OrthodoxChristianity.net
December 21, 2014, 08:00:31 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: My "Official" Status with the Roman Catholic Church?  (Read 7762 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Justin Kissel
Formerly Asteriktos
Protospatharios
****************
Offline Offline

Posts: 30,525


« Reply #45 on: March 25, 2011, 07:05:13 PM »

Why would you care how the Roman Catholic Church views you if you believe it is wrong and Eastern Orthodoxy is correct? That would be like me wondering what the LDS church thinks the state of my soul is....don't care.

It's important to know such things.
Logged

Large Marge sent me...
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,174



« Reply #46 on: March 25, 2011, 07:16:17 PM »

Why would you care how the Roman Catholic Church views you if you believe it is wrong and Eastern Orthodoxy is correct? That would be like me wondering what the LDS church thinks the state of my soul is....don't care.

I'm sure some ex-Catholics would agree with that sentiment, but I don't know why you'd expect all of them to (much less why you'd expect all Orthodox to).
Logged

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

Faith: Catholic
Posts: 2,395


« Reply #47 on: March 25, 2011, 08:17:48 PM »

Why would you care how the Roman Catholic Church views you if you believe it is wrong and Eastern Orthodoxy is correct? That would be like me wondering what the LDS church thinks the state of my soul is....don't care.

It's important to know such things.
Really? Why? Why would you care what a group that you believe to be heretical thinks about you?
Logged
Justin Kissel
Formerly Asteriktos
Protospatharios
****************
Offline Offline

Posts: 30,525


« Reply #48 on: March 25, 2011, 08:35:42 PM »

Why would you care how the Roman Catholic Church views you if you believe it is wrong and Eastern Orthodoxy is correct? That would be like me wondering what the LDS church thinks the state of my soul is....don't care.

It's important to know such things.
Really? Why? Why would you care what a group that you believe to be heretical thinks about you?

Oh I think we're all heretical... so... um... anyway, nevermind my last post Smiley
Logged

Large Marge sent me...
mike
Warned
Stratopedarches
**************
Offline Offline

Posts: 21,545


« Reply #49 on: March 26, 2011, 08:10:31 AM »

My understanding (which may be incorrect) is, from a Roman POV, that if someone was never Catholic and was Orthodox, they were considered schismatic because they never left communion with the Pope, but if they were Catholic and converted to Orthodoxy, then they were considered apostate because they willfully seperated themselves from communion with the Pope. Please correct me if my understanding is incorrect.

AFAIK according to the  Vatican teachings all EO baptised as infants used to be Orthodox because we were "validly baptised". We "abandoned" the Vatican intentionally renouncing it's teachings.

I have one question for both of you: can you provide a reference?

If not, then I'm inclined to think that these are just hearsay.

Do you speak Polish?
http://www.piusx.org.pl/zawsze_wierni/artykul/262
Logged
Deacon Lance
Warned
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Jurisdiction: Archeparchy of Pittsburgh
Posts: 3,055


Liturgy at Mt. St. Macrina Pilgrimage


« Reply #50 on: March 26, 2011, 08:33:46 AM »

My understanding (which may be incorrect) is, from a Roman POV, that if someone was never Catholic and was Orthodox, they were considered schismatic because they never left communion with the Pope, but if they were Catholic and converted to Orthodoxy, then they were considered apostate because they willfully seperated themselves from communion with the Pope. Please correct me if my understanding is incorrect.

AFAIK according to the  Vatican teachings all EO baptised as infants used to be Orthodox because we were "validly baptised". We "abandoned" the Vatican intentionally renouncing it's teachings.

I have one question for both of you: can you provide a reference?

If not, then I'm inclined to think that these are just hearsay.

Do you speak Polish?
http://www.piusx.org.pl/zawsze_wierni/artykul/262

You provided a website of the SSPX which has no standing in the Catholic Church.
Logged

My cromulent posts embiggen this forum.
mike
Warned
Stratopedarches
**************
Offline Offline

Posts: 21,545


« Reply #51 on: March 26, 2011, 08:37:11 AM »

You provided a website of the SSPX which has no standing in the Catholic Church.

And that's your opinion. Other Catholic Priests say otherwise. That proves that the valid-illicit thing is a nonsense.
Logged
Deacon Lance
Warned
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Jurisdiction: Archeparchy of Pittsburgh
Posts: 3,055


Liturgy at Mt. St. Macrina Pilgrimage


« Reply #52 on: March 26, 2011, 09:07:00 AM »

No, that is the official ruling of the Catholic Church.  The excommuniations of their bishops have been lifted the status of SSPX remains unresolved.

CONGREGATION FOR BISHOPS
DECREE REMITTING THE EXCOMMUNICATION "LATAE SENTENTIAE" OF THE BISHOPS OF THE SOCIETY OF ST PIUS X

In a letter of 15 December 2008 addressed to Cardinal Dario Castrillon Hoyos, President of the Pontifical Commission "Ecclesia Dei", Mons. Bernard Fellay writing also in the name of the other three Bishops consecrated on 30 June 1988 requested once again the removal of the excommunication latae sententiae formally declared by a Decree of the Prefect of this Congregation for Bishops on 1 July 1988. In his letter, Mons. Fellay stated, among other things, that "we continue firmly resolute in our desire to remain Catholics and to put all our strength at the service of the Church of our Lord Jesus Christ, which is the Roman Catholic Church. We accept her teachings in a filial spirit. We firmly believe in the primacy of Peter and in his prerogatives, and for this reason the current situation causes us much suffering".

His Holiness Benedict XVI in his paternal concern for the spiritual distress which the parties concerned have voiced as a result of the excommunication, and trusting in their commitment, expressed in the aforementioned letter, to spare no effort in exploring as yet unresolved questions through requisite discussions with the authorities of the Holy See in order to reach a prompt, full and satisfactory solution to the original problem has decided to reconsider the canonical situation of Bishops Bernard Fellay, Bernard Tissier de Mallerais, Richard Williamson and Alfonso de Galarreta, resulting from their episcopal consecration.

This act signifies a desire to strengthen reciprocal relations of trust, and to deepen and stabilize the relationship of the Society of St Pius X with this Apostolic See. This gift of peace, coming at the end of the Christmas celebrations, is also meant to be a sign which promotes the Universal Church's unity in charity, and removes the scandal of division.

It is hoped that this step will be followed by the prompt attainment of full communion with the Church on the part of the whole Society of St Pius X, which will thus bear witness to its genuine fidelity and genuine recognition of the Magisterium and authority of the Pope by the proof of visible unity.


On the basis of the powers expressly granted to me by the Holy Father Benedict XVI, by virtue of the present Decree I remit the penalty of excommunication latae sententiae incurred by Bishops Bernard Fellay, Bernard Tissier de Mallerais, Richard Williamson and Alfonso de Galarreta, and declared by this Congregation on 1 July 1988. At the same time I declare that, as of today's date, the Decree issued at that time no longer has juridical effect.

Rome, from the Congregation for Bishops, 21 January 2009

Cardinal Giovanni Battista Re
Prefect



Link provided: http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cbishops/documents/rc_con_cbishops_doc_20090121_remissione-scomunica_en.html

Thank you.

- PeterTheAleut

« Last Edit: March 31, 2011, 12:44:27 AM by PeterTheAleut » Logged

My cromulent posts embiggen this forum.
mike
Warned
Stratopedarches
**************
Offline Offline

Posts: 21,545


« Reply #53 on: March 26, 2011, 09:13:08 AM »

"full communion", not  just "communion". It means that "partial communion" exists alreaddy.
Logged
Deacon Lance
Warned
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Jurisdiction: Archeparchy of Pittsburgh
Posts: 3,055


Liturgy at Mt. St. Macrina Pilgrimage


« Reply #54 on: March 26, 2011, 09:31:20 AM »

It also means the SSPX does not speak for the Catholic Church as they are not in full communion with it.
Logged

My cromulent posts embiggen this forum.
Wyatt
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Posts: 2,395


« Reply #55 on: March 26, 2011, 11:45:39 AM »

You provided a website of the SSPX which has no standing in the Catholic Church.

And that's your opinion. Other Catholic Priests say otherwise. That proves that the valid-illicit thing is a nonsense.
Their Sacraments and Orders are valid, but they have no teaching capacity within the Catholic Church.
Logged
mike
Warned
Stratopedarches
**************
Offline Offline

Posts: 21,545


« Reply #56 on: March 26, 2011, 12:57:11 PM »

So SSPX sacraments are Catholic despite SSPX is not Catholic.
« Last Edit: March 26, 2011, 12:57:26 PM by Michał Kalina » Logged
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,174



« Reply #57 on: March 26, 2011, 01:40:09 PM »

My understanding (which may be incorrect) is, from a Roman POV, that if someone was never Catholic and was Orthodox, they were considered schismatic because they never left communion with the Pope, but if they were Catholic and converted to Orthodoxy, then they were considered apostate because they willfully seperated themselves from communion with the Pope. Please correct me if my understanding is incorrect.

AFAIK according to the  Vatican teachings all EO baptised as infants used to be Orthodox because we were "validly baptised". We "abandoned" the Vatican intentionally renouncing it's teachings.

I have one question for both of you: can you provide a reference?

If not, then I'm inclined to think that these are just hearsay.

Do you speak Polish?
http://www.piusx.org.pl/zawsze_wierni/artykul/262

Does being able to sing Sto Lat count?  Smiley

But seriously, I didn't mean a reference to something somebody in the SSPX has said.
Logged

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

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,174



« Reply #58 on: March 26, 2011, 01:41:52 PM »

It also means the SSPX does not speak for the Catholic Church as they are not in full communion with it.

And even if they were in full communion with the RCC, that wouldn't give them the right to speak for her.
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #59 on: March 26, 2011, 03:06:06 PM »

So SSPX sacraments are Catholic despite SSPX is not Catholic.

I think we might say that the Catholic Church recognizes grace in the sacraments of the SSPX.  She also recognizes grace in the sacraments of Orthodoxy...That does not mean that the Catholic Church would authorize either an Orthodox Church or the SSPX to teach Catholic doctrine.
Logged

jordanz
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Roman Catholic
Posts: 203


« Reply #60 on: March 26, 2011, 03:09:12 PM »

So SSPX sacraments are Catholic despite SSPX is not Catholic.

Sort of.

The episcopal consecrations and priestly ordinations are valid, but without the political sanction of Rome.
The Mass is "valid but illicit" (It's a "real Mass" with sacramental grace, but does does not fulfill "Sunday obligation")
The status of their confessions and marriages are questionable.  The sacraments offer grace, but the SSPX does not have the political jurisdiction to offer these sacraments.  This might be a problem if a couple marries at an SSPX Nuptial Mass but later seeks an annulment from a Roman Catholic diocese.
Logged
mike
Warned
Stratopedarches
**************
Offline Offline

Posts: 21,545


« Reply #61 on: March 26, 2011, 03:34:18 PM »

So it proofs that all groups that have 'valid sacraments' make people Catholic until their reject it according to the Catholic Church.
Logged
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #62 on: March 26, 2011, 03:49:13 PM »

So it proofs that all groups that have 'valid sacraments' make people Catholic until their reject it according to the Catholic Church.

It proofs no such thing.  What it proofs is that the Catholic Church recognizes the catholicity of both the SSPX and canonical Orthodox Churches.  That is quite a different statement to the one you've made.
Logged

jordanz
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Roman Catholic
Posts: 203


« Reply #63 on: March 26, 2011, 03:59:44 PM »

So it proofs that all groups that have 'valid sacraments' make people Catholic until their reject it according to the Catholic Church.

Rome believes that the canonical Orthodox synods and their priests are the Church of Christ, with full apostolic jurisdiction.  Rome views apostolicity and political jurisdiction as two separate phenomena.  Rome does not (after Vatican II, at least) consider herself to have political jurisdiction over the Orthodox Churches.  In the modern RC conception, a Christian can be an apostolic member of Christ's Church and not be under the Pontiff's control.  An Orthodox person does not need to accept papal political control to call themselves an apostolic Christian.  However, Rome does have political control of all her lay faithful and clergy.    

If I were in deepest Russia and there were no Roman Catholic church for me to go to, Rome would consider my participation in the Orthodox liturgies as participation in the corporate worship of the Church.  Rome would not mind me receiving Holy Communion at a Russian Divine Liturgy or going to confession with a Russian priest.  Moscow forbids this, but Rome approves of this under limited circumstances.  

    
Logged
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #64 on: March 26, 2011, 04:14:24 PM »

So it proofs that all groups that have 'valid sacraments' make people Catholic until their reject it according to the Catholic Church.

Rome believes that the canonical Orthodox synods and their priests are the Church of Christ, with full apostolic jurisdiction.  Rome views apostolicity and political jurisdiction as two separate phenomena.  Rome does not (after Vatican II, at least) consider herself to have political jurisdiction over the Orthodox Churches.  In the modern RC conception, a Christian can be an apostolic member of Christ's Church and not be under the Pontiff's control.  An Orthodox person does not need to accept papal political control to call themselves an apostolic Christian.  However, Rome does have political control of all her lay faithful and clergy.    

If I were in deepest Russia and there were no Roman Catholic church for me to go to, Rome would consider my participation in the Orthodox liturgies as participation in the corporate worship of the Church.  Rome would not mind me receiving Holy Communion at a Russian Divine Liturgy or going to confession with a Russian priest.  Moscow forbids this, but Rome approves of this under limited circumstances.  

    

Can you direct me to formal documents of the Church which refer to her "political" jurisdiction?
Logged

Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,174



« Reply #65 on: March 26, 2011, 05:46:08 PM »

So it proofs that all groups that have 'valid sacraments' make people Catholic until their reject it according to the Catholic Church.

Rome believes that the canonical Orthodox synods and their priests are the Church of Christ, with full apostolic jurisdiction.  Rome views apostolicity and political jurisdiction as two separate phenomena.  Rome does not (after Vatican II, at least) consider herself to have political jurisdiction over the Orthodox Churches.  In the modern RC conception, a Christian can be an apostolic member of Christ's Church and not be under the Pontiff's control.  An Orthodox person does not need to accept papal political control to call themselves an apostolic Christian.  However, Rome does have political control of all her lay faithful and clergy.    

If I were in deepest Russia and there were no Roman Catholic church for me to go to, Rome would consider my participation in the Orthodox liturgies as participation in the corporate worship of the Church.  Rome would not mind me receiving Holy Communion at a Russian Divine Liturgy or going to confession with a Russian priest.  Moscow forbids this, but Rome approves of this under limited circumstances.  

    

Can you direct me to formal documents of the Church which refer to her "political" jurisdiction?

jordanz, I'm not sure what you mean by "political jurisdiction" and "political control". I don't I've even heard of those terms before. What I do know that the Pope's jurisdiction is universal -- see Unam Sanctum or Pastor aeternus.
Logged

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

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,174



« Reply #66 on: March 26, 2011, 05:48:25 PM »

So it proofs that all groups that have 'valid sacraments' make people Catholic until their reject it according to the Catholic Church.

The wilder your statements become, the more inclined I am to just ignore them.
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
mike
Warned
Stratopedarches
**************
Offline Offline

Posts: 21,545


« Reply #67 on: March 26, 2011, 05:55:29 PM »

Members of your Church organisation said here that your Church organisation considers baptisms outside it valid what means that that those baptism outside your Church organisation make people members of your Church organisation.
Logged
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #68 on: March 26, 2011, 05:58:33 PM »

Members of your Church organisation said here that your Church organisation considers baptisms outside it valid what means that that those baptism outside your Church organisation make people members of your Church organisation.

The Catholic Church is the Body of Christ.  It is not a Church organization.  Are you baiting the Catholics here?  What is the purpose of doing that during the Lenten fast?  Is that good for your soul? 
Logged

Shiny
Site Supporter
Moderated
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Groucho Marxist
Jurisdiction: Dahntahn Stoop Haus
Posts: 13,267


Paint It Red


« Reply #69 on: March 26, 2011, 06:02:40 PM »

Members of your Church organisation said here that your Church organisation considers baptisms outside it valid what means that that those baptism outside your Church organisation make people members of your Church organisation.

The Catholic Church is the Body of Christ.  It is not a Church organization.  Are you baiting the Catholics here?  What is the purpose of doing that during the Lenten fast?  Is that good for your soul? 

And your purpose on an Orthodox message board?
Logged

“There is your brother, naked, crying, and you stand there confused over the choice of an attractive floor covering.”

– St. Ambrose of Milan
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #70 on: March 26, 2011, 06:10:41 PM »

Members of your Church organisation said here that your Church organisation considers baptisms outside it valid what means that that those baptism outside your Church organisation make people members of your Church organisation.

The Catholic Church is the Body of Christ.  It is not a Church organization.  Are you baiting the Catholics here?  What is the purpose of doing that during the Lenten fast?  Is that good for your soul? 

And your purpose on an Orthodox message board?

To interact with Orthodox believers, in a way that is spiritually healthy.  To correct the many errors that are prevalent among Orthodox believers concerning the teachings of the Catholic Church, as the opportunity arises.  To make contact with those Orthodox believers who are interested and open to a resumption of communion.  To share the liturgical cycle with those who pray as I do liturgically.
Logged

jordanz
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Roman Catholic
Posts: 203


« Reply #71 on: March 26, 2011, 06:15:13 PM »

Can you direct me to formal documents of the Church which refer to her "political" jurisdiction?

jordanz, I'm not sure what you mean by "political jurisdiction" and "political control". I don't I've even heard of those terms before. What I do know that the Pope's jurisdiction is universal -- see Unam Sanctum or Pastor aeternus.

The both of you are right.  I am making up terms.  I should've taken Steven Morrissey's advice: "Don't plagiarize or take on loan / there will always be someone somewhere / with a big nose who knows / who'll trip you up and laugh when you fall." (The Smiths, Cemetry Gates)

What I am trying to get at is this: Rome no longer cares to exercise political power over the Orthodox.  Yes, she claims jurisdiction according to Unam Sanctam or Pastor Aeternus, but her tact post-Vatican II is more ecumenical and less politically assertive or aggressive.

See, for example,

The CDF's NOTE ON THE EXPRESSION «SISTER CHURCHES» (2000)

which references Ut Unum Sint 56 and 60.

The Vatican is certainly no longer asserting that she has full temporal control over the Orthodox.  Rather, the "two lung" or complementary strategy is now in vogue.
Logged
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #72 on: March 26, 2011, 06:24:18 PM »

Can you direct me to formal documents of the Church which refer to her "political" jurisdiction?

jordanz, I'm not sure what you mean by "political jurisdiction" and "political control". I don't I've even heard of those terms before. What I do know that the Pope's jurisdiction is universal -- see Unam Sanctum or Pastor aeternus.

The both of you are right.  I am making up terms.  I should've taken Steven Morrissey's advice: "Don't plagiarize or take on loan / there will always be someone somewhere / with a big nose who knows / who'll trip you up and laugh when you fall." (The Smiths, Cemetry Gates)

What I am trying to get at is this: Rome no longer cares to exercise political power over the Orthodox.  Yes, she claims jurisdiction according to Unam Sanctam or Pastor Aeternus, but her tact post-Vatican II is more ecumenical and less politically assertive or aggressive.

See, for example,

The CDF's NOTE ON THE EXPRESSION «SISTER CHURCHES» (2000)

which references Ut Unum Sint 56 and 60.

The Vatican is certainly no longer asserting that she has full temporal control over the Orthodox.  Rather, the "two lung" or complementary strategy is now in vogue.


Where did you learn your ecclesiology?  I am not being funny or mean.  I am just a bit startled to hear a Catholic speak as you are.  I would expect it from Orthodox correspondents but...

In any event the authority exercised by the Catholic Church is not political.  The Church may engage the political realm but her authority is always spiritual. 

You really do damage by speaking the way that you do, at least there is great potential for it.  I am sorry but I see no reason to admonish Orthodox believers in their "assessments" of the Catholic Church, so I might as well tell you as I see it as well.
Logged

Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,174



« Reply #73 on: March 26, 2011, 06:33:29 PM »

Can you direct me to formal documents of the Church which refer to her "political" jurisdiction?

jordanz, I'm not sure what you mean by "political jurisdiction" and "political control". I don't I've even heard of those terms before. What I do know that the Pope's jurisdiction is universal -- see Unam Sanctum or Pastor aeternus.

The both of you are right.  I am making up terms.  I should've taken Steven Morrissey's advice: "Don't plagiarize or take on loan / there will always be someone somewhere / with a big nose who knows / who'll trip you up and laugh when you fall." (The Smiths, Cemetry Gates)

What I am trying to get at is this: Rome no longer cares to exercise political power over the Orthodox.  Yes, she claims jurisdiction according to Unam Sanctam or Pastor Aeternus, but her tact post-Vatican II is more ecumenical and less politically assertive or aggressive.

See, for example,

The CDF's NOTE ON THE EXPRESSION «SISTER CHURCHES» (2000)

which references Ut Unum Sint 56 and 60.

The Vatican is certainly no longer asserting that she has full temporal control over the Orthodox.  Rather, the "two lung" or complementary strategy is now in vogue.


Alright, I think I get what you mean now.
Logged

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

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,174



« Reply #74 on: March 26, 2011, 06:38:19 PM »

Members of your Church organisation said here that your Church organisation considers baptisms outside it valid what means that that those baptism outside your Church organisation make people members of your Church organisation.

Yes, we do recognize validly-baptized non-Catholics as Christians. However, they are not in full communion with the Catholic Church, so it doesn't make any sense to say that they are 'Catholic from the time they are baptized until they reject the Catholic Church' if they were baptized in a non-Catholic church or denomination.
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
mike
Warned
Stratopedarches
**************
Offline Offline

Posts: 21,545


« Reply #75 on: March 26, 2011, 06:41:55 PM »

So there are different kinds of valid baptisms? One valid baptism makes a Roman Catholic and the second one makes you a Lutheran? Which Baptism are validder and less valid?

According to the Orthodox Church valid  baptism makes a valid Christian and the Church member. You say that according to the Catholic Church valid baptism does not make a Church member. So what does?
« Last Edit: March 26, 2011, 06:44:37 PM by Michał Kalina » Logged
jordanz
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Roman Catholic
Posts: 203


« Reply #76 on: March 26, 2011, 06:48:42 PM »

Where did you learn your ecclesiology?  I am not being funny or mean.  I am just a bit startled to hear a Catholic speak as you are.  I would expect it from Orthodox correspondents but...

In any event the authority exercised by the Catholic Church is not political.  The Church may engage the political realm but her authority is always spiritual.

Yes, the Church of Jesus Christ, of which the Pontifex is vicar and the See of Peter the visible heir, is foremost a spiritual entity.  Still, the Holy See, which subsists in Christ's Church, has exercised great temporal powers for most of its existence.  Popes have held significant land-holdings, waged wars, excommunicated for political reasons and not for the care of souls (Elizabeth I of England, for example); and held the appointments and trappings of a regal court.  The papacy did not truly lose the Papal States and its major landholdings until the Risorgimento.  It was not until 1965 and Pope Paul VI's symbolic "abdication" of the tiara, that the age of popes as Italian princes formally ended.  Not surprisingly, Pope Paul's reconciliation with Ecumenical Patriarch Anaxagoras in 1967 came shortly after his renunciation of temporal power.

I do not think that ecumenical relations with the Orthodox could take place without Pope Paul's symbolic renunciation of papal temporal holdings.  The modern papacy's desire to style itself solely as a spiritual see has made discussions with the East all the more possible.  The renunciation of the tiara has moved Rome one step closer towards the sole role as a spiritual patriarchy.   
 
You really do damage by speaking the way that you do, at least there is great potential for it.  I am sorry but I see no reason to admonish Orthodox believers in their "assessments" of the Catholic Church, so I might as well tell you as I see it as well.

I might be wrong in my views.  Nevertheless, history has shown the destructive potentials when popes have placed their princely interests before the good of Christians.
« Last Edit: March 26, 2011, 06:49:40 PM by jordanz » Logged
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #77 on: March 26, 2011, 07:00:30 PM »

Where did you learn your ecclesiology?  I am not being funny or mean.  I am just a bit startled to hear a Catholic speak as you are.  I would expect it from Orthodox correspondents but...

In any event the authority exercised by the Catholic Church is not political.  The Church may engage the political realm but her authority is always spiritual.

Yes, the Church of Jesus Christ, of which the Pontifex is vicar and the See of Peter the visible heir, is foremost a spiritual entity.  Still, the Holy See, which subsists in Christ's Church, has exercised great temporal powers for most of its existence.  Popes have held significant land-holdings, waged wars, excommunicated for political reasons and not for the care of souls (Elizabeth I of England, for example); and held the appointments and trappings of a regal court.  The papacy did not truly lose the Papal States and its major landholdings until the Risorgimento.  It was not until 1965 and Pope Paul VI's symbolic "abdication" of the tiara, that the age of popes as Italian princes formally ended.  Not surprisingly, Pope Paul's reconciliation with Ecumenical Patriarch Anaxagoras in 1967 came shortly after his renunciation of temporal power.

I do not think that ecumenical relations with the Orthodox could take place without Pope Paul's symbolic renunciation of papal temporal holdings.  The modern papacy's desire to style itself solely as a spiritual see has made discussions with the East all the more possible.  The renunciation of the tiara has moved Rome one step closer towards the sole role as a spiritual patriarchy.   
 
You really do damage by speaking the way that you do, at least there is great potential for it.  I am sorry but I see no reason to admonish Orthodox believers in their "assessments" of the Catholic Church, so I might as well tell you as I see it as well.

I might be wrong in my views.  Nevertheless, history has shown the destructive potentials when popes have placed their princely interests before the good of Christians.

The popes who did indeed put their "princely" interests ahead of Christians generally show up on the list of bad popes.  I am not sure you and I would agree on who was a bad pope and who was not.  The papal tiara has been reestablished in the papacy of Benedict XVI....
Logged

jordanz
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Roman Catholic
Posts: 203


« Reply #78 on: March 26, 2011, 07:08:34 PM »

The popes who did indeed put their "princely" interests ahead of Christians generally show up on the list of bad popes.  I am not sure you and I would agree on who was a bad pope and who was not.  The papal tiara has been reestablished in the papacy of Benedict XVI....

No, Pope Benedict XVI has never worn a tiara.  In fact, he had the tiara removed from his personal coat of arms and replaced with a mitre.  The tiara has been retained on the seal of the Holy See, however.

Remember, popes never wore the tiara when celebrating liturgies.  It was always a crown used when Popes presided as princely rulers or presided in liturgical choir.  Pope-celebrants always wore either the simple or precious mitre.  

I'm glad that popes no longer proclaim themselves to be princes.  The postmodern papacy is much better off as a purely spiritual see.  This is much more in keeping with the Orthodox model post-Byzantine Empire and post Tsarist Russia.  The days of Eastern caesaropapism are long over.  I'm glad the same can be said for popes as petty princes.  
« Last Edit: March 26, 2011, 07:13:35 PM by jordanz » Logged
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #79 on: March 26, 2011, 07:14:10 PM »

The popes who did indeed put their "princely" interests ahead of Christians generally show up on the list of bad popes.  I am not sure you and I would agree on who was a bad pope and who was not.  The papal tiara has been reestablished in the papacy of Benedict XVI....

No, Pope Benedict XVI has never worn a tiara.  In fact, he had the tiara removed from his personal coat of arms and replaced with a mitre.  The tiara has been retained on the seal of the Holy See, however.

Remember, popes never wore the mitre when celebrating liturgies.  It was always a crown used when Popes presided as princely rulers or presided in liturgical choir.  Pope-celebrants always wore either the simple or precious mitre.  

I'm glad that popes no longer proclaim themselves to be princes.  The postmodern papacy is much better off as a purely spiritual see.  This is much more in keeping with the Orthodox model post-Byzantine Empire and post Tsarist Russia.  The days of Eastern caesaropapism are long over.  I'm glad the same can be said for popes as petty princes.  

The tiara has been renewed as a symbol of the papacy and if you think that Orthodoxy is free from all political influence then we really are on two very different paths in terms of understanding the role of any Catholic Church in the world.
Logged

jordanz
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Roman Catholic
Posts: 203


« Reply #80 on: March 26, 2011, 07:27:01 PM »

The tiara has been renewed as a symbol of the papacy and if you think that Orthodoxy is free from all political influence then we really are on two very different paths in terms of understanding the role of any Catholic Church in the world.

You are right that Orthodoxy is still not free of political influences.  The Moscow patriarchate is not exempt from exercising some political coercion as in the case of denying the Ukrainians autocephaly.  The Soviets did exert a certain type of caesaropapism over the Moscow Patriarchate.   Did the Soviets exercise caesaropapism in the same way as the Byzantine emperors, Tsars, or Ottoman sultans directly influenced the selection and actions of historical Orthodox prelates?  Does today's Russian president exercise some degree of caesaropapism over the Moscow patriarch? I'm not exactly sure if this could be said.

However, I am certain that Pope Benedict has never worn the tiara.  Here's a picture of Pope Benedict's coat of arms (courtesy vatican.va):


 
Notice that a stylized mitre has replaced the tiara.

I'd like to see a photo of Pope Benedict presiding in a tiara.  This is not meant in an adversarial way, but rather out of curiosity.   
Logged
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #81 on: March 26, 2011, 07:33:07 PM »

The tiara has been renewed as a symbol of the papacy and if you think that Orthodoxy is free from all political influence then we really are on two very different paths in terms of understanding the role of any Catholic Church in the world.

You are right that Orthodoxy is still not free of political influences.  The Moscow patriarchate is not exempt from exercising some political coercion as in the case of denying the Ukrainians autocephaly.  The Soviets did exert a certain type of caesaropapism over the Moscow Patriarchate.   Did the Soviets exercise caesaropapism in the same way as the Byzantine emperors, Tsars, or Ottoman sultans directly influenced the selection and actions of historical Orthodox prelates?  Does today's Russian president exercise some degree of caesaropapism over the Moscow patriarch? I'm not exactly sure if this could be said.

However, I am certain that Pope Benedict has never worn the tiara.  Here's a picture of Pope Benedict's coat of arms (courtesy vatican.va):


 
Notice that a stylized mitre has replaced the tiara.

I'd like to see a photo of Pope Benedict presiding in a tiara.  This is not meant in an adversarial way, but rather out of curiosity.   

I have not said that he has worn the Tiara.  What I am suggesting...strongly...is that the spiritual authority in the Catholic Church...east or west doesn't matter...is the authority of Christ over all of Creation, and we are best served never to loose sight of that truth.
Logged

jordanz
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Roman Catholic
Posts: 203


« Reply #82 on: March 26, 2011, 07:42:46 PM »

I have not said that he has worn the Tiara.  What I am suggesting...strongly...is that the spiritual authority in the Catholic Church...east or west doesn't matter...is the authority of Christ over all of Creation, and we are best served never to loose sight of that truth.

This is a nice description of Pope Benedict's coat of arms to go with my previous post.

No Catholic can doubt that the Church has lost spiritual authority.  The circumstances of the Church's worldly authority can and should change, however.  It is clear that the Vatican no longer wishes to hold government, in other words.  She is perfectly content to be the earthly presence of Christ's kingdom, and not a kingdom with a standing army.

The postmodern Catholic Church should stay the course of a reformed, spiritual Papacy even if other patriarchates meddle in the ecclesiastical affairs of other canonical eparchies, etc.  Maybe Rome can be an example to those Orthodox patriarchates that are embroiled in political disputes left over from previous autocratic regimes (i.e. the Soviet Union).  Both East and West have struggled with the apostolic Church's proper role in secular governments.  Finally there is the opportunity in this day to move beyond caesaropapism in the East and the imperial papacy in the West.
Logged
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,174



« Reply #83 on: March 26, 2011, 07:48:41 PM »

So there are different kinds of valid baptisms? One valid baptism makes a Roman Catholic and the second one makes you a Lutheran? Which Baptism are validder and less valid?

According to the Orthodox Church valid  baptism makes a valid Christian and the Church member. You say that according to the Catholic Church valid baptism does not make a Church member. So what does?

Since my last explanation doesn't seem to have helped, I guess I should try again. But first let me see if I can understand what you're saying.

Suppose an EO couple brings their baby to their local EO priest to be baptized (and chrismated of course), does it follow that the baby is now in full communion with the Oriental Orthodox? (If not, my next question is: does that mean that the baptism is invalid?)
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
mike
Warned
Stratopedarches
**************
Offline Offline

Posts: 21,545


« Reply #84 on: March 27, 2011, 06:56:16 AM »

Why Oriental Orthodox?
Logged
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,174



« Reply #85 on: March 27, 2011, 12:27:26 PM »

Suppose an EO couple brings their baby to their local EO priest to be baptized (and chrismated of course), does it follow that the baby is now in full communion with the Oriental Orthodox? (If not, my next question is: does that mean that the baptism is invalid?)

Why Oriental Orthodox?

I don't know what you mean by "Why Oriental Orthodox?" Do you mean that I, a Roman Catholic, am not permitted to ask whether the baby is in full communion with the Oriental Orthodox? Or is it more that you just don't want to answer?
Logged

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

Faith: Catholic
Posts: 2,395


« Reply #86 on: March 27, 2011, 01:21:36 PM »

So SSPX sacraments are Catholic despite SSPX is not Catholic.
The Catholic Church does not take such a black and white, saint or apostate stance like the Eastern Orthodox Church. We recognize the good in a group despite their flaws. The SSPX are is schismatic group, just as you are in our view, but that does not mean they or you lack Sacraments.
Logged
mike
Warned
Stratopedarches
**************
Offline Offline

Posts: 21,545


« Reply #87 on: March 27, 2011, 03:26:41 PM »

Suppose an EO couple brings their baby to their local EO priest to be baptized (and chrismated of course), does it follow that the baby is now in full communion with the Oriental Orthodox? (If not, my next question is: does that mean that the baptism is invalid?)

Why Oriental Orthodox?

I don't know what you mean by "Why Oriental Orthodox?" Do you mean that I, a Roman Catholic, am not permitted to ask whether the baby is in full communion with the Oriental Orthodox? Or is it more that you just don't want to answer?

But why do you ask me about it? I know nothing about the Oriental Orthodox teachings.

The Catholic Church does not take such a black and white, saint or apostate stance like the Eastern Orthodox Church. We recognize the good in a group despite their flaws. The SSPX are is schismatic group, just as you are in our view, but that does not mean they or you lack Sacraments.

What sacraments? Are they different from yours?
Logged
Wyatt
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Posts: 2,395


« Reply #88 on: March 27, 2011, 03:32:50 PM »

What sacraments? Are they different from yours?
No
Logged
mike
Warned
Stratopedarches
**************
Offline Offline

Posts: 21,545


« Reply #89 on: March 27, 2011, 03:35:01 PM »

So if they are the same they are Catholic sacraments. It would be illogical otherwise.
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 0.146 seconds with 72 queries.