying that in the Catholic Church, the authority of the pope, bishops and priests does not, in any way, depend on the consent of the laity.  As the minister in the movie Chariots of Fire said, "The kingdom of God is not a democracy."
Logged
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,114



« Reply #63 on: April 13, 2008, 02:23:54 PM »

If the king has authority over his subjects, he does not lose this authority simply because some reject it. 

Phew! I thought we were gonna be stuck in bizarro world forever.




(Technically that's the same superman smiley as before, but just pretend that the first one was bizarro superman and the second one regular superman.)
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 #64 on: April 14, 2008, 07:52:33 AM »

If the king has authority over his subjects, he does not lose this authority simply because some reject it. 
Ask Louie XVI of France, Tsar St. Nicholas II, King Constantine of Greece,......
« Last Edit: April 14, 2008, 07:53:17 AM by ozgeorge » Logged

If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,114



« Reply #65 on: April 14, 2008, 08:13:03 AM »

I would say that authority does not depend on acceptance.  Americans, in particular, are fond of saying that leaders derive their authority from the consent of the governed.  However, in other government systems, including those from our own pre-Revolutionary past, this is not the case.

Actually, even in a democracy like the U.S.A., once a man or woman has been elected president by the majority, he or she is the president of all, including those who voted against him or her.
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
The Iambic Pen
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic - Church of Old Rome
Jurisdiction: Latin Rite
Posts: 123



« Reply #66 on: April 14, 2008, 11:45:26 AM »

Ask Louie XVI of France, Tsar St. Nicholas II, King Constantine of Greece,......
Some would say that Louis XVI, Tsar Nicholas II, and King Constantine remained the rightful rulers of their nations right up until the moment of their deaths.  The rebels were guilty of treason against their rulers, not their former rulers.

Actually, even in a democracy like the U.S.A., once a man or woman has been elected president by the majority, he or she is the president of all, including those who voted against him or her.
Very true.
Logged
lubeltri
Latin Catholic layman
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

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



« Reply #67 on: April 14, 2008, 12:47:26 PM »

Some would say that Louis XVI, Tsar Nicholas II, and King Constantine remained the rightful rulers of their nations right up until the moment of their deaths.  The rebels were guilty of treason against their rulers, not their former rulers.

Absolutely. The same goes for Charles I of England.
Logged
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,114



« Reply #68 on: April 14, 2008, 03:09:51 PM »

Some would say that Louis XVI, Tsar Nicholas II, and King Constantine remained the rightful rulers of their nations right up until the moment of their deaths.  The rebels were guilty of treason against their rulers, not their former rulers.

Absolutely. The same goes for Charles I of England.

I think it's a little trickier to say in individual cases what kind of authority such-and-such monarch has.

On the other hand, I definitely reject (and call absurd) the general claim that no one has authority over anyone who refuses said authority.
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
ytterbiumanalyst
Professor Emeritus, CSA
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA Diocese of the Midwest
Posts: 8,790



« Reply #69 on: April 14, 2008, 03:19:32 PM »

^ One is only a leader if there are people who follow.
Logged

"It is remarkable that what we call the world...in what professes to be true...will allow in one man no blemishes, and in another no virtue."--Charles Dickens
Jakub
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,747



« Reply #70 on: April 14, 2008, 11:49:42 PM »

PJ,

Ever since I hit that 50 number I have bizarro events every day...sometimes they are enjoyable
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.
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 #71 on: April 14, 2008, 11:57:37 PM »

Some would say that Louis XVI, Tsar Nicholas II, and King Constantine remained the rightful rulers of their nations right up until the moment of their deaths.  The rebels were guilty of treason against their rulers, not their former rulers.
Well "the rebels" now run the Republic of France, the Democratic Republic of Greece, and Russia. Should their authority be ignored?

Actually, even in a democracy like the U.S.A., once a man or woman has been elected president by the majority, he or she is the president of all, including those who voted against him or her.
Aren't you forgetting that the democracy of the USA was established by overthrowing the authority of the British Monarch? Was the US wrong to do so?
Logged

If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.
Paisius
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Multi-Jurisdictional
Posts: 816


Reframed


« Reply #72 on: April 15, 2008, 01:08:08 AM »

Well "the rebels" now run the Republic of France, the Democratic Republic of Greece, and Russia. Should their authority be ignored?
 Aren't you forgetting that the democracy of the USA was established by overthrowing the authority of the British Monarch? Was the US wrong to do so?

I have to say reading this thread I feel a little like I'm in the twilight zone. Being told again and again by Catholics that yes, we are all subject to their Patriarch whether we like it or not or whether we even realize it or not is giving me a headache. In all honesty I have a hard time even understanding the mindset of a person who believes such a thing, much less what it must be like to try and defend that position.

My .02


Yours in Christ
Paisius


« Last Edit: April 15, 2008, 01:08:44 AM by Paisius » Logged

"Is it really true that political self-interest is nobler somehow than economic self-interest?" - Milton Friedman
The Iambic Pen
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic - Church of Old Rome
Jurisdiction: Latin Rite
Posts: 123



« Reply #73 on: April 15, 2008, 01:09:14 AM »

Well "the rebels" now run the Republic of France, the Democratic Republic of Greece, and Russia. Should their authority be ignored?
No.  We can't undo every error of the past.  We have to live with the reality of today.  We can't bring these dead monarchs back to life and return them to their thrones (thought that might be an interesting idea for a novel... Smiley ).

Quote
Aren't you forgetting that the democracy of the USA was established by overthrowing the authority of the British Monarch? Was the US wrong to do so?
Some would argue that the USA was wrong to do so.  As I said above, however, we have to live with the reality of today.  Much time has passed since then.  The USA and the UK are allies who have worked together in common cause many times.  However, we are independent nations.  While some might wish the USA would acknowledge the British monarch as sovereign, this simply is not going to happen.  Plus, the British monarch no longer claims authority over the USA, which could really settle the issue on its own.

I think it's a little trickier to say in individual cases what kind of authority such-and-such monarch has.
I agree.

Quote
On the other hand, I definitely reject (and call absurd) the general claim that no one has authority over anyone who refuses said authority.
Absolutely.
Logged
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,114



« Reply #74 on: April 15, 2008, 07:50:50 AM »

Aren't you forgetting that the democracy of the USA was established by overthrowing the authority of the British Monarch? Was the US wrong to do so?

No, I haven't. What's your point?
Logged

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

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,114



« Reply #75 on: April 15, 2008, 08:00:38 AM »

I have to say reading this thread I feel a little like I'm in the twilight zone. Being told again and again by Catholics that yes, we are all subject to their Patriarch whether we like it or not or whether we even realize it or not is giving me a headache.

Hmmm ... Interesting that that's giving you a headache, considering it isn't what we've been talking about. (What we've been discussing, since about #38, is George's claim that if person A has authority over person B, and person B refuses that authority, then that means the authority isn't real. To be honest, though, it doesn't seem we're getting anywhere: I don't see anyone becoming convinced of ozgeorge's position except those who already agreed with it, or vice versa.)

God bless,
Peter.
« Last Edit: April 15, 2008, 08:40:37 AM by PJ » Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
Orual
Orthodoxy = 7, not 3
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Sunday Morning Costume Parade
Posts: 931


I'm just here for the food.


« Reply #76 on: April 15, 2008, 09:50:26 AM »

Some would say that Louis XVI, Tsar Nicholas II, and King Constantine remained the rightful rulers of their nations right up until the moment of their deaths.

Those some would be wrong in the case of Tsar Nicholas, because he abdicated before his death and handed the throne to his brother.
Logged

He spoke it as kindly and heartily as could be; as if a man dashed a gallon of cold water in your broth and never doubted you'd like it all the better. 

- C.S. Lewis, Till We Have Faces
f.k.a. Matron.a
The Iambic Pen
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic - Church of Old Rome
Jurisdiction: Latin Rite
Posts: 123



« Reply #77 on: April 15, 2008, 11:29:13 AM »

Those some would be wrong in the case of Tsar Nicholas, because he abdicated before his death and handed the throne to his brother.
Ah yes, well, in that case, his brother would be the ruler.
Logged
Basil 320
Site Supporter
Archon
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America, Holy Metropolis of Pittsburgh
Posts: 3,021



« Reply #78 on: April 15, 2008, 05:57:14 PM »

No, The Iambic Pen, Reply #77.  Michael Romanoff declined to serve as Tsar and was not enthroned.  Nicholas II was the last Tsar of Russia.
Logged

"...Strengthen the Orthodox Community..."
The Iambic Pen
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic - Church of Old Rome
Jurisdiction: Latin Rite
Posts: 123



« Reply #79 on: April 16, 2008, 04:54:17 AM »

No, The Iambic Pen, Reply #77.  Michael Romanoff declined to serve as Tsar and was not enthroned.  Nicholas II was the last Tsar of Russia.
Thanks for the info.
Logged
Fr. George
formerly "Cleveland"
Administrator
Stratopedarches
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox (Catholic) Christian
Jurisdiction: GOA - Metropolis of Pittsburgh
Posts: 20,053


May the Lord bless you and keep you always!


« Reply #80 on: April 16, 2008, 07:22:54 AM »

The comment criticizing the Eastern Catholics, as well as the posts responding to said criticism, have been merged into the "Criticism of Byzantine Rite Catholicism" thread:

http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,15373.0.html

- Cleveland, Global Moderator
« Last Edit: April 16, 2008, 07:23:14 AM by cleveland » Logged

"The man who doesn't read good books has no advantage over the one who can't read them." Mark Twain
---------------------
Ordained on 17 & 18-Oct 2009. Please forgive me if earlier posts are poorly worded or incorrect in any way.
MLPB
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 68


« Reply #81 on: May 13, 2008, 05:19:47 PM »


I don't know as much about the Orthodox Church, but I believe I am correct in saying that in the Catholic Church, the authority of the pope, bishops and priests does not, in any way, depend on the consent of the laity.  As the minister in the movie Chariots of Fire said, "The kingdom of God is not a democracy."
I don't believe this is quite right.  In fairness the formula from Vatican I does state explicitly that the infallibility is not dependent on the consent of the Church, but the explanation of what that means in the formula was given by Bishop Gasser on behalf of those who wrote the formula in his explanation known as the Relatio -.http://matt1618.freeyellow.com/treatise16.html
"But in saying this we do not separate the Pontiff from his ordained union with the Church.  For the Pope is only infallible when, exercising his function as teacher of all Christians and therefore representing the whole Church, he judges and defines what must be believed or rejected by all. He is no more able to be separated from the universal Church than the foundation from the building it is destined to support.  Indeed we do not separate the Pope, defining, from the cooperation and consent of the Church, at least in the sense that we do not exclude this cooperation and this consent of the Church. ..."

"Finally we do not separate the Pope, even minimally, from the consent of the Church, as long as that consent is not laid down as a condition which is either antecedent or consequent. We are not able to separate the Pope from the consent of the Church because this consent is never able to be lacking to him. Indeed, since we believe that the Pope is infallible through the divine assistance, by that very fact we also believe that the assent of the Church will not be lacking to his definitions since it is not able to happen that the body of bishops be separated from its head, and since the Church universal is not able to fail...."

As I read this, trying to be fair to a difficult Roman dogma, the Roman Church seems to be saying that the Pope doesn't need a vote or some other confirmation - either before or after he does something infallible.
Logged
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,114



« Reply #82 on: May 14, 2008, 09:10:19 AM »

MLPB,

It isn't that I disagree with your conclusion -- I definitely support a, um, non-ultramontane interpretation of Vatican I -- but I don't think citing Bishop Gasser is the best way to support your conclusion. My understanding is that he was really very ultramontane, even if some particular statements of his may appear otherwise. (Even in what you quoted, Bishop Gasser follows up the statement "we do not separate the Pope, even minimally, from the consent of the Church" with the statement that "this consent is never able to be lacking to him" !)

Cardinal Newman is a better source for a more moderate view of Vatican I (although I even disagree with him on a some points).

Blessings,
Peter.
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
MLPB
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 68


« Reply #83 on: May 14, 2008, 09:30:50 AM »

MLPB,

It isn't that I disagree with your conclusion -- I definitely support a, um, non-ultramontane interpretation of Vatican I -- but I don't think citing Bishop Gasser is the best way to support your conclusion. My understanding is that he was really very ultramontane, even if some particular statements of his may appear otherwise. (Even in what you quoted, Bishop Gasser follows up the statement "we do not separate the Pope, even minimally, from the consent of the Church" with the statement that "this consent is never able to be lacking to him" !)

Cardinal Newman is a better source for a more moderate view of Vatican I (although I even disagree with him on a some points).

Blessings,
Peter.
There are two reasons why Gasser's Relatio is, IMHO, the preferred cite:
1. He was the spokesman for the Deputation that wrote the formula  - so he should know as well as anyone what the Deputation meant when it wrote the formula, i.e., he is authoritative.

2. The Relatio is cited by Vatican II in its discussion on the role of Bishops, thereby further confirming the authority of it, especially when one considers that Vatican I was supposed to take up the role of Bishops in the context of infallibility and never got around to it.

Now I've got even a 3rd argument that I should have thought of before: 3. Gasser was most certainly an ultramontanist and his Gallican statements are that much more powerful because of it.

As to your statement about consent never being missing - well as I said, it's a difficult dogma for the Roman church.  I just think it should be presented accurately and fairly.  Whether one accepts it or not is another issue altogether. 
Logged
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,188


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #84 on: May 14, 2008, 10:12:54 AM »

A patristic ecclesiology of communion, which sees each local Church as the full realization of the Catholic Church through the profession of the Orthodox faith during the celebration of the liturgy, is incompatible with the late medieval Roman universalist ecclesiology, which divides the Church into pieces that are only later juridically united through a concept of hierarchical subservience to the bishop of Rome.
So, uh, what exactly is your view of the Latin Church then? I am not asking for the sake of arguing. I am genuinely curious. Also, I am curious as to your opinion about what Churches constitute the Church, that is, the Church established by Christ.
Logged

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

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,114



« Reply #85 on: May 14, 2008, 01:11:10 PM »

Now I've got even a 3rd argument that I should have thought of before: 3. Gasser was most certainly an ultramontanist and his Gallican statements are that much more powerful because of it.

Depends how you mean that. If you mean something along the lines of "Gasser was a leading ultramontantist, yet even he admitted that such-and-such", then I agree. It's partly along that same reasoning, in fact, that I study Cardinal Newman's writing: he's pretty well respected by conservative (and so-called "traditionalist") Catholics today, so a statement like "Even Newman believed it unwise to define Papal Infallibility dogmatically." is pretty effective.

As to your statement about consent never being missing - well as I said, it's a difficult dogma for the Roman church.  I just think it should be presented accurately and fairly.  Whether one accepts it or not is another issue altogether. 

But presenting it accurately and fairly should include drawing a clear distinction between what has been dogmatically defined and is binding on Catholics, and what is just somebody-or-other's opinion. (For example, Cardinal Newman, elaborating on the conditions for a statement to be ex cathedra, said that teaching "has no sacramental visible signs; it is an opus operantis, and mainly a question of intention" -- in this case, a question of the pope's intention to make an ex cathedra statement. But neither I nor any other Catholic is obligated to agree with Newman on that point, cf. my blog.)

God bless,
Peter.
Logged

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

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,114



« Reply #86 on: May 15, 2008, 09:34:03 AM »

There are two reasons why Gasser's Relatio is, IMHO, the preferred cite:
1. He was the spokesman for the Deputation that wrote the formula  - so he should know as well as anyone what the Deputation meant when it wrote the formula, i.e., he is authoritative.

Quote from: Cardinal Newman
7. Accordingly, all that a Council, and all that the Pope, is infallible in, is the direct answer to the {329} special question which he happens to be considering; his prerogative does not extend beyond a power, when in his Cathedra , of giving that very answer truly. "Nothing," says Perrone, "but the objects of dogmatic definitions of Councils are immutable, for in these are Councils infallible, not in their reasons ," &c.— ibid .

8. This rule is so strictly to be observed that, though dogmatic statements are found from time to time in a Pope's Apostolic Letters, &c., yet they are not accounted to be exercises of his infallibility if they are said only obiter —by the way, and without direct intention to define. A striking instance of this sine qua non condition is afforded by Nicholas I., who, in a letter to the Bulgarians, spoke as if baptism were valid, when administered simply in our Lord's Name, without distinct mention of the Three Persons; but he is not teaching and speaking ex cathedrâ , because no question on this matter was in any sense the occasion of his writing. The question asked of him was concerning the minister of baptism—viz., whether a Jew or Pagan could validly baptize; in answering in the affirmative, he added obiter , as a private doctor, says Bellarmine, "that the baptism was valid, whether administered in the name of the three Persons or in the name of Christ only." ( De Rom. Pont ., iv. 12.)

source

Hence Bishop Gasser's role in writing the formula does not in any way prevent him from being mistaken in other statements he made about the papacy, other than the formula itself.

God bless,
Peter.
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
JoeS
(aka StMarkEofE)
Site Supporter
OC.net guru
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 1,122


Global Warming Enthusiast.


« Reply #87 on: May 20, 2008, 12:03:30 AM »

Now, it is my understanding, that the Pope is considered a heretic. But, before the Great-Schism, why was the Pope allowed the best seat at an Ecumenical Council and was recognized as the first among equals?



If the Pope was given the best seat in the house why was he never in it?

That is because the East took care of things when it mattered.
« Last Edit: May 20, 2008, 12:06:00 AM by JoeS » Logged
lubeltri
Latin Catholic layman
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

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



« Reply #88 on: May 20, 2008, 09:01:54 AM »

Did he get first dibs at the buffet, too?
Logged
The Iambic Pen
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic - Church of Old Rome
Jurisdiction: Latin Rite
Posts: 123



« Reply #89 on: May 21, 2008, 07:56:45 AM »

Well, as JoeS said, the pope was never actually there to find out...  Wink
Logged
Tags:
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 0.153 seconds with 72 queries.