OrthodoxChristianity.net
August 01, 2014, 08:38:11 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   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Rome's Supremacist, Condescending Posture Toward Her Particular Churches  (Read 2203 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Alveus Lacuna
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA (Old Calendar)
Posts: 6,789



« on: March 03, 2010, 04:37:11 PM »

I am not adopting the Eastern Orthodox view. We are talking about the acceptance or non-acceptance of Gregory Palamas in the Catholic Church, not the Eastern Orthodox view. In the CC, yes regional and local veneration of non-cannonized persons may be legitmate, but that does not make such veneration binding on the whole Church and leaves open the possibility that such a non-cannonized person is not a saint.

So what you are saying is that whenever a saint is official canonized by a particular church, the rest of the churches see that as an optional addition, unless of course it comes from the Vatican.  Do you not see the supremacist, condescending posture here toward your particular churches?  Also, this reveals the lack of the supposed unity that automatically comes from being in communion with "home sweet Rome", when you have particular churches commemorating saints on both sides of a Christological debate, while the liturgical books of the other continue to vilify the saint in question as a heretic.  This kind of nonsense shows that at the end of the day the only thing that really matters is submission to the Vatican, not any sort of theological or Christological consistency.  In addition to this, the principle of optional sainthood defeats the purpose of canonization in the first place, which is to confidently announce to the faithful that such-and-such a person is most certainly in heaven, and their intercessions can be sought with full confidence in their efficacy.

The Theotokos never went through the canonization process either, so you want to question her status too?

HA!  Well played.  Cheesy
« Last Edit: March 03, 2010, 04:41:32 PM by Alveus Lacuna » Logged
podkarpatska
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: ACROD
Posts: 8,034


SS Cyril and Methodius Church, Mercer, PA


WWW
« Reply #1 on: March 03, 2010, 06:02:52 PM »

I am not adopting the Eastern Orthodox view. We are talking about the acceptance or non-acceptance of Gregory Palamas in the Catholic Church, not the Eastern Orthodox view. In the CC, yes regional and local veneration of non-cannonized persons may be legitmate, but that does not make such veneration binding on the whole Church and leaves open the possibility that such a non-cannonized person is not a saint.

So what you are saying is that whenever a saint is official canonized by a particular church, the rest of the churches see that as an optional addition, unless of course it comes from the Vatican.  Do you not see the supremacist, condescending posture here toward your particular churches?  Also, this reveals the lack of the supposed unity that automatically comes from being in communion with "home sweet Rome", when you have particular churches commemorating saints on both sides of a Christological debate, while the liturgical books of the other continue to vilify the saint in question as a heretic.  This kind of nonsense shows that at the end of the day the only thing that really matters is submission to the Vatican, not any sort of theological or Christological consistency.  In addition to this, the principle of optional sainthood defeats the purpose of canonization in the first place, which is to confidently announce to the faithful that such-and-such a person is most certainly in heaven, and their intercessions can be sought with full confidence in their efficacy.

The Theotokos never went through the canonization process either, so you want to question her status too?

HA!  Well played.  Cheesy



The highlighted section refers exactly to the type of condescending attitude that Rome displayed to the "Greek Catholics" in America during St. Alexis Toth's and +Metropolitan Orestes' eras which led to a large scale migration back to Orthodoxy by many who were then "Greek Catholic." ( NB: I am not using the term "Greek Catholic"  as a pejorative, in violation of the forum rules, but rather to distinguish the Carpatho-Rusyn and Lemko groups which came to Orthodoxy from other ethnic Eastern Catholics who did not suffer the same degree of conflict during that era. That nomenclature was prevalent during that historical period.)
Logged
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,166


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #2 on: March 03, 2010, 07:33:38 PM »

I am not adopting the Eastern Orthodox view. We are talking about the acceptance or non-acceptance of Gregory Palamas in the Catholic Church, not the Eastern Orthodox view. In the CC, yes regional and local veneration of non-cannonized persons may be legitmate, but that does not make such veneration binding on the whole Church and leaves open the possibility that such a non-cannonized person is not a saint.

So what you are saying is that whenever a saint is official canonized by a particular church, the rest of the churches see that as an optional addition, unless of course it comes from the Vatican.  Do you not see the supremacist, condescending posture here toward your particular churches?  Also, this reveals the lack of the supposed unity that automatically comes from being in communion with "home sweet Rome", when you have particular churches commemorating saints on both sides of a Christological debate, while the liturgical books of the other continue to vilify the saint in question as a heretic.  This kind of nonsense shows that at the end of the day the only thing that really matters is submission to the Vatican, not any sort of theological or Christological consistency.  In addition to this, the principle of optional sainthood defeats the purpose of canonization in the first place, which is to confidently announce to the faithful that such-and-such a person is most certainly in heaven, and their intercessions can be sought with full confidence in their efficacy.

The Theotokos never went through the canonization process either, so you want to question her status too?

HA!  Well played.  Cheesy



The highlighted section refers exactly to the type of condescending attitude that Rome displayed to the "Greek Catholics" in America during St. Alexis Toth's and +Metropolitan Orestes' eras which led to a large scale migration back to Orthodoxy by many who were then "Greek Catholic." ( NB: I am not using the term "Greek Catholic"  as a pejorative, in violation of the forum rules, but rather to distinguish the Carpatho-Rusyn and Lemko groups which came to Orthodoxy from other ethnic Eastern Catholics who did not suffer the same degree of conflict during that era. That nomenclature was prevalent during that historical period.)
When the Greek Catholics came back into union, it was assumed that they were becoming Catholic and not just "Eastern Orthodox in Communion with Rome".
Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
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: 37,124



« Reply #3 on: March 03, 2010, 08:05:19 PM »

I am not adopting the Eastern Orthodox view. We are talking about the acceptance or non-acceptance of Gregory Palamas in the Catholic Church, not the Eastern Orthodox view. In the CC, yes regional and local veneration of non-cannonized persons may be legitmate, but that does not make such veneration binding on the whole Church and leaves open the possibility that such a non-cannonized person is not a saint.

So what you are saying is that whenever a saint is official canonized by a particular church, the rest of the churches see that as an optional addition, unless of course it comes from the Vatican.  Do you not see the supremacist, condescending posture here toward your particular churches?  Also, this reveals the lack of the supposed unity that automatically comes from being in communion with "home sweet Rome", when you have particular churches commemorating saints on both sides of a Christological debate, while the liturgical books of the other continue to vilify the saint in question as a heretic.  This kind of nonsense shows that at the end of the day the only thing that really matters is submission to the Vatican, not any sort of theological or Christological consistency.  In addition to this, the principle of optional sainthood defeats the purpose of canonization in the first place, which is to confidently announce to the faithful that such-and-such a person is most certainly in heaven, and their intercessions can be sought with full confidence in their efficacy.

The Theotokos never went through the canonization process either, so you want to question her status too?

HA!  Well played.  Cheesy



The highlighted section refers exactly to the type of condescending attitude that Rome displayed to the "Greek Catholics" in America during St. Alexis Toth's and +Metropolitan Orestes' eras which led to a large scale migration back to Orthodoxy by many who were then "Greek Catholic." ( NB: I am not using the term "Greek Catholic"  as a pejorative, in violation of the forum rules, but rather to distinguish the Carpatho-Rusyn and Lemko groups which came to Orthodoxy from other ethnic Eastern Catholics who did not suffer the same degree of conflict during that era. That nomenclature was prevalent during that historical period.)
When the Greek Catholics came back into union, it was assumed that they were becoming Catholic and not just "Eastern Orthodox in Communion with Rome".
Well, we all know what happens when you assUme....but then honesty has never been the strong point of the union schemes.  Wonder how the Vatican can wag its finger at Anglican compromise....
Logged

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

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,166


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #4 on: March 03, 2010, 08:07:06 PM »

I am not adopting the Eastern Orthodox view. We are talking about the acceptance or non-acceptance of Gregory Palamas in the Catholic Church, not the Eastern Orthodox view. In the CC, yes regional and local veneration of non-cannonized persons may be legitmate, but that does not make such veneration binding on the whole Church and leaves open the possibility that such a non-cannonized person is not a saint.

So what you are saying is that whenever a saint is official canonized by a particular church, the rest of the churches see that as an optional addition, unless of course it comes from the Vatican.  Do you not see the supremacist, condescending posture here toward your particular churches?  Also, this reveals the lack of the supposed unity that automatically comes from being in communion with "home sweet Rome", when you have particular churches commemorating saints on both sides of a Christological debate, while the liturgical books of the other continue to vilify the saint in question as a heretic.  This kind of nonsense shows that at the end of the day the only thing that really matters is submission to the Vatican, not any sort of theological or Christological consistency.  In addition to this, the principle of optional sainthood defeats the purpose of canonization in the first place, which is to confidently announce to the faithful that such-and-such a person is most certainly in heaven, and their intercessions can be sought with full confidence in their efficacy.

The Theotokos never went through the canonization process either, so you want to question her status too?

HA!  Well played.  Cheesy



The highlighted section refers exactly to the type of condescending attitude that Rome displayed to the "Greek Catholics" in America during St. Alexis Toth's and +Metropolitan Orestes' eras which led to a large scale migration back to Orthodoxy by many who were then "Greek Catholic." ( NB: I am not using the term "Greek Catholic"  as a pejorative, in violation of the forum rules, but rather to distinguish the Carpatho-Rusyn and Lemko groups which came to Orthodoxy from other ethnic Eastern Catholics who did not suffer the same degree of conflict during that era. That nomenclature was prevalent during that historical period.)
When the Greek Catholics came back into union, it was assumed that they were becoming Catholic and not just "Eastern Orthodox in Communion with Rome".
Well, we all know what happens when you assUme....but then honesty has never been the strong point of the union schemes.  Wonder how the Vatican can wag its finger at Anglican compromise....
Yawn. The Anglican compromise is very well spelled out and the Holy Father welcomes the traditionalism that it will bring into the Church.
Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
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: 37,124



« Reply #5 on: March 03, 2010, 08:25:28 PM »

I am not adopting the Eastern Orthodox view. We are talking about the acceptance or non-acceptance of Gregory Palamas in the Catholic Church, not the Eastern Orthodox view. In the CC, yes regional and local veneration of non-cannonized persons may be legitmate, but that does not make such veneration binding on the whole Church and leaves open the possibility that such a non-cannonized person is not a saint.

So what you are saying is that whenever a saint is official canonized by a particular church, the rest of the churches see that as an optional addition, unless of course it comes from the Vatican.  Do you not see the supremacist, condescending posture here toward your particular churches?  Also, this reveals the lack of the supposed unity that automatically comes from being in communion with "home sweet Rome", when you have particular churches commemorating saints on both sides of a Christological debate, while the liturgical books of the other continue to vilify the saint in question as a heretic.  This kind of nonsense shows that at the end of the day the only thing that really matters is submission to the Vatican, not any sort of theological or Christological consistency.  In addition to this, the principle of optional sainthood defeats the purpose of canonization in the first place, which is to confidently announce to the faithful that such-and-such a person is most certainly in heaven, and their intercessions can be sought with full confidence in their efficacy.

The Theotokos never went through the canonization process either, so you want to question her status too?

HA!  Well played.  Cheesy



The highlighted section refers exactly to the type of condescending attitude that Rome displayed to the "Greek Catholics" in America during St. Alexis Toth's and +Metropolitan Orestes' eras which led to a large scale migration back to Orthodoxy by many who were then "Greek Catholic." ( NB: I am not using the term "Greek Catholic"  as a pejorative, in violation of the forum rules, but rather to distinguish the Carpatho-Rusyn and Lemko groups which came to Orthodoxy from other ethnic Eastern Catholics who did not suffer the same degree of conflict during that era. That nomenclature was prevalent during that historical period.)
When the Greek Catholics came back into union, it was assumed that they were becoming Catholic and not just "Eastern Orthodox in Communion with Rome".
Well, we all know what happens when you assUme....but then honesty has never been the strong point of the union schemes.  Wonder how the Vatican can wag its finger at Anglican compromise....
Yawn. The Anglican compromise is very well spelled out and the Holy Father welcomes the traditionalism that it will bring into the Church.
I was refering to the Anglican perchance for papering over differences with texts, not the Union of Blackwood.
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
Rafa999
Warned
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Roman Catholic
Jurisdiction: Latin Rite
Posts: 1,600


« Reply #6 on: March 03, 2010, 10:38:12 PM »

I am not adopting the Eastern Orthodox view. We are talking about the acceptance or non-acceptance of Gregory Palamas in the Catholic Church, not the Eastern Orthodox view. In the CC, yes regional and local veneration of non-cannonized persons may be legitmate, but that does not make such veneration binding on the whole Church and leaves open the possibility that such a non-cannonized person is not a saint.
So what you are saying is that whenever a saint is official canonized by a particular church, the rest of the churches see that as an optional addition, unless of course it comes from the Vatican.  Do you not see the supremacist, condescending posture here toward your particular churches?  Also, this reveals the lack of the supposed unity that automatically comes from being in communion with "home sweet Rome", when you have particular churches commemorating saints on both sides of a Christological debate, while the liturgical books of the other continue to vilify the saint in question as a heretic.  This kind of nonsense shows that at the end of the day the only thing that really matters is submission to the Vatican, not any sort of theological or Christological consistency.  In addition to this, the principle of optional sainthood defeats the purpose of canonization in the first place, which is to confidently announce to the faithful that such-and-such a person is most certainly in heaven, and their intercessions can be sought with full confidence in their efficacy.
The Theotokos never went through the canonization process either, so you want to question her status too?
HA!  Well played.  Cheesy
The purpose of the cannonization process is so that we can all KNOW which saints are appropriate for veneration rather than guess. We do have a concept of universality in the Catholic Church. I know that such a concept is not present in your Church. Its a different ecclesiology.

Please read what I wrote again.  You're saying that the canonization process of your particular churches is inferior to the way that the Vatican does it, and if they don't get Rome's stamp of approval, their own saints are demoted to the status of an optional saint, which is no real confirmed saint at all.  So we go from the notion of particular churches with equal dignity to the Roman See to the reality that they are inferior tributaries which ultimately have to flow back West for any real authority to their claims.  This is why Eastern Vaticanism isn't a legitimate option.  At the end of the day, they're just the bastard kids on the back porch.

and you do the same to the COE, so that makes you guys doubly bad.
Logged

I am NOT a representative of the ACOE. Ignore my posts
podkarpatska
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: ACROD
Posts: 8,034


SS Cyril and Methodius Church, Mercer, PA


WWW
« Reply #7 on: March 04, 2010, 12:31:41 AM »

I am not adopting the Eastern Orthodox view. We are talking about the acceptance or non-acceptance of Gregory Palamas in the Catholic Church, not the Eastern Orthodox view. In the CC, yes regional and local veneration of non-cannonized persons may be legitmate, but that does not make such veneration binding on the whole Church and leaves open the possibility that such a non-cannonized person is not a saint.

So what you are saying is that whenever a saint is official canonized by a particular church, the rest of the churches see that as an optional addition, unless of course it comes from the Vatican.  Do you not see the supremacist, condescending posture here toward your particular churches?  Also, this reveals the lack of the supposed unity that automatically comes from being in communion with "home sweet Rome", when you have particular churches commemorating saints on both sides of a Christological debate, while the liturgical books of the other continue to vilify the saint in question as a heretic.  This kind of nonsense shows that at the end of the day the only thing that really matters is submission to the Vatican, not any sort of theological or Christological consistency.  In addition to this, the principle of optional sainthood defeats the purpose of canonization in the first place, which is to confidently announce to the faithful that such-and-such a person is most certainly in heaven, and their intercessions can be sought with full confidence in their efficacy.

The Theotokos never went through the canonization process either, so you want to question her status too?

HA!  Well played.  Cheesy



The highlighted section refers exactly to the type of condescending attitude that Rome displayed to the "Greek Catholics" in America during St. Alexis Toth's and +Metropolitan Orestes' eras which led to a large scale migration back to Orthodoxy by many who were then "Greek Catholic." ( NB: I am not using the term "Greek Catholic"  as a pejorative, in violation of the forum rules, but rather to distinguish the Carpatho-Rusyn and Lemko groups which came to Orthodoxy from other ethnic Eastern Catholics who did not suffer the same degree of conflict during that era. That nomenclature was prevalent during that historical period.)
When the Greek Catholics came back into union, it was assumed that they were becoming Catholic and not just "Eastern Orthodox in Communion with Rome".
Well, we all know what happens when you assUme....but then honesty has never been the strong point of the union schemes.  Wonder how the Vatican can wag its finger at Anglican compromise....

There were no 'Greek Catholics' in either the Hungarian or Polish kingdoms prior to the unions of Brest or Uzhorod, so it is historically incorrect to claim "When the Greek Catholics came back into union, it was assumed that they were becoming Catholic and not just "Eastern Orthodox in Communion with Rome"."  They were  pious Orthodox peoples caught up in the geopolitics of their age. Are you still using Archbishop Ireland's playbook, or is it the one handed to Bishop Takach? Your attitude about the Unia is out of step with the official position of your church as has been developed over the past twenty-five years.
Logged
Alveus Lacuna
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA (Old Calendar)
Posts: 6,789



« Reply #8 on: March 04, 2010, 01:01:40 AM »

Please read what I wrote again.  You're saying that the canonization process of your particular churches is inferior to the way that the Vatican does it, and if they don't get Rome's stamp of approval, their own saints are demoted to the status of an optional saint, which is no real confirmed saint at all.  So we go from the notion of particular churches with equal dignity to the Roman See to the reality that they are inferior tributaries which ultimately have to flow back West for any real authority to their claims.  This is why Eastern Vaticanism isn't a legitimate option.  At the end of the day, they're just the bastard kids on the back porch.
and you do the same to the COE, so that makes you guys doubly bad.

What on earth are you talking about?  We aren't concerned with the saints of the ACOE, because it is not one of our churches, nor has it been for some 1600 years.  How does the criticism I've lobbed against Eastern Vaticanism apply to our relations to your church?  There is no relationship, because you are outside of the Church.  You are heretics, and you have been appropriately disfellowshipped.

This whole critique was with the way that the Vatican talks about the equal dignity of the Eastern churches, but then ignores their canonizations as optional.  In the Orthodox church, whenever a local church announces a saint's canonization, s/he is slowly added to the books of the other churches.
« Last Edit: March 04, 2010, 01:03:30 AM by Alveus Lacuna » Logged
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
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: 37,124



« Reply #9 on: March 04, 2010, 01:03:10 AM »

I am not adopting the Eastern Orthodox view. We are talking about the acceptance or non-acceptance of Gregory Palamas in the Catholic Church, not the Eastern Orthodox view. In the CC, yes regional and local veneration of non-cannonized persons may be legitmate, but that does not make such veneration binding on the whole Church and leaves open the possibility that such a non-cannonized person is not a saint.
So what you are saying is that whenever a saint is official canonized by a particular church, the rest of the churches see that as an optional addition, unless of course it comes from the Vatican.  Do you not see the supremacist, condescending posture here toward your particular churches?  Also, this reveals the lack of the supposed unity that automatically comes from being in communion with "home sweet Rome", when you have particular churches commemorating saints on both sides of a Christological debate, while the liturgical books of the other continue to vilify the saint in question as a heretic.  This kind of nonsense shows that at the end of the day the only thing that really matters is submission to the Vatican, not any sort of theological or Christological consistency.  In addition to this, the principle of optional sainthood defeats the purpose of canonization in the first place, which is to confidently announce to the faithful that such-and-such a person is most certainly in heaven, and their intercessions can be sought with full confidence in their efficacy.
The Theotokos never went through the canonization process either, so you want to question her status too?
HA!  Well played.  Cheesy
The purpose of the cannonization process is so that we can all KNOW which saints are appropriate for veneration rather than guess. We do have a concept of universality in the Catholic Church. I know that such a concept is not present in your Church. Its a different ecclesiology.

Please read what I wrote again.  You're saying that the canonization process of your particular churches is inferior to the way that the Vatican does it, and if they don't get Rome's stamp of approval, their own saints are demoted to the status of an optional saint, which is no real confirmed saint at all.  So we go from the notion of particular churches with equal dignity to the Roman See to the reality that they are inferior tributaries which ultimately have to flow back West for any real authority to their claims.  This is why Eastern Vaticanism isn't a legitimate option.  At the end of the day, they're just the bastard kids on the back porch.

and you do the same to the COE, so that makes you guys doubly bad.
No, the Assyrians who joined us had to say "Theotokos/Yaldath Alaha."  The Vatican lets those who submit to it still use "Christ-bearer."  You bad mouth mama, you'd be lucky to be on the porch.
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
Alveus Lacuna
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA (Old Calendar)
Posts: 6,789



« Reply #10 on: March 04, 2010, 01:10:59 AM »

No, the Assyrians who joined us had to say "Theotokos/Yaldath Alaha."  The Vatican lets those who submit to it still use "Christ-bearer."  You bad mouth mama, you'd be lucky to be on the porch.

Anything's game as long as there's submission.  They should create a "Oneness Pentecostal" particular church, with its own special Rite with the structured moments for "spontaneous" prophetic words spelled out in the rubrics.  They can retain their proud "Oneness" theological heritage, because it's really just semantics anyway, so long as they are in communion with Rome.
Logged
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 31,629


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #11 on: March 04, 2010, 05:09:11 AM »

NB: I am not using the term "Greek Catholic"  as a pejorative, in violation of the forum rules, but rather to distinguish the Carpatho-Rusyn and Lemko groups which came to Orthodoxy from other ethnic Eastern Catholics who did not suffer the same degree of conflict during that era. That nomenclature was prevalent during that historical period.
Actually, the use of the term "Greek Catholic" is not a violation of forum rules.  We in fact prefer the use of that label to some more pejorative titles that we do forbid here on the public boards. Wink
Logged
Mickey
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Holy Orthodoxy
Posts: 1,309



« Reply #12 on: March 04, 2010, 10:36:21 AM »

Do you not see the supremacist, condescending posture here toward your particular churches? 

Bishop Elko also comes to mind.  Undecided
Logged
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,166


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #13 on: March 04, 2010, 03:49:37 PM »

I am not adopting the Eastern Orthodox view. We are talking about the acceptance or non-acceptance of Gregory Palamas in the Catholic Church, not the Eastern Orthodox view. In the CC, yes regional and local veneration of non-cannonized persons may be legitmate, but that does not make such veneration binding on the whole Church and leaves open the possibility that such a non-cannonized person is not a saint.

So what you are saying is that whenever a saint is official canonized by a particular church, the rest of the churches see that as an optional addition, unless of course it comes from the Vatican. Do you not see the supremacist, condescending posture here toward your particular churches?  Also, this reveals the lack of the supposed unity that automatically comes from being in communion with "home sweet Rome", when you have particular churches commemorating saints on both sides of a Christological debate, while the liturgical books of the other continue to vilify the saint in question as a heretic.  This kind of nonsense shows that at the end of the day the only thing that really matters is submission to the Vatican, not any sort of theological or Christological consistency.  In addition to this, the principle of optional sainthood defeats the purpose of canonization in the first place, which is to confidently announce to the faithful that such-and-such a person is most certainly in heaven, and their intercessions can be sought with full confidence in their efficacy.

The Theotokos never went through the canonization process either, so you want to question her status too?

HA!  Well played.  Cheesy



The highlighted section refers exactly to the type of condescending attitude that Rome displayed to the "Greek Catholics" in America during St. Alexis Toth's and +Metropolitan Orestes' eras which led to a large scale migration back to Orthodoxy by many who were then "Greek Catholic." ( NB: I am not using the term "Greek Catholic"  as a pejorative, in violation of the forum rules, but rather to distinguish the Carpatho-Rusyn and Lemko groups which came to Orthodoxy from other ethnic Eastern Catholics who did not suffer the same degree of conflict during that era. That nomenclature was prevalent during that historical period.)
When the Greek Catholics came back into union, it was assumed that they were becoming Catholic and not just "Eastern Orthodox in Communion with Rome".
Well, we all know what happens when you assUme....but then honesty has never been the strong point of the union schemes.  Wonder how the Vatican can wag its finger at Anglican compromise....

There were no 'Greek Catholics' in either the Hungarian or Polish kingdoms prior to the unions of Brest or Uzhorod, so it is historically incorrect to claim "When the Greek Catholics came back into union, it was assumed that they were becoming Catholic and not just "Eastern Orthodox in Communion with Rome"."  They were  pious Orthodox peoples caught up in the geopolitics of their age. Are you still using Archbishop Ireland's playbook, or is it the one handed to Bishop Takach? Your attitude about the Unia is out of step with the official position of your church as has been developed over the past twenty-five years.
We have never believed that ECs should not be Catholic. I am not sure how that makes me out of step with my Church. Because the ECs are equal in dignity to  the Latin Church, they should be treated as adults and not children. This means having the same doctrinal expectations for them as the Church has for Latins.
« Last Edit: March 04, 2010, 03:50:23 PM by Papist » Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,166


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #14 on: March 04, 2010, 03:51:22 PM »

No, the Assyrians who joined us had to say "Theotokos/Yaldath Alaha."  The Vatican lets those who submit to it still use "Christ-bearer."  You bad mouth mama, you'd be lucky to be on the porch.

Anything's game as long as there's submission.  They should create a "Oneness Pentecostal" particular church, with its own special Rite with the structured moments for "spontaneous" prophetic words spelled out in the rubrics.  They can retain their proud "Oneness" theological heritage, because it's really just semantics anyway, so long as they are in communion with Rome.
This may be the most ridiculous post of the month.
Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
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: 37,124



« Reply #15 on: March 04, 2010, 04:31:02 PM »

I am not adopting the Eastern Orthodox view. We are talking about the acceptance or non-acceptance of Gregory Palamas in the Catholic Church, not the Eastern Orthodox view. In the CC, yes regional and local veneration of non-cannonized persons may be legitmate, but that does not make such veneration binding on the whole Church and leaves open the possibility that such a non-cannonized person is not a saint.

So what you are saying is that whenever a saint is official canonized by a particular church, the rest of the churches see that as an optional addition, unless of course it comes from the Vatican. Do you not see the supremacist, condescending posture here toward your particular churches?  Also, this reveals the lack of the supposed unity that automatically comes from being in communion with "home sweet Rome", when you have particular churches commemorating saints on both sides of a Christological debate, while the liturgical books of the other continue to vilify the saint in question as a heretic.  This kind of nonsense shows that at the end of the day the only thing that really matters is submission to the Vatican, not any sort of theological or Christological consistency.  In addition to this, the principle of optional sainthood defeats the purpose of canonization in the first place, which is to confidently announce to the faithful that such-and-such a person is most certainly in heaven, and their intercessions can be sought with full confidence in their efficacy.

The Theotokos never went through the canonization process either, so you want to question her status too?

HA!  Well played.  Cheesy



The highlighted section refers exactly to the type of condescending attitude that Rome displayed to the "Greek Catholics" in America during St. Alexis Toth's and +Metropolitan Orestes' eras which led to a large scale migration back to Orthodoxy by many who were then "Greek Catholic." ( NB: I am not using the term "Greek Catholic"  as a pejorative, in violation of the forum rules, but rather to distinguish the Carpatho-Rusyn and Lemko groups which came to Orthodoxy from other ethnic Eastern Catholics who did not suffer the same degree of conflict during that era. That nomenclature was prevalent during that historical period.)
When the Greek Catholics came back into union, it was assumed that they were becoming Catholic and not just "Eastern Orthodox in Communion with Rome".
Well, we all know what happens when you assUme....but then honesty has never been the strong point of the union schemes.  Wonder how the Vatican can wag its finger at Anglican compromise....

There were no 'Greek Catholics' in either the Hungarian or Polish kingdoms prior to the unions of Brest or Uzhorod, so it is historically incorrect to claim "When the Greek Catholics came back into union, it was assumed that they were becoming Catholic and not just "Eastern Orthodox in Communion with Rome"."  They were  pious Orthodox peoples caught up in the geopolitics of their age. Are you still using Archbishop Ireland's playbook, or is it the one handed to Bishop Takach? Your attitude about the Unia is out of step with the official position of your church as has been developed over the past twenty-five years.
We have never believed that ECs should not be Catholic. I am not sure how that makes me out of step with my Church. Because the ECs are equal in dignity to  the Latin Church, they should be treated as adults and not children. This means having the same doctrinal expectations for them as the Church has for Latins.
Please let them know.  1892-1930, it worked so well.
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: 2,878


Liturgy at Mt. St. Macrina Pilgrimage


« Reply #16 on: March 04, 2010, 06:24:15 PM »

Also, this reveals the lack of the supposed unity that automatically comes from being in communion with "home sweet Rome", when you have particular churches commemorating saints on both sides of a Christological debate, while the liturgical books of the other continue to vilify the saint in question as a heretic.  This kind of nonsense shows that at the end of the day the only thing that really matters is submission to the Vatican, not any sort of theological or Christological consistency. 


I am not sure what Christological debates you are refering to.  If you refer to the Orientals and Assyrians that entered union with Rome they most assuredly were forced to accept Chalcedonian Christology and abjure many if not most of their native saints.  The Greek Catholics had only a very few removed for their anti-Latin stances, St. Photios and St. Gregory Palamas, are really the only two I can think of.  Since Vatican II only the Greek Catholics have taken to restoring saints removed after the unions.  The Catholic Church does not consider the Orthodox Church to hold to any heresy so adding the saints back is not a problem as Rome acknowledges its fault in the schism.
Logged

My cromulent posts embiggen this forum.
Deacon Lance
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Jurisdiction: Archeparchy of Pittsburgh
Posts: 2,878


Liturgy at Mt. St. Macrina Pilgrimage


« Reply #17 on: March 04, 2010, 06:35:01 PM »

No, the Assyrians who joined us had to say "Theotokos/Yaldath Alaha."  The Vatican lets those who submit to it still use "Christ-bearer."

Incorrect.  The Chaldeans who entered union indeed had to accept Theotokos.  The Chaldeans in the US were approved to use Mother of Christ as an option in their new missal.
Logged

My cromulent posts embiggen this forum.
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
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: 37,124



« Reply #18 on: March 04, 2010, 06:44:01 PM »

No, the Assyrians who joined us had to say "Theotokos/Yaldath Alaha."  The Vatican lets those who submit to it still use "Christ-bearer."

Incorrect.  The Chaldeans who entered union indeed had to accept Theotokos.  The Chaldeans in the US were approved to use Mother of Christ as an option in their new missal.

And where do they use Theotokos?  As I was told by one of them in seminary (and for whom I have immense respect) that the term was not used, ever, and was given a list of other ones they do use.
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
podkarpatska
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: ACROD
Posts: 8,034


SS Cyril and Methodius Church, Mercer, PA


WWW
« Reply #19 on: March 04, 2010, 08:50:35 PM »

I am not adopting the Eastern Orthodox view. We are talking about the acceptance or non-acceptance of Gregory Palamas in the Catholic Church, not the Eastern Orthodox view. In the CC, yes regional and local veneration of non-cannonized persons may be legitmate, but that does not make such veneration binding on the whole Church and leaves open the possibility that such a non-cannonized person is not a saint.

So what you are saying is that whenever a saint is official canonized by a particular church, the rest of the churches see that as an optional addition, unless of course it comes from the Vatican. Do you not see the supremacist, condescending posture here toward your particular churches?  Also, this reveals the lack of the supposed unity that automatically comes from being in communion with "home sweet Rome", when you have particular churches commemorating saints on both sides of a Christological debate, while the liturgical books of the other continue to vilify the saint in question as a heretic.  This kind of nonsense shows that at the end of the day the only thing that really matters is submission to the Vatican, not any sort of theological or Christological consistency.  In addition to this, the principle of optional sainthood defeats the purpose of canonization in the first place, which is to confidently announce to the faithful that such-and-such a person is most certainly in heaven, and their intercessions can be sought with full confidence in their efficacy.

The Theotokos never went through the canonization process either, so you want to question her status too?

HA!  Well played.  Cheesy



The highlighted section refers exactly to the type of condescending attitude that Rome displayed to the "Greek Catholics" in America during St. Alexis Toth's and +Metropolitan Orestes' eras which led to a large scale migration back to Orthodoxy by many who were then "Greek Catholic." ( NB: I am not using the term "Greek Catholic"  as a pejorative, in violation of the forum rules, but rather to distinguish the Carpatho-Rusyn and Lemko groups which came to Orthodoxy from other ethnic Eastern Catholics who did not suffer the same degree of conflict during that era. That nomenclature was prevalent during that historical period.)
When the Greek Catholics came back into union, it was assumed that they were becoming Catholic and not just "Eastern Orthodox in Communion with Rome".
Well, we all know what happens when you assUme....but then honesty has never been the strong point of the union schemes.  Wonder how the Vatican can wag its finger at Anglican compromise....

There were no 'Greek Catholics' in either the Hungarian or Polish kingdoms prior to the unions of Brest or Uzhorod, so it is historically incorrect to claim "When the Greek Catholics came back into union, it was assumed that they were becoming Catholic and not just "Eastern Orthodox in Communion with Rome"."  They were  pious Orthodox peoples caught up in the geopolitics of their age. Are you still using Archbishop Ireland's playbook, or is it the one handed to Bishop Takach? Your attitude about the Unia is out of step with the official position of your church as has been developed over the past twenty-five years.
We have never believed that ECs should not be Catholic. I am not sure how that makes me out of step with my Church. Because the ECs are equal in dignity to  the Latin Church, they should be treated as adults and not children. This means having the same doctrinal expectations for them as the Church has for Latins.
Please let them know.  1892-1930, it worked so well.

Touche. Except I would take it through at least 1938. I would have enjoyed a discussion between Papist and one of the late Byzantine Catholic priests i knew, now of blessed memory. He was one of those seminarians who was engaged to be married and sent to Uzhorod to be educated and ordained after 1929. Before that could happen, he was caught up in the final enforcement of "cum data fuerit." He was given a choice between marriage and ordination and he chose his vocation. Some of those men accepted celibacy, some were married, ordained and stayed in Europe and some returned as laymen. Some converted to Orthodoxy. I will only say that he was a hard working priest, but a very embittered human being; he despised the Romans and was resentful towards men who chose to marry and remain laymen as well as   his generational peers who chose to leave the Greek Catholic Church and return to Orthodoxy. He would  certainly have an opinion on the statement, "Because the ECs are equal in dignity to  the Latin Church, they should be treated as adults and not children." I suspect he would have slugged anyone who said such a thing after he stopped laughing. There is something Orwellian about that line of thought in that apparently all churches are equal in the Roman world, but one is more equal than all of the others combined.
Logged
Deacon Lance
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Jurisdiction: Archeparchy of Pittsburgh
Posts: 2,878


Liturgy at Mt. St. Macrina Pilgrimage


« Reply #20 on: March 04, 2010, 09:39:04 PM »

And where do they use Theotokos?  As I was told by one of them in seminary (and for whom I have immense respect) that the term was not used, ever, and was given a list of other ones they do use.

From the previous Chaldean Missal:

Let us remember the Virgin Mary, mother of God, upon this holy altar.
http://www.faswebdesign.com/ECPA/Worship/ChaldeanMass.html

From the revised Chaldean Missal:
Let there be a remembrance of the Virgin Mary, Mother of God (or: Mother of Christ) upon the holy altar.
http://www.kaldu.org/14_Reformed_ChaldeanMass/ReformedMissal_Eng.html#7

This is the only mention made of the Theotokos in their Divine Liturgy besides the Creed.
« Last Edit: March 04, 2010, 09:39:40 PM by Deacon Lance » Logged

My cromulent posts embiggen this forum.
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
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: 37,124



« Reply #21 on: March 04, 2010, 11:57:31 PM »

And where do they use Theotokos?  As I was told by one of them in seminary (and for whom I have immense respect) that the term was not used, ever, and was given a list of other ones they do use.

From the previous Chaldean Missal:

Let us remember the Virgin Mary, mother of God, upon this holy altar.
http://www.faswebdesign.com/ECPA/Worship/ChaldeanMass.html

From the revised Chaldean Missal:
Let there be a remembrance of the Virgin Mary, Mother of God (or: Mother of Christ) upon the holy altar.
http://www.kaldu.org/14_Reformed_ChaldeanMass/ReformedMissal_Eng.html#7

This is the only mention made of the Theotokos in their Divine Liturgy besides the Creed.

No, the are other mentions in the DL of Addai and Mari, but the link you have seems to be abbreviated, at least from the texts I've seen from the Nestorians.

The original bull of union, at Florence is interesting:
Quote
Session 14—7 August 1445

[Bull of union with the Chaldeans and the Maronites of Cyprus]

Eugenius, bishop, servant of the servants of God, for an everlasting record. Blessed be the God and Father of our lord Jesus Christ, the Father of mercies and God of all consolation, who daily promotes with many great favours, and accompanies with happy results far beyond our deserts, our aims and pious desires, whereby in fulfilment of our pastoral duties we long for and foster with many works, in so far as this allowed us from on high, the salvation of the Christian people.

Indeed, after the union of the eastern church with the western church in the ecumenical council of Florence, and after the return of the Armenians, the Jacobites and the people of Mesopotamia, we despatched our venerable brother Andrew, archbishop of Kalocsa, to eastern lands and the island of Cyprus. He was to confirm in the faith which had been accepted the Greeks, Armenians and Jacobites living there, by his sermons and his expositions and explanations of the decrees issued for their union and return. He was also to try to bring back to the truth of the faith, using our warnings and exhortations, whoever else he might find there to be strangers to the truth of faith in other sects, whether they are followers of Nestorius or of Macarius.

He pursued this task with vigour, thanks to the wisdom and other virtues with which the Lord, the giver of graces, has enriched him. He finally eliminated from their hearts, after many discussions, first all the impurity of Nestorius, who asserted that Christ is only a man and that the blessed Virgin is the mother of Christ but not of God, then that of the most impious Macarius of Antioch who, although he confessed that Christ is true God and man, asserted that there is in him only the divine will and principle of action, thereby diminishing his humanity.

With divine assistance he converted to the truth of the orthodox faith our venerable brothers Timothy, metropolitan of the Chaldeans, who have been called Nestorians in Cyprus until now because they used to follow Nestorius, and Elias, bishop of the Maronites, who with his nation in the same realm was infected with the teachings of Macarius, together with a whole multitude of peoples and clerics subject to him in the island of Cyprus. To these prelates and all their subjects there, he delivered the faith and doctrine that the holy church has always cherished and observed. The said prelates, moreover, accepted this faith and doctrine with much veneration in a great public assembly of different peoples living in that realm, which was held in the metropolitan church of St Sophia.

After that, the Chaldeans sent to us the aforesaid metropolitan Timothy, and Bishop Elias of the Maronites sent an envoy, to make to us a solemn profession of the faith of the Roman church, which by the providence of the Lord and the aid of blessed Peter and the apostle has always remained immaculate . Timothy, the metropolitan, reverently and devoutly professed this faith and doctrine to us, in this sacred general congregation of the ecumenical Lateran council, first in his own Chaldean tongue, which was interpreted in Greek and then translated from Greek into Latin, as follows: I, Timothy, archbishop of Tarsus and metropolitan of the Chaldeans who are in Cyprus, on behalf of myself and all my peoples in Cyprus, profess, vow and promise to almighty God, Father and Son and holy Spirit, and then to you, most holy and blessed father pope Eugenius IV, to this holy apostolic see and to this holy and venerable congregation, that henceforth I will always remain under the obedience of you and your successors and of the holy Roman church as under the unique mother and head of all other churches. Also, in future I will always hold and profess that the holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son, as the holy Roman church teaches and holds. Also, in future I will always hold and approve two natures, two wills, one hypostasis and two principles of action in Christ.

No mention of Theotokos.

Quote
Also, in future I will always confess and approve all seven sacraments of the Roman church, just as she holds, teaches and preaches.

Also, in future I will never add oil in the sacred eucharist.

Also, in future I will always hold, confess, preach and teach whatever the holy Roman church holds, confesses, teaches and preaches and I reject, anathematize and condemn whatever she rejects, anathematizes and condemns; in future I will always reject, anathematize and condemn especially the impieties and blasphemies of the most wicked heresiarch Nestorius and every other heresy raising its head against this holy catholic and apostolic church.

This is the faith, holy father, that I vow and promise to hold and observe and to see that it is held and observed by all my subjects. I engage myself and solemnly promise to deprive of all his goods and benefices, to excommunicate and to denounce as heretical and condemned, whoever rejects it and raises himself up against it and, if he is obstinate, to degrade him and to hand him over to the secular arm.

For the devotion of these professions and for the salvation of so many souls we offer immense thanks to God and our lord Jesus Christ, who is in our times so greatly enlarging the faith and bestowing benefits on so many Christian peoples. We receive and approve these professions; we receive into the bosom of holy mother church the metropolitan and the bishop in Cyprus and their subjects; and while they remain in the aforesaid faith, obedience and devotion, we honour them with the following favours and privileges.

First, nobody shall in future dare to call the said metropolitan of the Chaldeans and the said bishop of the Maronites, or their clerics and peoples or any individual among them, heretics, or to call Chaldeans, Nestorians. If anyone despises this ordinance, we order him to be excommunicated until such time as he offers a worthy satisfaction or has been punished, in the judgment of the ordinary, by some other temporal penalty.

Also, the said metropolitan and bishop and their successors are forthwith to be preferred in each and every honour to bishops who are separated from the communion of the holy Roman church.

Also, in future they can lay censures on their subjects, and those whom they rightly excommunicate in future shall be held by all as excommunicated, and those whom they absolve shall be held by all as absolved.

Also, the said prelates and priests and their clerics can freely celebrate divine services in the churches of Catholics, and Catholics can freely celebrate them in their churches.

And on an omenous final note
Quote
Also, in future the said prelates and clerics and their lay men and women, who have accepted this union and faith, can choose to be buried in the churches of Catholics, to contract marriages with Catholics, but in the rite of Latin Catholics, and to enjoy and utilize all benefits, immunities and liberties which other Catholics, both lay and clerical, possess and enjoy in the said realm. Let nobody therefore . . . If anyone however . . .
http://www.legionofmarytidewater.com/faith/ECUM17.HTM#4

Btw, note how the Maronites had to be united, i.e. they were not.
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: 2,878


Liturgy at Mt. St. Macrina Pilgrimage


« Reply #22 on: March 05, 2010, 01:07:22 AM »

No, the are other mentions in the DL of Addai and Mari, but the link you have seems to be abbreviated, at least from the texts I've seen.

I was refering only to the Chaldean Liturgy but the Assyrian Liturgy only has one additional mention.

"For the memorial of the blessed St. Mary, the holy Virgin, the mother of Christ our Savior and Life-giver, let us pray"
http://web.archive.org/web/20070927150025/www.cired.org/liturgy/apostles.html
Logged

My cromulent posts embiggen this forum.
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 31,629


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #23 on: March 06, 2010, 12:22:40 AM »

Tangent on the propriety of the term "Mother of Christ" split off and moved to Orthodox-Other Christian Private Discussions

"Mother of Christ" vs. "Mother of God"
« Last Edit: March 06, 2010, 12:30:24 AM by PeterTheAleut » Logged
Tags:
Pages: 1   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 0.154 seconds with 52 queries.