OrthodoxChristianity.net
September 22, 2014, 10:30:44 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  All   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Whoa! Examples of total Papal jurisdiction over the Eastern "Catholic" Church  (Read 12906 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
nonchal
Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 116


« Reply #45 on: March 15, 2007, 11:04:48 AM »

ALL THE INFORMATION ON THE ORIGINAL POST CAN BE FOUND IN THE CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA. WIKIPEDIA JUST CONFIRMED IT.
Logged
AMM
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Jurisdiction: ACROD
Posts: 2,076


« Reply #46 on: March 15, 2007, 11:13:08 AM »

I think people are just saying that neither of those, even together, presents a full or accurate picture of what the Catholics currently think, act, teach, etc.

You also don't need to post in all caps, but you obviously feel STRONGLY about this.  Why I do not know.
« Last Edit: March 15, 2007, 11:13:49 AM by welkodox » Logged
Schultz
Christian. Guitarist. Zymurgist. Librarian.
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 6,472


Scion of the McKeesport Becks.


WWW
« Reply #47 on: March 15, 2007, 11:16:48 AM »

Because everybody likes to beat up on ECs...EO, OO, RC...even ECs themselves! Wink
Logged

"Hearing a nun's confession is like being stoned to death with popcorn." --Abp. Fulton Sheen
AMM
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Jurisdiction: ACROD
Posts: 2,076


« Reply #48 on: March 15, 2007, 11:18:59 AM »

Thank you sir may I have another!  Wink
Logged
username!
Moderator
Protokentarchos
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Ukrainian Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Pennsylvaniadoxy
Posts: 5,064



« Reply #49 on: March 15, 2007, 08:45:21 PM »

My point is
A) online sources don't hold water, if a professor in a university doesn't permit them then that speaks volumes as to their validity.  While they may hold things one could prove true or false, it is better to make an academic study to come to your conclusion rather than the musings of an online article, hint, one man/woman's opinion.
B) I find your original thread very uncharitable, especially in the time of the fast.  I was Byzantine Catholic/Greek Catholic and I still have friends and family that are members of those churches.  While obviously we all don't see eye it that doesn't make one person better than the other.
C) just because I don't agree with your posting doesn't mean I am attacking you.  You can criticize a man's work without criticizing the man, a thing long forgotten. 
D) Leave the Byzcaths' alone. 
Logged

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

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,191


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #50 on: March 15, 2007, 11:42:42 PM »

I have to say that most of the Eastern Orthodox Christians on this forum are very fair minded and Charitable. They have expressed these virtues a great deal on this thread. Thank you all so much for not being "anti-latin" even though you disagree with us papists  Wink. You all ROCK!!!! Many blessings in Christ.
Chris
Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
username!
Moderator
Protokentarchos
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Ukrainian Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Pennsylvaniadoxy
Posts: 5,064



« Reply #51 on: March 16, 2007, 12:10:56 AM »

As Christians we are to hold the notion that we are to love one another, be respectful, etc... So why should we be anything other than that?  There is a place and time for meaningful debate, but we still must be respectful towards one another. 
Logged

serb1389
Lord, remember me when you come into your Kingdom!
Global Moderator
Merarches
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Metropolis of San Francisco
Posts: 8,374


Michał Kalina's biggest fan

FrNPantic
WWW
« Reply #52 on: March 16, 2007, 11:17:50 PM »

When and where are the right time and place for meaningful debate?  Outside of Lent?  Isn't Lent just one period of the year, and isn't it also a call for us to act the way we do (during Lent) all the time? 

Just curious as to your opinion on this. 

Logged

I got nothing.
I forgot the maps
March 27th and May 30th 2010 were my Ordination dates, please forgive everything before that
username!
Moderator
Protokentarchos
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Ukrainian Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Pennsylvaniadoxy
Posts: 5,064



« Reply #53 on: March 17, 2007, 03:25:32 AM »

When and where are the right time and place for meaningful debate?  Outside of Lent?  Isn't Lent just one period of the year, and isn't it also a call for us to act the way we do (during Lent) all the time? 

Just curious as to your opinion on this. 



We of course, and my above post on top of yours was sort of towards papist -in a good way.
Perhaps you took that one out of context and perhaps I shold have quoted him.
Anyway, there are obvious differences between the Byzcaths and the Orthodox and there is much more educated and more enlightening ways to discuss it rather than gather a few opinions off the net and tell everyone what the ot of this thread was.  It's offensive and didn't such much different than the tracts the protestant church across the street used to leave in our mailbox when they figured out there was a Catholic across the street (not hard to do, spot the catholic school kid in his/her uniform).  Reminds me of the days when I wasn't allowed to socialize a friend of mine because her dad (who was a public school teacher) told me that Catholics were the lowest scum and ruining the world and I wasn't allowed to talk to his step-daughter because I was Catholic.
I can go on.  My point if you want to demostrate what rule the papacy plays in the various rites the Catholic Church uses it could be done a little better.
And namely, many of the different communities have their own unique story and ongoing story.  Sure they all must agree the pope is the supreme pontiff, the universal leader.   But each one has it's own history of why they came under Rome. 
Anyways
« Last Edit: March 17, 2007, 03:26:28 AM by username! » Logged

serb1389
Lord, remember me when you come into your Kingdom!
Global Moderator
Merarches
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Metropolis of San Francisco
Posts: 8,374


Michał Kalina's biggest fan

FrNPantic
WWW
« Reply #54 on: March 17, 2007, 11:09:08 AM »

Yah...I didn't realize you were talking to Papist.  Sorry if I intruded onto your discussion. 

I sympathise with some of the experiences you've mentioned.  Sometimes, however, we tend to take personal experience out of context and put the blame on a bigger entity, which is never going to really "solve the problem," if you will.

Anyway, I agree with your general point.  Each group has its own unique history and how it came under Rome. 

My question is:  Is this still the best option for these churches?  I know Anastasios made a little quip earlier about everyone just going back to being Orthodox, but seriously...why not?

If these groups are not happy with Rome and the issues can't get resolved...?

Be it because of authoritative reasons, canonical reasons, pastoral reasons, etc.

I know its easier said than done...but that's part of the point of this forum.  To discuss ideas and opinions.   
Logged

I got nothing.
I forgot the maps
March 27th and May 30th 2010 were my Ordination dates, please forgive everything before that
username!
Moderator
Protokentarchos
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Ukrainian Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Pennsylvaniadoxy
Posts: 5,064



« Reply #55 on: March 17, 2007, 02:25:35 PM »

Serb, I am going to bow out respectfully and not answer the question you had about the Eastern Catholic Churches.  PM me and I can tell you some books to read that gives a good history.
Logged

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

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,191


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #56 on: March 20, 2007, 10:35:30 AM »

Yah...I didn't realize you were talking to Papist.  Sorry if I intruded onto your discussion. 

I sympathise with some of the experiences you've mentioned.  Sometimes, however, we tend to take personal experience out of context and put the blame on a bigger entity, which is never going to really "solve the problem," if you will.

Anyway, I agree with your general point.  Each group has its own unique history and how it came under Rome. 

My question is:  Is this still the best option for these churches?  I know Anastasios made a little quip earlier about everyone just going back to being Orthodox, but seriously...why not?

If these groups are not happy with Rome and the issues can't get resolved...?

Be it because of authoritative reasons, canonical reasons, pastoral reasons, etc.

I know its easier said than done...but that's part of the point of this forum.  To discuss ideas and opinions.   
You raise an interesting point. If these Churches don't agree with Catholic teaching regarding the Papacy, why continue to commune with the Catholic Church? I mean, I wish that everyone would join the Catholic Church because I believe that it was founded by Jesus Christ, but I don't believe that people who do not confess the Catholic faith should remain in communion with the Catholic Church.  Sad
Many Blessings in Christ,
Chris
Logged

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

Jurisdiction: ACROD
Posts: 2,076


« Reply #57 on: March 20, 2007, 10:45:37 AM »

Why do Roman Catholics who don't accept the papal dogmas remain in the church?

I'm sure there are various reasons.  We all have our own priorities.
Logged
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,191


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #58 on: March 20, 2007, 10:49:35 AM »

Why do Roman Catholics who don't accept the papal dogmas remain in the church?

I'm sure there are various reasons.  We all have our own priorities.
I know this. I just find it difficult to deal with sometimes. Most Catholics, whether eastern or western, in the United states, disagree with some point of Catholic teaching. As a card carrying Papist, I find it very disturbing.
Many Blessings in Christ,
Chris
Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
username!
Moderator
Protokentarchos
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Ukrainian Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Pennsylvaniadoxy
Posts: 5,064



« Reply #59 on: March 21, 2007, 03:45:29 PM »

Why do Roman Catholics who don't accept the papal dogmas remain in the church?

I'm sure there are various reasons.  We all have our own priorities.

Well, re-instating yourself would be accepting papal primacy (which means accepting his dogmas) and confession.  It isn't like you get a letter in the mail saying you're excommunicated.  When I got Christmated Orthodox the Catholic Church never sent me a letter of excommunication Wink

It's right there smack in the canon law of the Roman Catholic Church (and is binding upon all Roman Catholics regardless if they are Latin rite or Byzantine rite) that you must recognize the pope as supreme leader, infallible and accept ALL his teachings.  If you don't, then you are dissident. 
Same for Orthodox, if we aren't faithful to the Deposit of Faith and our Bishop who rightly dispenses the word of truth, and accept the teachings of the church then we have removed ourselves from the church. 
We're not protestants we don't get to pick and choose parts of Christianity to suit our secular/humanistic "me" attitudes.
Logged

pbyers
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 4


« Reply #60 on: March 25, 2007, 12:08:23 PM »

I found an interview with the Maronite Patriarch that says the following about the role of the patriarch outside their territory:
...

I don't think these quotes are from the Maronite patriarch -- why would he say, e.g., "but for us Maronites outside the territory, the only laws that are currently effective are Liturgical laws"?

Quote
V. Historical overview

The reason for this distinction is that, from the very earliest times, Patriarchal power or jurisdiction has been subject to a geographical limitation. This restriction, known as the Patriarchal Territory, refers to those regions in which the proper rite of the Church is observed and in which the Patriarch has the right to establish ecclesiastical provinces, eparchies and exarchies 

The problem with this is that the patriarch of Rome (the pope) does not follow it himself.

For example, does the pope want to have the final say over who can be appointed as Melkite bishop in the US? You won't me complaining -- just as long as the pope asks permission from the Melkite patriarch to appoint a Latin bishop in Lebanon.
Logged
pbyers
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 4


« Reply #61 on: March 25, 2007, 12:23:11 PM »

Anyway, I agree with your general point.  Each group has its own unique history and how it came under Rome. 

My question is:  Is this still the best option for these churches?  I know Anastasios made a little quip earlier about everyone just going back to being Orthodox, but seriously...why not?

If these groups are not happy with Rome and the issues can't get resolved...?

Be it because of authoritative reasons, canonical reasons, pastoral reasons, etc.

I know its easier said than done...but that's part of the point of this forum.  To discuss ideas and opinions.   

Well, I don't want to try to speak for all the EC churches (or even one of them) as to why they don't go back to being Orthodox. But since you brought up that hypothetical situation, let me ask you this: if one of them did decide to break off communion with Rome and become Orthodox, would it be allowed to continue as a separate church (in full communion with the other Orthodox churches) or would it be required to merge with its Orthodox counterpart (e.g. the Romanian Catholic Church merging with the Romanian Orthodox Church)?

This is not a rhetorical question.

God bless,
PJ
Logged
Anastasios
Webdespota
Administrator
Merarches
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Old Calendarist
Posts: 10,445


Metropolitan Chrysostomos of Florina

anastasios0513
WWW
« Reply #62 on: March 25, 2007, 01:17:10 PM »

My opinion is that ff it were in the diaspora it could probably be an autonomous jurisdiction separate for the short run from its counterpart.  In the homeland though, where there are not usually multiple jurisdictions (this happens sometimes now but it is a grave canonical issue and very sinful) it would have to merge, perhaps though as a stavrophegial association (i.e. an administration distinct from the rest and under the primate directly).  It is just too irregular to have multiple jurisdictions in the same territory, although in the diaspora this is already common it could probably be stomached a bit better (in the short term--we are trying to eliminate multiple jurisdictions anyway).
Logged

Please Buy My Book!

Disclaimer: Past posts reflect stages of my life before my baptism may not be accurate expositions of Orthodo
pbyers
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 4


« Reply #63 on: March 25, 2007, 03:21:29 PM »

I guess the way I asked that question was a little bit of a false dichotomy. Maybe a better way to state it would have been: if the Romanian Catholic Church (just as an example) decided to break communion with Rome and become Orthodox, would it  ... ?
(1) be required to merge with the Romanian Orthodox Church
(2) become an autonomous Orthodox church
(3) become an autocephalous Orthodox church

My opinion is that ff it were in the diaspora it could probably be an autonomous jurisdiction separate for the short run from its counterpart.  In the homeland though, where there are not usually multiple jurisdictions (this happens sometimes now but it is a grave canonical issue and very sinful) it would have to merge, perhaps though as a stavrophegial association (i.e. an administration distinct from the rest and under the primate directly).  It is just too irregular to have multiple jurisdictions in the same territory, although in the diaspora this is already common it could probably be stomached a bit better (in the short term--we are trying to eliminate multiple jurisdictions anyway).

I can understand where you're coming from with regard to "multiple jurisdictions in the same territory". But having said that, it seems to me that this means an EC Church would not, in fact, gain greater independence by going Orthodox (which seemed to be what serb1389 was imply by his question) and that they might even lose some degree of independence.

Just my thoughts, of course.
-PJ
Logged
serb1389
Lord, remember me when you come into your Kingdom!
Global Moderator
Merarches
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Metropolis of San Francisco
Posts: 8,374


Michał Kalina's biggest fan

FrNPantic
WWW
« Reply #64 on: March 25, 2007, 04:40:35 PM »

Well, I don't want to try to speak for all the EC churches (or even one of them) as to why they don't go back to being Orthodox. But since you brought up that hypothetical situation, let me ask you this: if one of them did decide to break off communion with Rome and become Orthodox, would it be allowed to continue as a separate church (in full communion with the other Orthodox churches) or would it be required to merge with its Orthodox counterpart (e.g. the Romanian Catholic Church merging with the Romanian Orthodox Church)?

This is not a rhetorical question.

God bless,
PJ

In answer to your original question:

I woulde say that yes, the Romanian CATHOLIC church would have to merge with its ORTHODOX counterpart, especially if it is in the SAME COUNTRY.  Like Anastasios mentioned, the Orthodox church would probobly make every effort to not create ANOTHER Romanian church, inside of Romania. 

Quote
I can understand where you're coming from with regard to "multiple jurisdictions in the same territory". But having said that, it seems to me that this means an EC Church would not, in fact, gain greater independence by going Orthodox (which seemed to be what serb1389 was imply by his question) and that they might even lose some degree of independence.

Maybe they would lose their independence. 

I could always say that anything is better than living underneath the pope, but that would just be uncouth.  But hey, some people are at that point. 

The problem with your premise is that some people would not want to relinquish their power.  And by some people I mean some bishops/lay people.  So, that seems to be more of a personal problem than a pan-church problem. 

If a church wants to be within the envelope of truth, and does not want to be dealing with Rome...well then there are sacrifices which should/must be made.  If there is a problem with humility in order to have a better church overall....then people don't really want to change, they just want to complain. 

Those are definately some more "blunt" thoughts, but that's all I can come up with right now.  Maybe i'll think of something more constructive in the afternoon. 

Let me know your thoughts of what I posted above.   Smiley
Logged

I got nothing.
I forgot the maps
March 27th and May 30th 2010 were my Ordination dates, please forgive everything before that
dantxny
OC.net Mineshaft gap
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Russian
Posts: 769



« Reply #65 on: March 25, 2007, 05:44:19 PM »

I would assume that it would have a quasi-autonomous status until they are reabsorbed into the Orthodox Church.  It would not become autochepalous nor do I see any reason for that to occur as it would be the same ethnicity, same territory, etc.  At the most, it might be treated like ROCOR in the unification of the Russian Church.  They reunited, but maintain seperate heiarchy letting the details slowly work out over time.
Logged

"If you give the average Frenchman a choice between a reforming president who would plug the country's huge deficit and a good cheese, he would probably opt for the cheese." - Stephen Clarke
I think the French may be on to something here.
Starlight
Site Supporter
OC.net guru
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox Christianity
Jurisdiction: Ukrainian Orthodox Church of USA (Ecumenical Patriarchate)
Posts: 1,537


« Reply #66 on: March 25, 2007, 08:58:05 PM »

My opinion is that ff it were in the diaspora it could probably be an autonomous jurisdiction separate for the short run from its counterpart.  In the homeland though, where there are not usually multiple jurisdictions (this happens sometimes now but it is a grave canonical issue and very sinful) it would have to merge, perhaps though as a stavrophegial association (i.e. an administration distinct from the rest and under the primate directly).  It is just too irregular to have multiple jurisdictions in the same territory, although in the diaspora this is already common it could probably be stomached a bit better (in the short term--we are trying to eliminate multiple jurisdictions anyway).

Absolutely agree. In the diaspora, the situation may remain with an autonomous status even in the long run, at least until re-unification of all jurisdictions in the country. So that could be this variant:
At the most, it might be treated like ROCOR in the unification of the Russian Church.  They reunited, but maintain seperate heiarchy letting the details slowly work out over time.

If a church wants to be within the envelope of truth, and does not want to be dealing with Rome...well then there are sacrifices which should/must be made.  If there is a problem with humility in order to have a better church overall....then people don't really want to change, they just want to complain. 

Exactly!!!

Really excellent corollaries, guys.

Just my $0.02. If hypothetically, some Eastern Catholic Church, would include 15+% of the nation would exist in the country without major Orthodox presence – for example less then 1%  of population, then autocephalous status may become a matter of a couple of years. Or if Roman Catholic dioceses of some country would go Orthodox, the same scenario appears applicable.
Well, I really would more then enjoy to see that unparalleled return to Orthodoxy happening! I have heard that some circles within Eastern Rite Catholics in Ukraine cherish such plans / ideas.
« Last Edit: March 25, 2007, 09:04:53 PM by Starlight » Logged
pbyers
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 4


« Reply #67 on: March 26, 2007, 09:25:25 AM »

it seems to me that this means an EC Church would not, in fact, gain greater independence by going Orthodox (which seemed to be what serb1389 was imply by his question) and that they might even lose some degree of independence.

In answer to your original question:

I woulde say that yes, the Romanian CATHOLIC church would have to merge with its ORTHODOX counterpart, especially if it is in the SAME COUNTRY.  Like Anastasios mentioned, the Orthodox church would probobly make every effort to not create ANOTHER Romanian church, inside of Romania. 

Maybe they would lose their independence. 

Sorry if a misunderstood the direction your question was heading. (While I'm at it, sorry for my awful grammar.) It seems that we agree more than I realized.


I could always say that anything is better than living underneath the pope, but that would just be uncouth.  But hey, some people are at that point. 

...

If a church wants to be within the envelope of truth, and does not want to be dealing with Rome...well then there are sacrifices which should/must be made.  If there is a problem with humility in order to have a better church overall....then people don't really want to change, they just want to complain. 


Oh, I think I can understand where you're coming from. Basically you're saying they should do what's right, not what's easy.

The problem with your premise is that some people would not want to relinquish their power.  And by some people I mean some bishops/lay people.  So, that seems to be more of a personal problem than a pan-church problem. 

I'm afraid I don't really know to what premise you are referring.

God bless,
PJ
Logged
AMM
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Jurisdiction: ACROD
Posts: 2,076


« Reply #68 on: March 26, 2007, 01:19:02 PM »

I don't think these quotes are from the Maronite patriarch -- why would he say, e.g., "but for us Maronites outside the territory, the only laws that are currently effective are Liturgical laws"?

You're correct, it was the Chancellor of the Eparchy of Saint Maron of Brooklyn, New York that was speaking.  My mistake there.  He was of course speaking from the perspective of being a Maronite Catholic outside the Maronite patriarchal territory.
Logged
serb1389
Lord, remember me when you come into your Kingdom!
Global Moderator
Merarches
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Metropolis of San Francisco
Posts: 8,374


Michał Kalina's biggest fan

FrNPantic
WWW
« Reply #69 on: March 26, 2007, 07:17:27 PM »

I can understand where you're coming from with regard to "multiple jurisdictions in the same territory". But having said that, it seems to me that this means an EC Church would not, in fact, gain greater independence by going Orthodox (which seemed to be what serb1389 was imply by his question) and that they might even lose some degree of independence.

Just my thoughts, of course.
-PJ

This is what you said.  Now for your question: 

Quote
Quote from: serb1389 on Yesterday at 04:40:35 PM
The problem with your premise is that some people would not want to relinquish their power.  And by some people I mean some bishops/lay people.  So, that seems to be more of a personal problem than a pan-church problem.
 

Quote
I'm afraid I don't really know to what premise you are referring.

I realize now that my statement was probobly confusing since it didn't link to...well, anything.  What I wanted to say was that your original "premise" is independence and this is the question at hand.  The problem with this independence is that bishops/lay people would not want to relinquish power in order for the church to be where it needs to be, or where it should be. 

I hope this is less confusing now.  I'd actualy love to hear what you think about this.  I know where I stand on "power hungry" individuals, but its always good to explore new options. 
Logged

I got nothing.
I forgot the maps
March 27th and May 30th 2010 were my Ordination dates, please forgive everything before that
AMM
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Jurisdiction: ACROD
Posts: 2,076


« Reply #70 on: March 27, 2007, 01:28:49 PM »

Well, I don't want to try to speak for all the EC churches (or even one of them) as to why they don't go back to being Orthodox. But since you brought up that hypothetical situation, let me ask you this: if one of them did decide to break off communion with Rome and become Orthodox, would it be allowed to continue as a separate church (in full communion with the other Orthodox churches) or would it be required to merge with its Orthodox counterpart (e.g. the Romanian Catholic Church merging with the Romanian Orthodox Church)?

This is not a rhetorical question.

God bless,
PJ

Fr. John, during the commentary on EWTN during the Papal visit to the Phanar I believe it was Fr. Ron Roberson of CNEWA who stated that in the case of reconciliation the Eastern Catholic Churches would go back to their counterpart churches if they had one; their purpose having been served, there would be no reason or justification for them to continue on as separate entities.
Logged
serb1389
Lord, remember me when you come into your Kingdom!
Global Moderator
Merarches
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Metropolis of San Francisco
Posts: 8,374


Michał Kalina's biggest fan

FrNPantic
WWW
« Reply #71 on: March 27, 2007, 07:23:57 PM »

Fr. John, during the commentary on EWTN during the Papal visit to the Phanar I believe it was Fr. Ron Roberson of CNEWA who stated that in the case of reconciliation the Eastern Catholic Churches would go back to their counterpart churches if they had one; their purpose having been served, there would be no reason or justification for them to continue on as separate entities.

I totally forgot that he said this.  I think that this is a great answer to the dilema.  Especially if there ever is reconciliation. 
Logged

I got nothing.
I forgot the maps
March 27th and May 30th 2010 were my Ordination dates, please forgive everything before that
A Sombra
Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 112


« Reply #72 on: May 23, 2007, 02:26:04 AM »

  The most obvious exampleof total Papal jurisdiction over the Uniate churches is the fact that the only ruling Bishop in the Roman and Eastern Catholic churches is the Pope of Rome; all other bishops are simply vicar bishops, beholden to Roma for "the final word."
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: 37,659



« Reply #73 on: October 13, 2008, 10:26:03 AM »

Probably not since most Eastern Catholics here probably doubt your motives for posting this stuff on an Orthodox website. This thread seems to be an inter-Catholic thread and not an Orthodox/Catholic debate thread.

yes, it is, as we are offered the example of the "Eastern Catholic sui juris churches" as examples of what the papacy is all about.  I think we should pass on the deal. although some who are part of the deal, I admit, like Ryondish and Apotheum, whose understanding of the issue almost makes it attractive.
« Last Edit: October 13, 2008, 10:30:19 AM by ialmisry » Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
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: 37,659



« Reply #74 on: October 13, 2008, 10:39:28 AM »

Fr. John, during the commentary on EWTN during the Papal visit to the Phanar I believe it was Fr. Ron Roberson of CNEWA who stated that in the case of reconciliation the Eastern Catholic Churches would go back to their counterpart churches if they had one; their purpose having been served, there would be no reason or justification for them to continue on as separate entities.

I totally forgot that he said this.  I think that this is a great answer to the dilema.  Especially if there ever is reconciliation. 


Then how is it that the Vatican has three (formerly four) patriarchs in Antioch, two (fomerly three) in Alexandria (who, unlike the other hierarchs submitted to the Vatican, doesn't get to keep the title of his Orthodox counterpart, i.e. "Pope"), two in Jerusalem.  Why are the Ruthenians not connected to the Ukrainians?

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
Deacon Lance
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Jurisdiction: Archeparchy of Pittsburgh
Posts: 2,909


Liturgy at Mt. St. Macrina Pilgrimage


« Reply #75 on: October 13, 2008, 01:34:52 PM »

The same way the Orthodox (Eastern and Oriental) have their own patriarchs in all the ancient patriarchates.  The Ruthenians are not connected to the Ukrainians becasue we don't want to be.  We are not Ukrainians.

Fr. Deacon Lance
Logged

My cromulent posts embiggen this forum.
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: 37,659



« Reply #76 on: October 13, 2008, 01:56:00 PM »

The same way the Orthodox (Eastern and Oriental) have their own patriarchs in all the ancient patriarchates.  The Ruthenians are not connected to the Ukrainians becasue we don't want to be.  We are not Ukrainians.

Fr. Deacon Lance

The Palestinians aren't Latins either, but yet there they are in the Latin Patriarchate of Jerusalem.

And even if you aren't Ukrainians, so what?  We are repeatedly told by the apologists for the Vatican that the Church is not based on nationality.  That's why, we are told, the Orthodox Church is not the One Catholic Church, and not a church at all, and the Vatican is the Universal Church.

In the early Church, there wasn't a Hebrew patriarch of Antioch, a Greek Patriarch of Antioch and a Syriac Patriarch of Antioch.  There was the Orthodox Catholic Patriarch of Antioch.  And as the career of St. Meletios of Antioch shows, Rome didn't appoint him, nor confirm him.

The difference at the basis of the distinction between Brest and Uzhhorod is the Poles ran the former, and the Hungarians the latter.

Before Uzhhorod, is there any history of a separate metropolia besides that of Kiev?  And I don't mean the fact that St.  Methodios evangelized the area: your Latin friends drove him out, suppressed the Slavonic Liturgy and imposed the filioque.
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
Deacon Lance
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Jurisdiction: Archeparchy of Pittsburgh
Posts: 2,909


Liturgy at Mt. St. Macrina Pilgrimage


« Reply #77 on: October 13, 2008, 03:55:05 PM »

There are indeed Palestinians who are Latin just as there are Hebrews who are Latin as well.

As for your statement: "That's why, we are told, the Orthodox Church is not the One Catholic Church, and not a church at all, and the Vatican is the Universal Church."  The Catholic Church teaches that she is the One Church and that the Orthodox Churches are true particular Churches with valid sacraments.  So while you are not in communion with us, we recognize you to be part of the One Church.

The Eastern Catholic Churches are counterparts of the Orthodox Churches they left, thus Melkite and Syrian Patriarchs of Antioch, plus the Maronite Patriarch, who has no counter part among the Orthodox.  I see Eastern Catholic Patriarchs complained about all the time, yet never a word about the Armenian Patriarchs of Constantinople or Jerusalem.

Although having nothing to do with Mukachevo, a second Ukrainian Metropolia existed at Halych.  The Bishop of Mukachevo was confirmed by the Patriarch of Constantinople and ordained by the Metropolitans of Alba Iulia in Transylvania and was never subject to Kyiv or Halych/Lviv. 
 
As to the Union of Uzhorod, please learn the historical facts.  The Hungarian lords, who were Calvanist, were opposed to the union, they ran nothing.  The only Hungarian involved in the affair was the Latin Bishop of Eger, who rather quietly accepted the union of the Rusyn priests and did not even inform Rome.  The Rusyn priests were concerned with stopping the Calvinists from making further inroads and having the same rights as the Latin priests, i.e. tax exemption and the right to collect the tithe from the parish rather than have it go to the local Latin priest.

Fr. Deacon Lance



 
« Last Edit: October 13, 2008, 03:56:51 PM by Deacon Lance » Logged

My cromulent posts embiggen this forum.
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: 37,659



« Reply #78 on: October 13, 2008, 05:31:26 PM »

There are indeed Palestinians who are Latin just as there are Hebrews who are Latin as well.

The Patriarchate came with the Crusaders.  Neither Palestinian nor Hebrew are native to it, nor is it native to Jerusalem.

Quote
As for your statement: "That's why, we are told, the Orthodox Church is not the One Catholic Church, and not a church at all, and the Vatican is the Universal Church."  The Catholic Church teaches that she is the One Church and that the Orthodox Churches are true particular Churches with valid sacraments.  So while you are not in communion with us, we recognize you to be part of the One Church.

Sorry, Christ is not divided. We are not "part" of the Church: We are the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church, and not, as I have seen repeated ad nauseum, like a puzzle with the edges but the middle missing.

Quote
The Eastern Catholic Churches are counterparts of the Orthodox Churches they left, thus Melkite and Syrian Patriarchs of Antioch, plus the Maronite Patriarch, who has no counter part among the Orthodox.  I see Eastern Catholic Patriarchs complained about all the time, yet never a word about the Armenian Patriarchs of Constantinople or Jerusalem.

Yes, I know. And yes, I believe that means something.

Quote
Although having nothing to do with Mukachevo, a second Ukrainian Metropolia existed at Halych.  The Bishop of Mukachevo was confirmed by the Patriarch of Constantinople and ordained by the Metropolitans of Alba Iulia in Transylvania and was never subject to Kyiv or Halych/Lviv.


If it was Slavic and Orthodox (and ALL Eastern Rite Slavs were until Brest, the Croatians being an exception not in play here), I guarentee it was under Kiev.  Mukachevo was under Przemysl, which was a suffragan of Lviv.

From "The Catholic Encyclopedia" (for those who don't know, Lemberg is the German for Lviv):

Quote
After the conversion of the Ruthenians in this region to Christianity, the Bishopric of Halicz, suffragan to Kiev, was established for their benefit between 1152 and 1180. Halicz had been made a metropolitan see in 1345 by John Calecas, Patriarch of Constantinople, but in 1347 it was again placed under the jurisdiction of Kiev, at the request of the Grand Duke Simeon of Moscow. Its metropolitan rank was restored to Halicz only after the Polish occupation of the province about 1371; it had four suffragans: Kulm, Przemysl, Turof, and Vladimir. In 1414 King Ladislaus, for some unknown reason, transferred the Latin See of Halicz to Leopol, and suppressed the Ruthenian metropolitan See of Halicz. The see was subsequently administered by vicars of the Metropolitan of Kiev until 28 October, 1539, when it was restored as a simple bishopric. Macarius Tuczapsti, the titular, next year changed his residence to Lemberg and took the combined titles of Halicz and Lemberg, which his successors have borne, adding those of Kamenets and Podolia, when their jurisdiction extended so far. With the establishment of the Jesuits in this county began the reform of the extremely ignorant schismatic clergy, who gradually turned towards Rome. In 1597 the Bishop of Lemberg, the celebrated Gideon Balaban, brought his diocese back to Catholicism, but afterwards, through his ambition, he relapsed into schism, and with him nearly all his subjects. A council held at Lemberg in October, 1629, laboured in vain for the conversion of the diocese, and it was not until the end of the seventeenth century that Bishop Joseph Czumlanski embraced the cause of union, secretly at first in 1677, and then openly in 1700. After Joseph came Barlaam Czeptyski (1710-5) and Athanasius Czeptyski (1715-46), who, being promoted to the metropolitan See of Kiev, retained that of Lemberg with it. This example was followed by Leo Louis Czeptyski (1749-79), when he became metropolitan in 1762.

Under Peter Bielanski (1779-98) the Diocese of Lemberg, to which were united those of Halicz and Kamenets, fortunately became the possession of Austria, whose government took in hand the education of the clergy, who were poor and so ignorant as hardly to know their own rite.Maria Theresa had students sent to the seminary established at Vienna for the Hungarian Uniats. Joseph II turned the Dominican convent into a seminary for Ruthenians, adding to it the church and the garden, and soon the Ruthenian students had places reserved for them in the theological faculty of the city. On 22 February, 1807, Pius VII, by the Bull "In universalis ecclesiæ regimine", withdrew Lemberg from the metropolitan jurisdiction of Kiev and made it a metropolitan see, with Kulm and Przemysl as suffragans. The Diocese of Kulm was dependent on Lemberg until 1837, when it was made immediately subject to the Holy See until its suppression by Russia. In its place another suffragan diocese, that of Stanislaov, was given to Lemberg in 1856. The Emperor of Austria obtained from Rome the right to nominate the metropolitan and his suffragans, while the metropolitan was authorized to confirm their nomination and to consecrate them, as had formerly been granted to the Metropolitan of Kiev by Clement VIII. The Habsburg monarchy has seriously taken up the task of developing education among the clergy, and of putting them upon the same footing as the Latin clergy by giving them the same political rights, and lastly of teaching the Ruthenian language in schools -- a point as to which the Poles had previously cared little. Between the Poles and Ruthenians, indeed, there has always existed a certain hostility, which, during the nineteenth century, resulted in violent controversies, and eventually, in 1862, necessitated the intervention of the Holy See. In addition, the young Ruthenian clergy, with their exaggerated ideas of their rite and nationality, have accentuated their peculiarities and fostered the spirit of schism together with an excessive affection for Russia. Thus, they have shown an inclination to return to the primitive Græco-Slavic Rite, and to suppress the modifications which in former times had been -- wrongly perhaps -- introduced into the Liturgy, but which, in the minds of the people, have now become to a certain extent identified with Catholicism. Hence continual religious troubles have arisen, and indeed numerous defections. The reform of the Basilian monks inaugurated by Leo XIII has in part remedied these fatal tendencies, which, however, are still the chief danger threatening the Uniat Catholics of this archdiocese.


Quote
As to the Union of Uzhorod, please learn the historical facts.  The Hungarian lords, who were Calvanist, were opposed to the union, they ran nothing.

Just the kingdom.

Quote
The only Hungarian involved in the affair was the Latin Bishop of Eger, who rather quietly accepted the union of the Rusyn priests and did not even inform Rome.  The Rusyn priests were concerned with stopping the Calvinists from making further inroads and having the same rights as the Latin priests, i.e. tax exemption and the right to collect the tithe from the parish rather than have it go to the local Latin priest.


And herein lies the real motive for the "union."



 
[/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
Deacon Lance
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Jurisdiction: Archeparchy of Pittsburgh
Posts: 2,909


Liturgy at Mt. St. Macrina Pilgrimage


« Reply #79 on: October 13, 2008, 06:32:29 PM »

The Patriarchate came with the Crusaders.  Neither Palestinian nor Hebrew are native to it, nor is it native to Jerusalem.

True, but that does not change that fact that today there are both Palestinians and Hebrews that are Latin Catholics that need a diocese and bishop.  Whether that bishop should be titled Patriarch of Jeusalem is certainly debatable.  The Melkites certainly don't agree with it.

Sorry, Christ is not divided. We are not "part" of the Church: We are the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church, and not, as I have seen repeated ad nauseum, like a puzzle with the edges but the middle missing.

You stated incorrect information about how the Catholic Church views the Orthodox Church.  I realize you don't agree with the ecclesiology of the Catholic Church, but please don't state we don't consider the Orthodox Churches to be true Churches.

Yes, I know. And yes, I believe that means something.

You'll have to expand that comment.

If it was Slavic and Orthodox (and ALL Eastern Rite Slavs were until Brest, the Croatians being an exception not in play here), I guarentee it was under Kiev.  Mukachevo was under Przemysl, which was a suffragan of Lviv.
From "The Catholic Encyclopedia" (for those who don't know, Lemberg is the German for Lviv):...

Sorry, but you are wrong.  It is historically verifiable the Monks of the Monastery of St. Nicholas in Mukachevo elected one of their own to the see of Mukachevo.  This Monastery was Stauropegial and the elected sought confirmation from Constantinople and was ordained by the Metropolitans of Alba Iulia, not Halych or Kyiv.  The Catholic Encyclopedia is dated and has been superceded by further research.

Just the kingdom.
They may have been the Apostolic Kings but they had nothing to do with the Rusyns or their Church until after the union.  The local Hungarian Counts were Calvinists and were actively interfering with the Church and seeking to turn the Rusyns into Calvinists.  In any case, Austrian-Hungarian crown was not involved with the Union of Uzhorod, as the Polish crown was in the Union of Brest.

And herein lies the real motive for the "union."

Sure it was a real motive.  They were in a Catholic Kingdom seeking to survive and find protection from Calvinist overlords who were making them miserable and attempting to eradicate their faith.  In union with Rome they saw a way to protect their Eastern traditions from both the Calvinists and the Latins.  I see survival excuses offered for Orthodox collaboration with the Communists all the time here.

Fr. Deacon Lance
« Last Edit: October 13, 2008, 06:54:28 PM by Deacon Lance » Logged

My cromulent posts embiggen this forum.
Tags:
Pages: « 1 2  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 0.14 seconds with 64 queries.