In the US besides the National Conference, each state also has a conference but again these have no authority.
Like each of the 50 states? Does that include Alaska and Hawaii?
Also, are there bigger conferences? Like as we heard there is one for Canada, so is there one for the US? What about Mexico?
Maybe a basic RC ecclesiology would be helpful for me here too...if anyone wants to help out.
The Local Church has no RC ecclesiastical meaning, despite that fact that the conferences are set up by canon. That is why we Orthodox welcomed Cardinal Ratzinger's comment that the West be broken down into local churches, and bemoaned Pope Benedict's dropping of the title "Patriarch of the West":
You might want to read the Lumen Gentium from Vatican II....you might be surprised as to their ecclesiology.
I have read Lumen Gentium, several times.http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,20203.msg302575.html#msg302575http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,11171.msg299926.html#msg299926
What do you have in mind?
his title "Primate of Italy, Archbishop and Metropolitan of the Roman province" of course is fine (to be fair, I think that Antioch is the only Patriarchate in the East which willingly granted autocephaly to anyone, i.e. Georgia).
Yah good luck with that. Have you checked your autocephaly thread recently...
Not recently, not until you brought it up. I don't understand your point/question. Anything specific?
It is also why there are no Western "sui juris" churches, just rites (e.g. Ambrosian instead of Milan, Mozarabic instead of Toledo), and the problem that the TAC is presenting the Vatican, along with the Anglican use. Only the East (and do to their original in schims from the Orthodox) do "sui juris" exist (and not for their entire history).
Firstly you might want to explain "sui juris" as you see it because i'm not connecting with the way I have understood it.
sui juris is like autocephalous Churches. Rites is like WRO.
Also...TAC? sorry i'm not up with the lingo..
this has been answered, but "Traditional Anglican Communion"
Yah I think we need to agree on the terms first.
Any other terms?
Now, to why I brought up this thread: I saw a point a follower of the Vatican brought up on another forum
which I thought was interesting, but didn't want to create a redundant thread on.
He pointed out, on the question of the power of the Pope of Rome to "bind and lose," that traditionalist groups obviously don't take that unqualified, pointing out that they did not accept Vatican II, which the Pope of Rome signed off on an they therefore are supposed to consider infallible as to faith and binding as to practice. The local bishops were forced to go NO, but the SSPX and other traditionalist types resisted, and the TLM went from being the only DL, to being nearly banned allowed only with special, restricted permission (I went to one in those days, I remember the issue about the permission), to letting bishops allow it if requested, to encouraging bishops to allow it, to allowing any priest to celebrate it, to requiring bishops to provide it for any that required it. (btw, someone also made a good remark, when someone was saying the fact that Orthodox will drive hours to another Church, passing other Orthodox Churches, due to the calendar: many traditionalists will travel miles for their TLM). This led to an intersting discussion among followers of the Vatican.
Now, the Traditonalists have the most reason to be, and are, Ultramontanists (leaving aside the amusing position sedevantists put themselves in). Yet they decided "pope doesn't know best," stood their ground, and have now gotten their way. It raises interesting questions on the monopoly the pope of Rome has on the keys, questions not without relevance to the subject discussed at Ravenna.