Author Topic: Gregory the Great and his letter to the Bishopof Constantinople.  (Read 10327 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Fabio Leite

  • Protokentarchos
  • *********
  • Posts: 4,790
    • Vida Ortodoxa
Re: Gregory the Great and his letter to the Bishopof Constantinople.
« Reply #45 on: June 12, 2014, 11:43:46 AM »
he was denying the belief that that the bishops are not mere agents of any one particular bishop, but true successors of the Apostles. The supreme authority of Peter is perpetuated in the Popes; but the power and authority of the other Apostles is perpetuated in the other bishops in the true sense of the word.

That is no way implied, not even in an obscure unclear manner. The only wishful thinking I've found regarding this passage is  from people who try force the bizarre idea that it is not denying what it is clearly denying.

What RC have difficulty with when discussing that passage with OC, is that RC are more used to talk to Protestants than to OC. So they always think that any criticism is necessarily of the primacy itself. OCs, on the other hand, not only know the value of primacy (that Protestants have forgotten) but have not forgotten either the proper way of exercising it (which RC has).

Pope Gregory is clearly *not* denying primacy, but he is condemning a certain way of exercising it, exactly the way Rome tries to exercise it today, although still restricted to its own overgrown patriarchate.

Pope Gregory the Great to John the Faster:


"You pretended to be anxious to avoid the patriarchate, but now you have got it you act as though you had canvassed for it. Having confessed yourself unworthy to be called a bishop, you now seek to be called the ONLY BISHOP You disregarded the admonitions of Pope Pelagius, you neglected my own. Though your office is to teach humility to others, you have not yet learnt yourself the elements of this lesson.

"My brother, love humility, and do not try to raise yourself by abasing your brethren. Abandon this rash name, this word of pride and folly, which is disturbing the peace of the whole Church. How will you face Christ at the judgment, when by this sinful title you have tried to subject His members to yourself? Universal Bishop,' indeed! Why, you imitate Lucifer, who said: 'I will exalt my throne above the stars of God: I will be like the Most High' [Isa 14]."

"By this unspeakable title the Church is rent asunder and the hearts of all the faithful are offended. It is written 'Charity seeketh not her own'; but your Fraternity seeks far more than your own. Again, it is written: 'In honour preferring one another'; but you strive to take away the honour of all when you unlawfully seek to usurp it for yourself alone. Already more than once I have reproved your sin through my representative, and now I write myself. If you despise this reproof, I must have recourse to the Church, as the precept of the Gospel commands (Matt 18:15-17)."


Wandile, can you provide the source of that particular translation? I have not found it online.

Found it.
« Last Edit: June 12, 2014, 12:00:00 PM by Fabio Leite »
Many Energies, 3 Persons, 2 Natures, 1 God, 1 Church, 1 Baptism, and 1 Cup. The Son begotten only from the Father, the Spirit proceeding only from the Father, Each glorifying the Other. The Son sends the Spirit, the Spirit Reveals the Son, the Father is seen in the Son. The Spirit spoke through the Prophets and Fathers and does so even today.

Offline Mor Ephrem

  • A highly skilled and trained Freudian feminist slut
  • Section Moderator
  • Hypatos
  • *****
  • Posts: 35,840
  • I am the Provisional Supreme Church Authority
    • OrthodoxChristianity.net
  • Faith: Mercenary Freudianism
  • Jurisdiction: Texas Feminist Coptic
Re: Gregory the Great and his letter to the Bishopof Constantinople.
« Reply #46 on: June 12, 2014, 01:09:30 PM »
IOW about 98% of the Catholic Church ate under the direct authority of the Pope. 

Actually, 100%, not 98%, according to your dogma.

and which dogma would that be? Notice I said "direct"

You're welcome:

Quote
Pastor Aeternus, Ch. 3

Hence we teach and declare that, by the appointment of our Lord, the Roman Church possesses a superiority of ordinary power over all other Churches, and that this power of jurisdiction of the Roman Pontiff, which is truly episcopal, is immediate; to which all, of whatever rite and dignity, both pastors and faithful, both individually and collectively, are bound, by their duty of hierarchical subordination and true obedience, to submit, not only in matters which belong to faith and morals, but also in those that appertain to the discipline and government of the Church throughout the world, so that the Church of Christ may be one flock under one Supreme Pastor through the preservation of unity both of communion and of profession of the same faith with the Roman Pontiff. This is the teaching of Catholic truth, from which no one can deviate without loss of faith and of salvation.

If anyone, then, shall say that the Roman Pontiff has the office merely of inspection or direction, and not the full and supreme power of jurisdiction over the Universal Church, not only in things which belong to faith and morals, but also in those which relate to the discipline and government of the Church spread throughout the world; or assert that he possesses merely the principal part, and not all the fullness of this supreme power; or that this power which he enjoys is not ordinary and immediate, both over each and all the Churches and over each and all the Pastors and the faithful; let him be anathema.

Quote
Lumen Gentium, no. 22

But the college or body of bishops has no authority unless it is understood together with the Roman Pontiff, the successor of Peter as its head. The pope's power of primacy over all, both pastors and faithful, remains whole and intact. In virtue of his office, that is as Vicar of Christ and pastor of the whole Church, the Roman Pontiff has full, supreme and universal power over the Church. And he is always free to exercise this power. The order of bishops, which succeeds to the college of apostles and gives this apostolic body continued existence, is also the subject of supreme and full power over the universal Church, provided we understand this body together with its head the Roman Pontiff and never without this head. This power can be exercised only with the consent of the Roman Pontiff.

Quote
Catechism of the Catholic Church

882 The Pope, Bishop of Rome and Peter's successor, "is the perpetual and visible source and foundation of the unity both of the bishops and of the whole company of the faithful." "For the Roman Pontiff, by reason of his office as Vicar of Christ, and as pastor of the entire Church has full, supreme, and universal power over the whole Church, a power which he can always exercise unhindered."

883 "The college or body of bishops has no authority unless united with the Roman Pontiff, Peter's successor, as its head." As such, this college has "supreme and full authority over the universal Church; but this power cannot be exercised without the agreement of the Roman Pontiff."

Quote
Code of Canon Law

Can. 331 The bishop of the Roman Church, in whom continues the office given by the Lord uniquely to Peter, the first of the Apostles, and to be transmitted to his successors, is the head of the college of bishops, the Vicar of Christ, and the pastor of the universal Church on earth. By virtue of his office he possesses supreme, full, immediate, and universal ordinary power in the Church, which he is always able to exercise freely.

Can. 333 §1. By virtue of his office, the Roman Pontiff not only possesses power offer the universal Church but also obtains the primacy of ordinary power offer all particular churches and groups of them. Moreover, this primacy strengthens and protects the proper, ordinary, and immediate power which bishops possess in the particular churches entrusted to their care.

§2. In fulfilling the office of supreme pastor of the Church, the Roman Pontiff is always joined in communion with the other bishops and with the universal Church. He nevertheless has the right, according to the needs of the Church, to determine the manner, whether personal or collegial, of exercising this office.

§3. No appeal or recourse is permitted against a sentence or decree of the Roman Pontiff.


Offline Wandile

  • Peter the Roman
  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 2,968
  • Love God with All your heart and all your Soul
  • Faith: Catholic Church - Roman rite
  • Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Pretoria
Re: Gregory the Great and his letter to the Bishopof Constantinople.
« Reply #47 on: June 12, 2014, 01:51:42 PM »
IOW about 98% of the Catholic Church ate under the direct authority of the Pope.  

Actually, 100%, not 98%, according to your dogma.

and which dogma would that be? Notice I said "direct"

You're welcome:

Quote
Pastor Aeternus, Ch. 3

Hence we teach and declare that, by the appointment of our Lord, the Roman Church possesses a superiority of ordinary power over all other Churches, and that this power of jurisdiction of the Roman Pontiff, which is truly episcopal, is immediate; to which all, of whatever rite and dignity, both pastors and faithful, both individually and collectively, are bound, by their duty of hierarchical subordination and true obedience, to submit, not only in matters which belong to faith and morals, but also in those that appertain to the discipline and government of the Church throughout the world, so that the Church of Christ may be one flock under one Supreme Pastor through the preservation of unity both of communion and of profession of the same faith with the Roman Pontiff. This is the teaching of Catholic truth, from which no one can deviate without loss of faith and of salvation.

If anyone, then, shall say that the Roman Pontiff has the office merely of inspection or direction, and not the full and supreme power of jurisdiction over the Universal Church, not only in things which belong to faith and morals, but also in those which relate to the discipline and government of the Church spread throughout the world; or assert that he possesses merely the principal part, and not all the fullness of this supreme power; or that this power which he enjoys is not ordinary and immediate, both over each and all the Churches and over each and all the Pastors and the faithful; let him be anathema.

Quote
Lumen Gentium, no. 22

But the college or body of bishops has no authority unless it is understood together with the Roman Pontiff, the successor of Peter as its head. The pope's power of primacy over all, both pastors and faithful, remains whole and intact. In virtue of his office, that is as Vicar of Christ and pastor of the whole Church, the Roman Pontiff has full, supreme and universal power over the Church. And he is always free to exercise this power. The order of bishops, which succeeds to the college of apostles and gives this apostolic body continued existence, is also the subject of supreme and full power over the universal Church, provided we understand this body together with its head the Roman Pontiff and never without this head. This power can be exercised only with the consent of the Roman Pontiff.

Quote
Catechism of the Catholic Church

882 The Pope, Bishop of Rome and Peter's successor, "is the perpetual and visible source and foundation of the unity both of the bishops and of the whole company of the faithful." "For the Roman Pontiff, by reason of his office as Vicar of Christ, and as pastor of the entire Church has full, supreme, and universal power over the whole Church, a power which he can always exercise unhindered."

883 "The college or body of bishops has no authority unless united with the Roman Pontiff, Peter's successor, as its head." As such, this college has "supreme and full authority over the universal Church; but this power cannot be exercised without the agreement of the Roman Pontiff."

Quote
Code of Canon Law

Can. 331 The bishop of the Roman Church, in whom continues the office given by the Lord uniquely to Peter, the first of the Apostles, and to be transmitted to his successors, is the head of the college of bishops, the Vicar of Christ, and the pastor of the universal Church on earth. By virtue of his office he possesses supreme, full, immediate, and universal ordinary power in the Church, which he is always able to exercise freely.

Can. 333 §1. By virtue of his office, the Roman Pontiff not only possesses power offer the universal Church but also obtains the primacy of ordinary power offer all particular churches and groups of them. Moreover, this primacy strengthens and protects the proper, ordinary, and immediate power which bishops possess in the particular churches entrusted to their care.

§2. In fulfilling the office of supreme pastor of the Church, the Roman Pontiff is always joined in communion with the other bishops and with the universal Church. He nevertheless has the right, according to the needs of the Church, to determine the manner, whether personal or collegial, of exercising this office.

§3. No appeal or recourse is permitted against a sentence or decree of the Roman Pontiff.



Mor , I know the doctrine concerning universal jurisdiction. What I meant is that faithful of each particular church are under the direct authority of the their patriarch/major archbishop. Bar the Latins, they are indirectly under the authority of the Pope as he still has universal jurisdiction but he is not the ordinary power that they are in contact with. That is normally their disputes are settled by their synods unlike Latins whose  disputes normally get taken up to Rome directly via the episcopal conferences as the Pope is our patriarch.

IOW :

Latin catholic is under the authority of their Priest---> Bishop--->Pope

Eastern Catholic is under their Priest--->bishop ---->Patriarch --->Pope
« Last Edit: June 12, 2014, 01:53:39 PM by Wandile »
Venerable Benedict Daswa, Blessed Isidore Bakanja and St Charles Lwanga, martyrs, pray for us. Amen

Offline Sam G

  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,212
  • One Rome to rule them all.
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: ROCOR
Re: Gregory the Great and his letter to the Bishopof Constantinople.
« Reply #48 on: June 12, 2014, 02:26:46 PM »
IOW :

Latin catholic is under the authority of their Priest---> Bishop--->Pope

Eastern Catholic is under their Priest--->bishop ---->Patriarch --->Pope

And according to St. Ignatius of Antioch:

Laity -> Presbyters -> Bishop -> God
All along the watchtower, princes kept the view
While all the women came and went, barefoot servants, too
Outside in the distance a wildcat did growl
Two riders were approaching, the wind began to howl

Offline Mor Ephrem

  • A highly skilled and trained Freudian feminist slut
  • Section Moderator
  • Hypatos
  • *****
  • Posts: 35,840
  • I am the Provisional Supreme Church Authority
    • OrthodoxChristianity.net
  • Faith: Mercenary Freudianism
  • Jurisdiction: Texas Feminist Coptic
Re: Gregory the Great and his letter to the Bishopof Constantinople.
« Reply #49 on: June 12, 2014, 02:31:43 PM »
Mor , I know the doctrine concerning universal jurisdiction. What I meant is that faithful of each particular church are under the direct authority of the their patriarch/major archbishop. Bar the Latins, they are indirectly under the authority of the Pope as he still has universal jurisdiction but he is not the ordinary power that they are in contact with. That is normally their disputes are settled by their synods unlike Latins whose  disputes normally get taken up to Rome directly via the episcopal conferences as the Pope is our patriarch.

IOW :

Latin catholic is under the authority of their Priest---> Bishop--->Pope

Eastern Catholic is under their Priest--->bishop ---->Patriarch --->Pope

Yes, but that is more of a practical set up, as can be discerned from a close reading of the documents. 

Dogmatically: (Roman or Eastern) Catholic ---> Pope

Offline Sam G

  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,212
  • One Rome to rule them all.
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: ROCOR
Re: Gregory the Great and his letter to the Bishopof Constantinople.
« Reply #50 on: June 12, 2014, 02:47:22 PM »
I think we may be discussing two separate (but related) primacy's, namely Rome's administrative and spiritual authority.  Wandile is right in saying that Rome's administration is rather indirect when it comes to the Easter Catholic Churches, however, Mor also has the point that if the Pope proclaims a dogma or calls a council (which he has the authority to reject if he doesn't like) the Bishops, both Eastern and Western, would be spiritually obligated to accept it.
All along the watchtower, princes kept the view
While all the women came and went, barefoot servants, too
Outside in the distance a wildcat did growl
Two riders were approaching, the wind began to howl

Offline Wandile

  • Peter the Roman
  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 2,968
  • Love God with All your heart and all your Soul
  • Faith: Catholic Church - Roman rite
  • Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Pretoria
Re: Gregory the Great and his letter to the Bishopof Constantinople.
« Reply #51 on: June 12, 2014, 02:48:56 PM »
Mor , I know the doctrine concerning universal jurisdiction. What I meant is that faithful of each particular church are under the direct authority of the their patriarch/major archbishop. Bar the Latins, they are indirectly under the authority of the Pope as he still has universal jurisdiction but he is not the ordinary power that they are in contact with. That is normally their disputes are settled by their synods unlike Latins whose  disputes normally get taken up to Rome directly via the episcopal conferences as the Pope is our patriarch.

IOW :

Latin catholic is under the authority of their Priest---> Bishop--->Pope

Eastern Catholic is under their Priest--->bishop ---->Patriarch --->Pope

Yes, but that is more of a practical set up, as can be discerned from a close reading of the documents.  

Dogmatically: (Roman or Eastern) Catholic ---> Pope

that can be picked up by my explanation :

Latin catholic is under the authority of their Priest---> Bishop--->Pope

Eastern Catholic is under their Priest--->bishop ---->Patriarch --->Pope
« Last Edit: June 12, 2014, 02:51:43 PM by Wandile »
Venerable Benedict Daswa, Blessed Isidore Bakanja and St Charles Lwanga, martyrs, pray for us. Amen

Offline Wandile

  • Peter the Roman
  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 2,968
  • Love God with All your heart and all your Soul
  • Faith: Catholic Church - Roman rite
  • Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Pretoria
Re: Gregory the Great and his letter to the Bishopof Constantinople.
« Reply #52 on: June 12, 2014, 02:51:00 PM »
he was denying the belief that that the bishops are not mere agents of any one particular bishop, but true successors of the Apostles. The supreme authority of Peter is perpetuated in the Popes; but the power and authority of the other Apostles is perpetuated in the other bishops in the true sense of the word.

That is no way implied, not even in an obscure unclear manner. The only wishful thinking I've found regarding this passage is  from people who try force the bizarre idea that it is not denying what it is clearly denying.

What RC have difficulty with when discussing that passage with OC, is that RC are more used to talk to Protestants than to OC. So they always think that any criticism is necessarily of the primacy itself. OCs, on the other hand, not only know the value of primacy (that Protestants have forgotten) but have not forgotten either the proper way of exercising it (which RC has).

Pope Gregory is clearly *not* denying primacy, but he is condemning a certain way of exercising it, exactly the way Rome tries to exercise it today, although still restricted to its own overgrown patriarchate.

Pope Gregory the Great to John the Faster:


"You pretended to be anxious to avoid the patriarchate, but now you have got it you act as though you had canvassed for it. Having confessed yourself unworthy to be called a bishop, you now seek to be called the ONLY BISHOP You disregarded the admonitions of Pope Pelagius, you neglected my own. Though your office is to teach humility to others, you have not yet learnt yourself the elements of this lesson.

"My brother, love humility, and do not try to raise yourself by abasing your brethren. Abandon this rash name, this word of pride and folly, which is disturbing the peace of the whole Church. How will you face Christ at the judgment, when by this sinful title you have tried to subject His members to yourself? Universal Bishop,' indeed! Why, you imitate Lucifer, who said: 'I will exalt my throne above the stars of God: I will be like the Most High' [Isa 14]."

"By this unspeakable title the Church is rent asunder and the hearts of all the faithful are offended. It is written 'Charity seeketh not her own'; but your Fraternity seeks far more than your own. Again, it is written: 'In honour preferring one another'; but you strive to take away the honour of all when you unlawfully seek to usurp it for yourself alone. Already more than once I have reproved your sin through my representative, and now I write myself. If you despise this reproof, I must have recourse to the Church, as the precept of the Gospel commands (Matt 18:15-17)."


Wandile, can you provide the source of that particular translation? I have not found it online.

Found it.

http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/360205018.htm
Venerable Benedict Daswa, Blessed Isidore Bakanja and St Charles Lwanga, martyrs, pray for us. Amen

Offline Wandile

  • Peter the Roman
  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 2,968
  • Love God with All your heart and all your Soul
  • Faith: Catholic Church - Roman rite
  • Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Pretoria
Re: Gregory the Great and his letter to the Bishopof Constantinople.
« Reply #53 on: June 12, 2014, 02:52:36 PM »
I think we may be discussing two separate (but related) primacy's, namely Rome's administrative and spiritual authority.  Wandile is right in saying that Rome's administration is rather indirect when it comes to the Easter Catholic Churches, however, Mor also has the point that if the Pope proclaims a dogma or calls a council (which he has the authority to reject if he doesn't like) the Bishops, both Eastern and Western, would be spiritually obligated to accept it.

I would agree with this
Venerable Benedict Daswa, Blessed Isidore Bakanja and St Charles Lwanga, martyrs, pray for us. Amen

Offline Nephi

  • Protokentarchos
  • *********
  • Posts: 4,829
  • A non-Chalcedonian in Chalcedonian clothing.
  • Faith: Orthodox
Re: Gregory the Great and his letter to the Bishopof Constantinople.
« Reply #54 on: June 12, 2014, 03:06:52 PM »
Wandile is right in saying that Rome's administration is rather indirect when it comes to the Easter Catholic Churches

No, because the Eastern Catholic Churches are de facto ruled by the Curia, as the departed Melkite Archbishop Elias Zoghby denounced repeatedly, e.g. the Congregation of Oriental Churches and the Code of Canons of the Oriental Churches. And even without that the Latin hierarchs still have a very strong say as to what happens in regards to Eastern Catholic Churches. All of this is exemplified in, but by no means limited to, the fact that Eastern Catholic Churches cannot ordain married men to the priesthood without the Bishop of Rome's case-by-case approval.
« Last Edit: June 12, 2014, 03:07:03 PM by Nephi »

Offline Sam G

  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,212
  • One Rome to rule them all.
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: ROCOR
Re: Gregory the Great and his letter to the Bishopof Constantinople.
« Reply #55 on: June 12, 2014, 03:10:21 PM »
Wandile is right in saying that Rome's administration is rather indirect when it comes to the Easter Catholic Churches

No, because the Eastern Catholic Churches are de facto ruled by the Curia, as the departed Melkite Archbishop Elias Zoghby denounced repeatedly, e.g. the Congregation of Oriental Churches and the Code of Canons of the Oriental Churches. And even without that the Latin hierarchs still have a very strong say as to what happens in regards to Eastern Catholic Churches. All of this is exemplified in, but by no means limited to, the fact that Eastern Catholic Churches cannot ordain married men to the priesthood without the Bishop of Rome's case-by-case approval.

Is the Congregation of Oriental Churches composed of Eastern Bishops?  And likewise was the Code of Canons of the Oriental Churches promulgated by Eastern Bishops?  I was unaware of these things.
All along the watchtower, princes kept the view
While all the women came and went, barefoot servants, too
Outside in the distance a wildcat did growl
Two riders were approaching, the wind began to howl

Offline Nephi

  • Protokentarchos
  • *********
  • Posts: 4,829
  • A non-Chalcedonian in Chalcedonian clothing.
  • Faith: Orthodox
Re: Gregory the Great and his letter to the Bishopof Constantinople.
« Reply #56 on: June 12, 2014, 03:28:55 PM »
Is the Congregation of Oriental Churches composed of Eastern Bishops?  And likewise was the Code of Canons of the Oriental Churches promulgated by Eastern Bishops?  I was unaware of these things.

I can't answer thoroughly, but here's an enlightening quote from Archbishop Zoghby's 1992 A Voice from the Byzantine East:

Quote
Though Vatican II was over years ago, we united Easterners find ourselves exactly where we were before the Council began. We are still governed by what is in effect a super-patriarchate called "the Congregation for the Eastern Churches." All through the conciliar texts we find ourselves being led back, by sly maneuvering and skillful plays on words, to that Eastern pseudo-canon law created and unjustly imposed upon us by that same Curial Congregation. And that very same Roman congregation continues to make itself the sole judge of many things in our Churches including the election of our bishops. Also, it denies our own Greek-Melkite Patriarch and his Synod complete jurisdiction over the emigrant faithful who today constitute the majority of the whole Melkite population. It merely superimposes its veto on any decision emanating from our patriarchal Synod and our will it renders null and void. In fact, nothing important can be decided by us without the agreement of this Curial Congregation!

[...] Wishing to honor the Eastern Catholic Patriarchs, the Romans have made them ex officio members of the Congregation for the Eastern Churches, dropping them into that body which has never had as much as one Eastern member. This is the Congregation that runs the Eastern Churches and only now has it allowed any Easterners even to penetrate its ranks! Since our Patriarchs are now full-fledged members of this Curial dicastery we are expected to be grateful. Yet it takes no genius to uncover the real truth and to see that the vast majority of its members are foreigners - strangers to all that we hold dear - and are from the Latin Church! When this Congregation holds a plenary session to decide a matter pertaining exclusively to one or another Eastern Catholic Patriarchate, it acts as though it were the legally constituted patriarchal Synod, and that the Patriarch responsible for this Patriarchate did not exist. Certainly, the respective Eastern Patriarch is now permitted to cast his ballot as a member of the Eastern Congregation but this is of little avail. What value is his solitary vote against those of some thirty or forty Latin prelates?
« Last Edit: June 12, 2014, 03:29:36 PM by Nephi »

Offline Sam G

  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,212
  • One Rome to rule them all.
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: ROCOR
Re: Gregory the Great and his letter to the Bishopof Constantinople.
« Reply #57 on: June 12, 2014, 03:32:51 PM »
Is the Congregation of Oriental Churches composed of Eastern Bishops?  And likewise was the Code of Canons of the Oriental Churches promulgated by Eastern Bishops?  I was unaware of these things.

I can't answer thoroughly, but here's an enlightening quote from Archbishop Zoghby's 1992 A Voice from the Byzantine East:

Quote
Though Vatican II was over years ago, we united Easterners find ourselves exactly where we were before the Council began. We are still governed by what is in effect a super-patriarchate called "the Congregation for the Eastern Churches." All through the conciliar texts we find ourselves being led back, by sly maneuvering and skillful plays on words, to that Eastern pseudo-canon law created and unjustly imposed upon us by that same Curial Congregation. And that very same Roman congregation continues to make itself the sole judge of many things in our Churches including the election of our bishops. Also, it denies our own Greek-Melkite Patriarch and his Synod complete jurisdiction over the emigrant faithful who today constitute the majority of the whole Melkite population. It merely superimposes its veto on any decision emanating from our patriarchal Synod and our will it renders null and void. In fact, nothing important can be decided by us without the agreement of this Curial Congregation!

[...] Wishing to honor the Eastern Catholic Patriarchs, the Romans have made them ex officio members of the Congregation for the Eastern Churches, dropping them into that body which has never had as much as one Eastern member. This is the Congregation that runs the Eastern Churches and only now has it allowed any Easterners even to penetrate its ranks! Since our Patriarchs are now full-fledged members of this Curial dicastery we are expected to be grateful. Yet it takes no genius to uncover the real truth and to see that the vast majority of its members are foreigners - strangers to all that we hold dear - and are from the Latin Church! When this Congregation holds a plenary session to decide a matter pertaining exclusively to one or another Eastern Catholic Patriarchate, it acts as though it were the legally constituted patriarchal Synod, and that the Patriarch responsible for this Patriarchate did not exist. Certainly, the respective Eastern Patriarch is now permitted to cast his ballot as a member of the Eastern Congregation but this is of little avail. What value is his solitary vote against those of some thirty or forty Latin prelates?

Judging from that I'd say no.  I have a lot of admiration for the Melkites, but it seem's that they'll always be swimming upstream against Rome. 
All along the watchtower, princes kept the view
While all the women came and went, barefoot servants, too
Outside in the distance a wildcat did growl
Two riders were approaching, the wind began to howl

Offline Wandile

  • Peter the Roman
  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 2,968
  • Love God with All your heart and all your Soul
  • Faith: Catholic Church - Roman rite
  • Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Pretoria
Re: Gregory the Great and his letter to the Bishopof Constantinople.
« Reply #58 on: June 12, 2014, 03:51:55 PM »
Wandile is right in saying that Rome's administration is rather indirect when it comes to the Easter Catholic Churches

No, because the Eastern Catholic Churches are de facto ruled by the Curia, as the departed Melkite Archbishop Elias Zoghby denounced repeatedly, e.g. the Congregation of Oriental Churches and the Code of Canons of the Oriental Churches. And even without that the Latin hierarchs still have a very strong say as to what happens in regards to Eastern Catholic Churches. All of this is exemplified in, but by no means limited to, the fact that Eastern Catholic Churches cannot ordain married men to the priesthood without the Bishop of Rome's case-by-case approval.

That's because they are outside their local lands. Adhere to the customs of the foreign land you are in. In the west where Latins are the dominant church it is only natural that customs should be kept and if easterners wish to ordain married men , approval by the Latin church is needed since this is not the custom of the land.

Is this the same Zoghby who made the controversial zoghby initiative?
« Last Edit: June 12, 2014, 03:54:23 PM by Wandile »
Venerable Benedict Daswa, Blessed Isidore Bakanja and St Charles Lwanga, martyrs, pray for us. Amen

Offline Mor Ephrem

  • A highly skilled and trained Freudian feminist slut
  • Section Moderator
  • Hypatos
  • *****
  • Posts: 35,840
  • I am the Provisional Supreme Church Authority
    • OrthodoxChristianity.net
  • Faith: Mercenary Freudianism
  • Jurisdiction: Texas Feminist Coptic
Re: Gregory the Great and his letter to the Bishopof Constantinople.
« Reply #59 on: June 12, 2014, 03:54:53 PM »
That's because they are outside their local lands. Adhere to the customs of the foreign land you are in. In the west where Latins are the dominant church it is only natural that customs should be kept and if easterners wish to ordain married men , approval by the Latin church is needed since this is not the custom of the land.

Funny how "local lands" and adhering to "the customs of the foreign land you are in" doesn't apply to the Latin Church in "the East". 

Offline Nephi

  • Protokentarchos
  • *********
  • Posts: 4,829
  • A non-Chalcedonian in Chalcedonian clothing.
  • Faith: Orthodox
Re: Gregory the Great and his letter to the Bishopof Constantinople.
« Reply #60 on: June 12, 2014, 03:58:26 PM »
That's because they are outside their local lands. Adhere to the customs of the foreign land you are in. In the west where Latins are the dominant church it is only natural that customs should be kept and if easterners wish to ordain married men , approval by the Latin church is needed since this is not the custom of the land.

Funny how "local lands" and adhering to "the customs of the foreign land you are in" doesn't apply to the Latin Church in "the East".  

+1

And since when are places like Utah or Alaska the "local land" of the Latins?
« Last Edit: June 12, 2014, 03:58:47 PM by Nephi »

Offline Sam G

  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,212
  • One Rome to rule them all.
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: ROCOR
Re: Gregory the Great and his letter to the Bishopof Constantinople.
« Reply #61 on: June 12, 2014, 04:06:20 PM »
Wandile is right in saying that Rome's administration is rather indirect when it comes to the Easter Catholic Churches

No, because the Eastern Catholic Churches are de facto ruled by the Curia, as the departed Melkite Archbishop Elias Zoghby denounced repeatedly, e.g. the Congregation of Oriental Churches and the Code of Canons of the Oriental Churches. And even without that the Latin hierarchs still have a very strong say as to what happens in regards to Eastern Catholic Churches. All of this is exemplified in, but by no means limited to, the fact that Eastern Catholic Churches cannot ordain married men to the priesthood without the Bishop of Rome's case-by-case approval.

That's because they are outside their local lands. Adhere to the customs of the foreign land you are in. In the west where Latins are the dominant church it is only natural that customs should be kept and if easterners wish to ordain married men , approval by the Latin church is needed since this is not the custom of the land.

Is this the same Zoghby who made the controversial zoghby initiative?

By that logic, why have an Eastern Hierarchy in the West at all?  The Church is already in America/the West and the local Hierarchy is decidedly Latin. Would not "local customs" also dictate the custom of a Latin Liturgy? Stations of the Cross in every Parish? the Rosary as the primary Marian devotion?
« Last Edit: June 12, 2014, 04:08:24 PM by Sam G »
All along the watchtower, princes kept the view
While all the women came and went, barefoot servants, too
Outside in the distance a wildcat did growl
Two riders were approaching, the wind began to howl

Offline Mor Ephrem

  • A highly skilled and trained Freudian feminist slut
  • Section Moderator
  • Hypatos
  • *****
  • Posts: 35,840
  • I am the Provisional Supreme Church Authority
    • OrthodoxChristianity.net
  • Faith: Mercenary Freudianism
  • Jurisdiction: Texas Feminist Coptic
Re: Gregory the Great and his letter to the Bishopof Constantinople.
« Reply #62 on: June 12, 2014, 04:17:11 PM »
Wandile is right in saying that Rome's administration is rather indirect when it comes to the Easter Catholic Churches

No, because the Eastern Catholic Churches are de facto ruled by the Curia, as the departed Melkite Archbishop Elias Zoghby denounced repeatedly, e.g. the Congregation of Oriental Churches and the Code of Canons of the Oriental Churches. And even without that the Latin hierarchs still have a very strong say as to what happens in regards to Eastern Catholic Churches. All of this is exemplified in, but by no means limited to, the fact that Eastern Catholic Churches cannot ordain married men to the priesthood without the Bishop of Rome's case-by-case approval.

That's because they are outside their local lands. Adhere to the customs of the foreign land you are in. In the west where Latins are the dominant church it is only natural that customs should be kept and if easterners wish to ordain married men , approval by the Latin church is needed since this is not the custom of the land.

Is this the same Zoghby who made the controversial zoghby initiative?

By that logic, why have an Eastern Hierarchy in the West at all?  The Church is already in America/the West and the local Hierarchy is decidedly Latin. Would not "local customs" also dictate the custom of a Latin Liturgy? Stations of the Cross in every Parish? the Rosary as the primary Marian devotion?

Try turning it around as I did: a Roman rite Church in Eastern territories with fasting and abstinence for at least half the year, midnight to communion Eucharistic fasting, married priests, pastoral application of "economy" for situations which, in the West, are treated as black and white, no kneeling on Sundays and during Pascha, no Low Mass, etc., etc. 

Offline Nephi

  • Protokentarchos
  • *********
  • Posts: 4,829
  • A non-Chalcedonian in Chalcedonian clothing.
  • Faith: Orthodox
Re: Gregory the Great and his letter to the Bishopof Constantinople.
« Reply #63 on: June 12, 2014, 04:27:34 PM »
By that logic, why have an Eastern Hierarchy in the West at all?  The Church is already in America/the West and the local Hierarchy is decidedly Latin. Would not "local customs" also dictate the custom of a Latin Liturgy? Stations of the Cross in every Parish? the Rosary as the primary Marian devotion?

But really, why have an Eastern hierarchy in the world at all? They're ultimately overseen by the same type of Latin-run Curial organizations that oversee the Latin Church. As such they're ipso facto second-class members of the Latin Church, and it seems their hierarchy's existence is just a pastoral and ecumenical concession at this point. Their Patriarchs and Synods cannot even exercise their own Divinely-granted rights in lieu of a Latin-dominated "super-patriarchate."

Read this:

Quote
The Congregation is made up of a Cardinal Prefect (who directs and represents it with the help of a Secretary) and 27 Cardinals, one Archbishop and 4 Bishops, designated by the Pope ad quiquennium. Members by right are the Patriarchs and the Major Archbishops of the Oriental Churches and the President of the Pontifical Council for the Promotion of Unity among Christians.

The current Cardinal Prefect is Cardinal Leonardo Sandri, not even an Eastern Catholic.

Further, the Congregation has "exclusive authority over the following regions: Egypt and the Sinai peninsula, Eritrea and Northern Ethiopia, Southern Albania and Bulgaria, Cyprus, Greece, Iran, Iraq, Lebanon, Palestine, Syria, Jordan and Turkey."

So a Latin-run, and Latin-dominated, Congregation has "exclusive authority" over the East AND the West (since they're in "foreign lands").

Online Cavaradossi

  • 法網恢恢,疏而不漏
  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 2,020
Re: Gregory the Great and his letter to the Bishopof Constantinople.
« Reply #64 on: June 12, 2014, 10:00:12 PM »
IOW by claiming to be "Ecumenical Patriarch",   Pope Gregory thought Patriarch John was claiming to be bishop of the world, that is the world is his diocese and thereby reducing all the bishops to mere agents/vicars of him instead of being true bishops with true authority.
So what is the difference between Pope St. Gregory's idea of a "universal bishop" and, say, a bishop (let's call him "Pope Francis") who claims immediate jurisdiction in every diocese in the world, whose approval is needed for every single episcopal consecration, who can appoint and depose said bishops as he sees fit, and whose actions no other bishop can appeal?

Nothing, check Vatican II. Pope Francis is not a universal bishop. He is the bishop of Rome, with authority over the church universal too as so there is primacy at the parish level, diocesan level and patriarchal level, there is a primacy at the universal level lest we be inconsistent.

Simply saying it does not make it so. Though you claim that there is primacy at a patriarchal level, you cannot use that to justify the universal primacy, for while the jurisdiction of a patriarch is mediate (that is, it is ordinary jurisdiction given and governed by church law and custom), the universal primacy of the pope is claimed to be immediate (that is, it is given by divine right, and as such cannot be limited or constrained by human customs or laws), and the two are therefore not analogous. I to this day have never seen anything which clarifies how the Pope having immediate ordinary jurisdiction (the exact same kind of jurisdiction of a bishop over his faithful) over all of the faithful in the world does not effectively make the pope the only bishop, with the other bishops merely being his vicars. On paper, yes, it is claimed that this is not so, but ecclesiologically, I have never seen any good reason for believing that it is not so.
Be comforted, and have faith, O Israel, for your God is infinitely simple and one, composed of no parts.

Offline Wandile

  • Peter the Roman
  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 2,968
  • Love God with All your heart and all your Soul
  • Faith: Catholic Church - Roman rite
  • Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Pretoria
Re: Gregory the Great and his letter to the Bishopof Constantinople.
« Reply #65 on: June 13, 2014, 10:57:47 AM »
That's because they are outside their local lands. Adhere to the customs of the foreign land you are in. In the west where Latins are the dominant church it is only natural that customs should be kept and if easterners wish to ordain married men , approval by the Latin church is needed since this is not the custom of the land.

Funny how "local lands" and adhering to "the customs of the foreign land you are in" doesn't apply to the Latin Church in "the East".  

It does. The only problem is the east don't have an exclusive married clergy.
« Last Edit: June 13, 2014, 10:58:06 AM by Wandile »
Venerable Benedict Daswa, Blessed Isidore Bakanja and St Charles Lwanga, martyrs, pray for us. Amen

Offline Wandile

  • Peter the Roman
  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 2,968
  • Love God with All your heart and all your Soul
  • Faith: Catholic Church - Roman rite
  • Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Pretoria
Re: Gregory the Great and his letter to the Bishopof Constantinople.
« Reply #66 on: June 13, 2014, 10:58:54 AM »
That's because they are outside their local lands. Adhere to the customs of the foreign land you are in. In the west where Latins are the dominant church it is only natural that customs should be kept and if easterners wish to ordain married men , approval by the Latin church is needed since this is not the custom of the land.

Funny how "local lands" and adhering to "the customs of the foreign land you are in" doesn't apply to the Latin Church in "the East".  

+1

And since when are places like Utah or Alaska the "local land" of the Latins?

Since in America most Catholics are Latin.
Venerable Benedict Daswa, Blessed Isidore Bakanja and St Charles Lwanga, martyrs, pray for us. Amen

Offline Wandile

  • Peter the Roman
  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 2,968
  • Love God with All your heart and all your Soul
  • Faith: Catholic Church - Roman rite
  • Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Pretoria
Re: Gregory the Great and his letter to the Bishopof Constantinople.
« Reply #67 on: June 13, 2014, 11:04:46 AM »
Wandile is right in saying that Rome's administration is rather indirect when it comes to the Easter Catholic Churches

No, because the Eastern Catholic Churches are de facto ruled by the Curia, as the departed Melkite Archbishop Elias Zoghby denounced repeatedly, e.g. the Congregation of Oriental Churches and the Code of Canons of the Oriental Churches. And even without that the Latin hierarchs still have a very strong say as to what happens in regards to Eastern Catholic Churches. All of this is exemplified in, but by no means limited to, the fact that Eastern Catholic Churches cannot ordain married men to the priesthood without the Bishop of Rome's case-by-case approval.

That's because they are outside their local lands. Adhere to the customs of the foreign land you are in. In the west where Latins are the dominant church it is only natural that customs should be kept and if easterners wish to ordain married men , approval by the Latin church is needed since this is not the custom of the land.

Is this the same Zoghby who made the controversial zoghby initiative?

By that logic, why have an Eastern Hierarchy in the West at all?  The Church is already in America/the West and the local Hierarchy is decidedly Latin. Would not "local customs" also dictate the custom of a Latin Liturgy? Stations of the Cross in every Parish? the Rosary as the primary Marian devotion?

Try turning it around as I did: a Roman rite Church in Eastern territories with fasting and abstinence for at least half the year, midnight to communion Eucharistic fasting, married priests, pastoral application of "economy" for situations which, in the West, are treated as black and white, no kneeling on Sundays and during Pascha, no Low Mass, etc., etc.  

Don't exaggerate now. Its looks pathetic.

Rome did not decree to the US eastern catholics that the Eastern churches must have pews, pray the rosary. Have the stations of the cross, wear mitres, say divine liturgy versus populum and lax fasting times. The issue of contention was the married clergy. The American bishops argued that married clergy "scandalized" the Irish faithful. I don't agree with the bishops but they are the dominant church of the land and the practice in question was controversial in their eyes. However eastern priest can be married.
« Last Edit: June 13, 2014, 11:05:49 AM by Wandile »
Venerable Benedict Daswa, Blessed Isidore Bakanja and St Charles Lwanga, martyrs, pray for us. Amen

Offline Mor Ephrem

  • A highly skilled and trained Freudian feminist slut
  • Section Moderator
  • Hypatos
  • *****
  • Posts: 35,840
  • I am the Provisional Supreme Church Authority
    • OrthodoxChristianity.net
  • Faith: Mercenary Freudianism
  • Jurisdiction: Texas Feminist Coptic
Re: Gregory the Great and his letter to the Bishopof Constantinople.
« Reply #68 on: June 13, 2014, 11:10:51 AM »
That's because they are outside their local lands. Adhere to the customs of the foreign land you are in. In the west where Latins are the dominant church it is only natural that customs should be kept and if easterners wish to ordain married men , approval by the Latin church is needed since this is not the custom of the land.

Funny how "local lands" and adhering to "the customs of the foreign land you are in" doesn't apply to the Latin Church in "the East".  

It does. The only problem is the east don't have an exclusive married clergy.

Neither does the Roman Church.  There are more married RC priests in America than married Eastern Catholic priests.  And the latter are being held back by the same Curia which promotes the former.  Talk about pathetic. 

Or you can admit that this answer of yours was really a non-answer. 

Offline Mor Ephrem

  • A highly skilled and trained Freudian feminist slut
  • Section Moderator
  • Hypatos
  • *****
  • Posts: 35,840
  • I am the Provisional Supreme Church Authority
    • OrthodoxChristianity.net
  • Faith: Mercenary Freudianism
  • Jurisdiction: Texas Feminist Coptic
Re: Gregory the Great and his letter to the Bishopof Constantinople.
« Reply #69 on: June 13, 2014, 11:12:22 AM »
Try turning it around as I did: a Roman rite Church in Eastern territories with fasting and abstinence for at least half the year, midnight to communion Eucharistic fasting, married priests, pastoral application of "economy" for situations which, in the West, are treated as black and white, no kneeling on Sundays and during Pascha, no Low Mass, etc., etc.  

Don't exaggerate now. Its looks pathetic.

Rome did not decree to the US eastern catholics that the Eastern churches must have pews, pray the rosary. Have the stations of the cross, wear mitres, say divine liturgy versus populum and lax fasting times. The issue of contention was the married clergy. The American bishops argued that married clergy "scandalized" the Irish faithful. I don't agree with the bishops but they are the dominant church of the land and the practice in question was controversial in their eyes. However eastern priest can be married.

I suppose, with such answers, you are the expert in what is pathetic.  Really, do your homework. 

Offline ialmisry

  • There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
  • Strategos
  • ******************
  • Posts: 41,764
Re: Gregory the Great and his letter to the Bishopof Constantinople.
« Reply #70 on: June 13, 2014, 11:25:08 AM »
Try turning it around as I did: a Roman rite Church in Eastern territories with fasting and abstinence for at least half the year, midnight to communion Eucharistic fasting, married priests, pastoral application of "economy" for situations which, in the West, are treated as black and white, no kneeling on Sundays and during Pascha, no Low Mass, etc., etc.  

Don't exaggerate now. Its looks pathetic.

Rome did not decree to the US eastern catholics that the Eastern churches must have pews, pray the rosary. Have the stations of the cross, wear mitres, say divine liturgy versus populum and lax fasting times. The issue of contention was the married clergy. The American bishops argued that married clergy "scandalized" the Irish faithful. I don't agree with the bishops but they are the dominant church of the land and the practice in question was controversial in their eyes. However eastern priest can be married.

I suppose, with such answers, you are the expert in what is pathetic.  Really, do your homework. 
I notice that the Vatican doesn't care if their flock out east are scandalized by celibate secular clergy.
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

Offline ialmisry

  • There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
  • Strategos
  • ******************
  • Posts: 41,764
Re: Gregory the Great and his letter to the Bishopof Constantinople.
« Reply #71 on: June 13, 2014, 11:28:05 AM »
That's because they are outside their local lands. Adhere to the customs of the foreign land you are in. In the west where Latins are the dominant church it is only natural that customs should be kept and if easterners wish to ordain married men , approval by the Latin church is needed since this is not the custom of the land.

Funny how "local lands" and adhering to "the customs of the foreign land you are in" doesn't apply to the Latin Church in "the East".  

+1

And since when are places like Utah or Alaska the "local land" of the Latins?

Since in America most Catholics are Latin.
The Vatican didn't send married priests when Alaska was Russian America.  In fact, it didn't allow its Latin priests to marry anywhere in the Russian Empire, and the Empire had plenty of the Vatican's Latin flock.
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

Offline ialmisry

  • There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
  • Strategos
  • ******************
  • Posts: 41,764
Re: Gregory the Great and his letter to the Bishopof Constantinople.
« Reply #72 on: June 13, 2014, 11:30:25 AM »
By that logic, why have an Eastern Hierarchy in the West at all?  The Church is already in America/the West and the local Hierarchy is decidedly Latin. Would not "local customs" also dictate the custom of a Latin Liturgy? Stations of the Cross in every Parish? the Rosary as the primary Marian devotion?

But really, why have an Eastern hierarchy in the world at all? They're ultimately overseen by the same type of Latin-run Curial organizations that oversee the Latin Church. As such they're ipso facto second-class members of the Latin Church, and it seems their hierarchy's existence is just a pastoral and ecumenical concession at this point. Their Patriarchs and Synods cannot even exercise their own Divinely-granted rights in lieu of a Latin-dominated "super-patriarchate."

Read this:

Quote
The Congregation is made up of a Cardinal Prefect (who directs and represents it with the help of a Secretary) and 27 Cardinals, one Archbishop and 4 Bishops, designated by the Pope ad quiquennium. Members by right are the Patriarchs and the Major Archbishops of the Oriental Churches and the President of the Pontifical Council for the Promotion of Unity among Christians.

The current Cardinal Prefect is Cardinal Leonardo Sandri, not even an Eastern Catholic.

Further, the Congregation has "exclusive authority over the following regions: Egypt and the Sinai peninsula, Eritrea and Northern Ethiopia, Southern Albania and Bulgaria, Cyprus, Greece, Iran, Iraq, Lebanon, Palestine, Syria, Jordan and Turkey."

So a Latin-run, and Latin-dominated, Congregation has "exclusive authority" over the East AND the West (since they're in "foreign lands").
They used to be more honest about this, with the Latin cardinal outranking the "Eastern Catholic" Patriarch, even in his own Patriarchate.
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

Offline Sam G

  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,212
  • One Rome to rule them all.
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: ROCOR
Re: Gregory the Great and his letter to the Bishopof Constantinople.
« Reply #73 on: June 13, 2014, 12:17:42 PM »
That's because they are outside their local lands. Adhere to the customs of the foreign land you are in. In the west where Latins are the dominant church it is only natural that customs should be kept and if easterners wish to ordain married men , approval by the Latin church is needed since this is not the custom of the land.

Funny how "local lands" and adhering to "the customs of the foreign land you are in" doesn't apply to the Latin Church in "the East".  

It does. The only problem is the east don't have an exclusive married clergy.

Monastics and Bishops are a different situation entirely.
All along the watchtower, princes kept the view
While all the women came and went, barefoot servants, too
Outside in the distance a wildcat did growl
Two riders were approaching, the wind began to howl

Offline Sam G

  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,212
  • One Rome to rule them all.
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: ROCOR
Re: Gregory the Great and his letter to the Bishopof Constantinople.
« Reply #74 on: June 13, 2014, 12:19:38 PM »
That's because they are outside their local lands. Adhere to the customs of the foreign land you are in. In the west where Latins are the dominant church it is only natural that customs should be kept and if easterners wish to ordain married men , approval by the Latin church is needed since this is not the custom of the land.

Funny how "local lands" and adhering to "the customs of the foreign land you are in" doesn't apply to the Latin Church in "the East". 

It does. The only problem is the east don't have an exclusive married clergy.

Neither does the Roman Church.  There are more married RC priests in America than married Eastern Catholic priests.  And the latter are being held back by the same Curia which promotes the former.  Talk about pathetic. 

Or you can admit that this answer of yours was really a non-answer. 

When it's the Anglican's local custom and they want to be received as Latin priests it's no problem.
« Last Edit: June 13, 2014, 12:21:52 PM by Sam G »
All along the watchtower, princes kept the view
While all the women came and went, barefoot servants, too
Outside in the distance a wildcat did growl
Two riders were approaching, the wind began to howl

Offline ialmisry

  • There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
  • Strategos
  • ******************
  • Posts: 41,764
Re: Gregory the Great and his letter to the Bishopof Constantinople.
« Reply #75 on: June 13, 2014, 12:23:59 PM »
That's because they are outside their local lands. Adhere to the customs of the foreign land you are in. In the west where Latins are the dominant church it is only natural that customs should be kept and if easterners wish to ordain married men , approval by the Latin church is needed since this is not the custom of the land.

Funny how "local lands" and adhering to "the customs of the foreign land you are in" doesn't apply to the Latin Church in "the East". 

It does. The only problem is the east don't have an exclusive married clergy.

Neither does the Roman Church.  There are more married RC priests in America than married Eastern Catholic priests.  And the latter are being held back by the same Curia which promotes the former.  Talk about pathetic. 

Or you can admit that this answer of yours was really a non-answer. 

When it's the Anglican's local custom and they want to be received as Latin priests it's no problem.
but their sons do not have that same option.
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

Offline Sam G

  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,212
  • One Rome to rule them all.
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: ROCOR
Re: Gregory the Great and his letter to the Bishopof Constantinople.
« Reply #76 on: June 13, 2014, 12:52:53 PM »
That's because they are outside their local lands. Adhere to the customs of the foreign land you are in. In the west where Latins are the dominant church it is only natural that customs should be kept and if easterners wish to ordain married men , approval by the Latin church is needed since this is not the custom of the land.

Funny how "local lands" and adhering to "the customs of the foreign land you are in" doesn't apply to the Latin Church in "the East". 

It does. The only problem is the east don't have an exclusive married clergy.

Neither does the Roman Church.  There are more married RC priests in America than married Eastern Catholic priests.  And the latter are being held back by the same Curia which promotes the former.  Talk about pathetic. 

Or you can admit that this answer of yours was really a non-answer. 

When it's the Anglican's local custom and they want to be received as Latin priests it's no problem.
but their sons do not have that same option.

True. My mistake.
All along the watchtower, princes kept the view
While all the women came and went, barefoot servants, too
Outside in the distance a wildcat did growl
Two riders were approaching, the wind began to howl

Offline Fabio Leite

  • Protokentarchos
  • *********
  • Posts: 4,790
    • Vida Ortodoxa
Re: Gregory the Great and his letter to the Bishopof Constantinople.
« Reply #77 on: June 13, 2014, 03:49:02 PM »
This is why Catholicism and Orthodoxy is so much fun.  Protestants just proof text Scripture.  Catholics and Orthodox have all kinds of texts to proof text.  It makes the fights so much more interesting!

That is why St. Justin Popovic rightfuly classified Roman Catholicism as the first Protestant Church. Luther just did to the Scriptures what he had been taught to do with the Scriptures *and* the  Fathers.

Ok, here is the full epistle that contextualizes the passage.

Wandile rather weak argument is that since St. Gregory uses the word "only" he was reacting to the concept that there would be only one bishop, not to the concept of universal primacy itself. Also, he has claimed that it somehow implies that Gregory was reproaching his brother for usurping a title that was rightfully his. Is it the case? Let's see.


To John, Bishop.

   Gregory to John, Bishop of Constantinople [1586] .

   At the time when your Fraternity was advanced to Sacerdotal dignity,
   you remember what peace and concord of the churches you found.  But,
   with what daring or with what swelling of pride I know not, you have
   attempted to seize upon a new name, whereby the hearts of all your
   brethren might have come to take offence.  I wonder exceedingly at
   this, since I remember how thou wouldest fain have fled from the
   episcopal office rather than attain it.  And yet, now that thou hast
   got it, thou desirest so to exercise it as if thou hadst run to it with
   ambitious intent.  For, having confessed thyself unworthy to be called
   a bishop, thou hast at length been brought to such a pass as, despising
   thy brethren, to covet to be named the only bishop.
 And indeed with
   regard to this matter, weighty letters were addressed to your Holiness
   by my predecessor Pelagius of holy memory; in which he annulled the
   acts of the synod, which had been assembled among you in the case of
   our once brother and fellow-bishop Gregory, because of that execrable
   title of pride
, and forbade the archdeacon whom he had sent according
   to custom to the threshold of our lord, to celebrate the solemnities of
   mass with you.  But after his death, when I, unworthy, succeeded to the
   government of the Church, both through my other representatives and
   also through our common son the deacon Sabinianus, I have taken care to
   address your Fraternity, not indeed in writing, but by word of mouth,
   desiring you to restrain yourself from such presumption.  And, in case
   of your refusing to amend, I forbade his celebrating the solemnities of
   mass with you; that so I might first appeal to your Holiness through a
   certain sense of shame, to the end that, if the execrable and profane
   assumption could not be corrected through shame, strict canonical
   measures might be then resorted to.
 And, since sores that are to be
   cut away should first be stroked with a gentle hand, I beg you, I
   beseech you, and with all the sweetness in my power demand of you, that
   your Fraternity gainsay all who flatter you and offer you this name of
   error, nor foolishly consent to be called by the proud title.  For
   truly I say it weeping, and out of inmost sorrow of heart attribute it
   to my sins, that this my brother, who has been constituted in the grade
   of episcopacy for the very end of bringing back the souls of others to
   humility, has up to the present time been incapable of being brought
   back to humility; that he who teaches truth to others has not consented
   to teach himself, even when I implore him.

   Consider, I pray thee, that in this rash presumption the peace of the
   whole Church is disturbed, and that it is in contradiction to the grace
   that is poured out on all in common; in which grace doubtless thou
   thyself wilt have power to grow so far as thou determinest with thyself
   to do so.  And thou wilt become by so much the greater as thou
   restrainest thyself from the usurpation of a proud and foolish title:
   and thou wilt make advance in proportion as thou art not bent on
   arrogation by derogation of thy brethren.
 Wherefore, dearest brother,
   with all thy heart love humility, through which the concord of all the
   brethren and the unity of the holy universal Church may be preserved.
   Certainly the apostle Paul, when he heard some say, I am of Paul, I of
   Apollos, but I of Christ (1 Cor. i. 13), regarded with the utmost
   horror such dilaceration of the Lord's body, whereby they were joining
   themselves, as it were, to other heads, and exclaimed, saying, Was Paul
   crucified for you? or were ye baptized in the name of Paul (ib.)?  If
   then he shunned the subjecting of the members of Christ partially to
   certain heads, as if beside Christ, though this were to the apostles
   themselves, what wilt thou say to Christ, who is the Head of the
   universal Church
, in the scrutiny of the last judgment, having
   attempted to put all his members under thyself by the appellation of
   Universal
?
Who, I ask, is proposed for imitation in this wrongful
   title but he who, despising the legions of angels constituted socially
   with himself, attempted to start up to an eminence of singularity, that
   he might seem to be under none and to be alone above all?
 Who even
   said, I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars
   of heaven:  I will sit upon the mount of the testament, in the sides of
   the North:  I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will be
   like the most High (Isai. xiv. 13).

   For what are all thy brethren, the bishops of the universal Church, but
   stars of heaven, whose life and discourse shine together amid the sins
   and errors of men, as if amid the shades of night?  And when thou
   desirest to put thyself above them by this proud title,
and to tread
   down their name in comparison with thine, what else dost thou say but I
   will ascend into heaven; I will exalt my throne above the stars of
   heaven?  Are not all the bishops together clouds, who both rain in the
   words of preaching, and glitter in the light of good works?
 And when
   your Fraternity despises them, and you would fain press them down under
   yourself, what else say you but what is said by the ancient foe, I will
   ascend above the heights of the clouds?  All these things when I behold
   with tears, and tremble at the hidden judgments of God, my fears are
   increased, and my heart cannot contain its groans, for that this most
   holy man the lord John, of so great abstinence and humility, has,
   through the seduction of familiar tongues, broken out into such a pitch
   of pride as to attempt, in his coveting of that wrongful name, to be
   like him who, while proudly wishing to be like God, lost even the grace
   of the likeness granted him, and because he sought false glory, thereby
   forfeited true blessedness.  Certainly Peter, the first of the
   apostles, himself a member of the holy and universal Church, Paul,
   Andrew, John,--what were they but heads of particular communities?  And
   yet all were members under one Head.
And (to bind all together in a
   short girth of speech) the saints before the law, the saints under the
   law, the saints under grace, all these making up the Lord's Body, were
   constituted as members of the Church, and not one of them has wished
   himself to be called universal.  Now let your Holiness acknowledge to
   what extent you swell within yourself in desiring to be called by that
   name by which no one presumed to be called who was truly holy.

   Was it not the case, as your Fraternity knows, that the prelates of
   this Apostolic See which by the providence of God I serve, had the
   honour offered them of being called universal by the venerable Council
   of Chalcedon [1587] .  But yet not one of them has ever wished to be
   called by such a title, or seized upon this ill-advised name, lest if,
   in virtue of the rank of the pontificate, he took to himself the glory
   of singularity, he might seem to have denied it to all his brethren.


   But I know that all arises from those who serve your Holiness on terms
   of deceitful familiarity; against whom I beseech your Fraternity to be
   prudently on your guard, and not to lay yourself open to be deceived by
   their words.  For they are to be accounted the greater enemies the more
   they flatter you with praises.  Forsake such; and, if they must needs
   deceive, let them at any rate deceive the hearts of worldly men, and
   not of priests.  Let the dead bury their dead (Luke ix. 60).  But say
   ye with the prophet, Let them be turned back and put to shame that say
   unto me, Aha, Aha (Ps. lxix. 4).  And again, But let not the oil of the
   sinner lard my head (Ps. cxl. 5).

   Whence also the wise man admonishes well, Be in peace with many:  but
   have but one counsellor of a thousand (Ecclus. vi. 6).  For Evil
   communications corrupt good manners (1 Cor. xv. 33).  For the ancient
   foe, when unable to break into strong hearts, looks out for weak
   persons who are associated with them, and, as it were, scales lofty
   walls by ladders set against them.  So he deceived Adam through the
   woman who was associated with him.  So, when he slew the sons of the
   blessed Job, he left the weak woman, that, being unable of himself to
   penetrate his heart, he might at any rate be able to do so through the
   woman's words.  Whatever weak and secular persons, then, are near you,
   let them be shattered in their own persuasive words and flattery, since
   they procure to themselves the eternal enmity of God from their very
   frowardness in being seeming lovers.

   Of a truth it was proclaimed of old through the Apostle John, Little
   children, it is the last hour (1 John ii. 18), according as the Truth
   foretold.  And now pestilence and sword rage through the world, nations
   rise against nations, the globe of the earth is shaken, the gaping
   earth with its inhabitants is dissolved.  For all that was foretold is
   come to pass.  The king of pride is near, and (awful to be said!) there
   is an army of priests in course of preparation for him, inasmuch as
   they who had been appointed to be leaders in humility enlist themselves
   under the neck of pride.  But in this matter, even though our tongue
   protested not at all, the power of Him who in His own person peculiarly
   opposes the vice of pride is lifted up for vengeance against elation.
   For hence it is written, God resisteth the proud, but giveth grace unto
   the humble (Jam. iv. 6).  Hence, again, it is said, Whoso exalteth his
   heart is unclean before God (Prov. xvi. 5).  Hence, against the man
   that is proud it is written, Why is earth and ashes proud (Ecclus. x.
   9)?  Hence the Truth in person says, Whosoever exalteth himself shall
   be abased (Luke xiv. 11).  And, that he might bring us back to the way
   of life through humility, He deigned to exhibit in Himself what He
   teaches us, saying, Learn of me; for I am meek and lowly in heart
   (Matth. xi. 29).  For to this end the only begotten Son of God took
   upon Himself the form of our weakness; to this end the Invisible
   appeared not only as visible but even as despised; to this end He
   endured the mocks of contumely, the reproaches of derision, the
   torments of suffering; that God in His humility might teach man not to
   be proud.  How great, then, is the virtue of humility for the sake of
   teaching which alone He who is great beyond compare became little even
   unto the suffering of death!  For, since the pride of the devil was the
   origin of our perdition, the humility of God has been found the means
   of our redemption.  That is to say, our enemy, having been created
   among all things, desired to appear exalted above all things; but our
   Redeemer remaining great above all things, deigned to become little
   among all things.

   What, then, can we bishops say for ourselves, who have received a place
   of honour from the humility of our Redeemer, and yet imitate the pride
   of the enemy himself?  Lo, we know our Creator to have descended from
   the summit of His loftiness that He might give glory to the human race,
   and we, created of the lowest, glory in the lessening of our brethren.
   God humbled Himself even to our dust; and human dust sets his face as
   high as heaven, and with his tongue passes above the earth, and blushes
   not, neither is afraid to be lifted up:  even man who is rottenness,
   and the son of man that is a worm.

   Let us recall to mind, most dear brother, this which is said by the
   most wise Solomon.  Before thunder shall go lightning, and before ruin
   shall the heart be exalted (Ecclus. xxxii. 10); where, on the other
   hand it is subjoined, Before glory it shall be humbled.  Let us then be
   humbled in mind, if we are striving to attain to real loftiness.  By no
   means let the eyes of our heart be darkened by the smoke of elation,
   which the more it rises the more rapidly vanishes away.  Let us
   consider how we are admonished by the precepts of our Redeemer, who
   says, Blessed are the poor in spirit; for theirs is the kingdom of
   heaven (Matth. v. 3).  Hence, also, he says by the prophet, On whom
   shall my Spirit rest, but on him that is humble, and quiet, and that
   trembleth at my words (Isai. lxvi. 2)?  Of a truth, when the Lord would
   bring back the hearts of His disciples, still beset with infirmity, to
   the way of humility, He said, Whosoever will be chief among you shall
   be least of all (Matth. xx. 27).  Whereby it is plainly seen how he is
   truly exalted on high who in his thoughts is humbled.  Let us,
   therefore, fear to be numbered among those who seek the first seats in
   the synagogues, and greetings in the market, and to be called of men
   Rabbi.  For, contrariwise, the Lord says to His disciples, But be not
   ye called Rabbi:  for one is your master; and all ye are brethren.  And
   call no man your Father upon the earth, for one is your Father (Matth.
   xxiii. 7, 8).


   What then, dearest brother, wilt thou say in that terrible scrutiny of
   the coming judgment, if thou covetest to be called in the world not
   only father, but even general father?
Let, then, the bad suggestion of
   evil men be guarded against; let all instigation to offence be fled
   from.  It must needs be (indeed) that offences come; nevertheless, woe
   to that man by whom the offence cometh (Matth. xviii. 7).  Lo, by
   reason of this execrable title of pride the Church is rent asunder, the
   hearts of all the brethren are provoked to offence.  What!  Has it
   escaped your memory how the Truth says, Whoso shall offend one of these
   little ones which believe in me, it were better for him that a mill
   stone were hanged about his neck, and that he were drowned in the depth
   of the sea (Ib. v. 6)?  But it is written, Charity seeketh not her own
   (1 Cor. xiii. 4).  Lo, your Fraternity arrogates to itself even what is
   not its own.  Again it is written, In honour preferring one another
   (Rom. xii. 10).  And thou attemptest to take the honour away from all
   which thou desirest unlawfully to usurp to thyself singularly.  Where,
   dearest brother, is that which is written, Have peace with all men, and
   holiness, without which no man shall see the Lord (Heb. xii. 14)?
   Where is that which is written, Blessed are the peacemakers; for they
   shall be called the children of God (Matth. v. 9)?

   It becomes you to consider, lest any root of bitterness springing up
   trouble you, and thereby many be defiled.  But still, though we neglect
   to consider, supernal judgment will be on the watch against the
   swelling of so great elation.  And we indeed, against whom such and so
   great a fault is committed by this nefarious attempt,--we, I say, are
   observing what the Truth enjoins when it says, If thy brother shall sin
   against thee, go and tell him his fault between thee and him alone.  If
   he shall hear thee, thou hast gained thy brother.  But if he will not
   hear thee, take with thee one or two more, that in the mouth of one or
   two witnesses every word may be established.  But if he will not hear
   them, tell it unto the Church.  But if he will not hear the Church, let
   him be to thee as an heathen man and a publican (Matth. xviii. 15).  I
   therefore have once and again through my representatives taken care to
   reprove in humble words this sin against the whole Church; and now I
   write myself.  Whatever it was my duty to do in the way of humility I
   have not omitted.  But, if I am despised in my reproof, it remains that
   I must have recourse to the Church.

   Wherefore may Almighty God show your Fraternity how great love for you
   constrains me when I thus speak, and how much I grieve in this case,
   not against you, but for you.  But the case is such that in it I must
   prefer the precepts of the Gospel, the ordinances of the Canons, and
   the welfare of the brethren to the person even of him whom I greatly
   love.

   I have received the most sweet and pleasant letter of your Holiness
   with respect to the case of the presbyters John and Athanasius [1588] ,
   about which, the Lord helping me, I will reply to you in another
   letter; for, being surrounded by the swords of barbarians, I am now
   oppressed by such great tribulations that it is not allowed me, I will
   not say to treat of many things, but hardly even to breathe.  Given in
   the Kalends of January; Indiction 13.
     __________________________________________________________________

   [1586] On the same occasion of this letter and subsequent
   correspondence on the same subject, see Prolegomena, pp. xiv., xxii.

   [1587] As to this assertion (repeated in V. 20, 43, and in VIII. 30),
   Giesler says, "Gregory was mistaken in believing that at the Council of
   Chalcedon the name Universalis Episcopus was given to the bishop of
   Rome.  He is styled oikoumenikos archiepiskopos (Mansi VI. 1006, 1012),
   as other patriarchs also.  But in another place the title was
   surreptitiously introduced into the Latin acts by the Romish legates.
   In the sentence passed on Dioscurus, actio iii (Mansi VI. 1048), the
   Council say, ho hagiotatos kai makariotatos archiepiskopos tes megales
   kai presbuteras Romes Leon:  on the contrary, in the Latin acts which
   Leo sent to the Gallic bishops (Leonis, Ep. 103, al. 82), we read;
   Sanctus ac beatissimus Papa, caput universalis Ecclesiæ, Leo.'  In the
   older editions the beginning of Leo's Epist. 97 (ap. Quesn. 134,
   Baller. 165), runs thus:  Leo Romæ et universalis catholicæque Ecclesiæ
   Episcopus Leoni semper Augusto salutem.'  Quesnel and the Ballerini,
   however, found in all the Codices only, Leo Episcopus Leoni Augusto.'"
   (Giesler's Eccl. Hist., 2nd Period, 1st Division, ch. iii. § 94, note
   72).

   [1588] Cf. III. 53, and reff.
     __________________________________________________________________
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf212.txt


As seen, it's Gregory himself who puts the issue in terms of contrast between having a universal head on Earth and the universal sovereignity of Jesus Christ. He contraposes the concept of "one head of the church on Earth" which he seems directly related to the title of "universal bishop" to the fact that the Church has only one Head, Christ. He clearly explains the Peter being the first does not mean he was the head of the universal church, not even on Earth - and the absence of mentioning Rome there shows that the association of Rome being the only petrine see had not been born yet. Nowhere does he say anything that even resembles that John would be usurping Rome's prerrogative. The title of universal bishop does not usurp the "universal" from the bishop of Rome, but the "bishop" from every bishop on earth.

Not only St. Gregory never says that he has any universal rights, he directly addresses that having been offered the title he refused and that this is the right thing to do. That noone should ever accept the title or the "rights" that come with it. He directly addresses the figure of St. Peter, he directly mentions that Christ is the only Head and Peter was just one of the "heads" of the Church. *With Peter as an example* he explains that the title and "rights" of universal bishop could only be desired by the Devil and evil man. If anything, St. Gregory gives us a spiritual and sociological snapshot of the processes that were creating the modern concept of papacy: evil political men were trying to make one of the patriarchs to accept it so to bring political force to their region. And it was the duty of every bishop, including himself, to not hear them.

In the context of the whole letter, when Gregory says "only" in the beginning, he is not referring to what Wandile claimed. He is referring to a certain way of exercizing the Primacy,  a way that was being forced upon the bishops through seduction from below, the local mafias. And unfortunately, much to what would be his dismay had he lived to see it, it was in his own see, that those men prevailed.
« Last Edit: June 13, 2014, 04:20:28 PM by Fabio Leite »
Many Energies, 3 Persons, 2 Natures, 1 God, 1 Church, 1 Baptism, and 1 Cup. The Son begotten only from the Father, the Spirit proceeding only from the Father, Each glorifying the Other. The Son sends the Spirit, the Spirit Reveals the Son, the Father is seen in the Son. The Spirit spoke through the Prophets and Fathers and does so even today.

Offline xOrthodox4Christx

  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 7,322
  • Faith: Orthodox Catholic Church
  • Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America
Re: Gregory the Great and his letter to the Bishopof Constantinople.
« Reply #78 on: June 13, 2014, 03:55:30 PM »
Too lazy, not going to read it.  :D
I reject all that I wrote that isn't in accordance with the teachings of the Orthodox Church. Also, my posts reflect my opinions (present or former) and nothing else.

Offline Fabio Leite

  • Protokentarchos
  • *********
  • Posts: 4,790
    • Vida Ortodoxa
Re: Gregory the Great and his letter to the Bishopof Constantinople.
« Reply #79 on: June 13, 2014, 04:04:14 PM »
And if there is any doubt about the relations of the Primate with the Synod of Patriarchs, here is a letter of Gregory to the same Patriarch of Constantinople and to all Patriarchs (not to all Patriarchs "of the East", just that, "Patriarchs"):

Epistle XXV.

   To John, Bishop of Constantinople, and the Other Patriarchs.

   Gregory, to John of Constantinople, Eulogius of Alexandria, Gregory of
   Antioch, John of Jerusalem, and Anastasias, Ex-Patriarch of Antioch.  A
   paribus [1322] .

   When I consider how, unworthy as I am, and resisting with my whole
   soul, I have been compelled to bear the burden of pastoral care, a
   darkness of sorrow comes over me, and my sad heart sees nothing else
   but the shadows which allow nothing to be seen.  For to what end is a
   bishop chosen of the Lord but to be an intercessor for the offences of
   the people?  With what confidence, then, can I come as an intercessor
   for the sins of others to Him before Whom I am not secure about my
   own?  If perchance any one should ask me to become his intercessor with
   a great man who was incensed against him, and to myself unknown, I
   should at once reply, I cannot go to intercede for you, having no
   knowledge of that man from familiar acquaintance with him.  If then, as
   man with man, I should properly blush to become an intercessor with one
   on whom I had no claim, how great is the audacity of my obtaining the
   place of intercessor for the people with God, whose friendship I am not
   assured of through the merit of my life!  And in this matter I find a
   still more serious cause of alarm, since we all know well that, when
   one who is in disfavour is sent to intercede with an incensed person,
   the mind of the latter is provoked to still greater severity.  And I am
   greatly afraid lest the community of believers, whose offences the Lord
   has so far indulgently borne with, should perish through the addition
   of my guilt to theirs.  But, when in one way or another I suppress this
   fear, and with mind consoled give myself to the care of my pontifical
   office, I am deterred by consideration of the immensity of this very
   task.

   "For indeed I consider with myself what watchful care is needed that a
   ruler may be pure in thought, chief in action, discreet in keeping
   silence, profitable in speech, a near neighbour to every one in
   sympathy, exalted above all in contemplation, a companion of good
   livers through humility, unbending against the vices of evil-doers
   through zeal for righteousness [1323] ."  All which things when I try
   to search out with subtle investigation, the very wideness of the
   consideration cramps me in the particulars.  For, as I have already
   said, there is need of the greatest care that "the ruler be pure in
   thought, &c."  [A long passage, thus beginning, and ending with "beyond
   the limit of order," is found also in Regula Pastoralis, Pt. II. ch. 2,
   which see.]

   Again, when I betake myself to consider the works required of the
   pastor, I weigh within myself what intent care is to be taken that he
   be "chief in action, to the end that by his living, he may point out
   the way of life to them that are put under him, &c."  [See Reg. Past.,
   Pt. II. ch. 3, to the end.]

   Again, when I betake myself to consider the duty of the pastor as to
   speech and silence, I weigh within myself with trembling care how very
   necessary it is that he should be discreet in keeping silence and
   profitable in speech, "lest he either utter what ought to be suppressed
   or suppress what ought to be uttered, &c."  [See Reg. Past., III., 4,
   down to "keep the unity of the faith."]

   Again, when I betake myself to consider what manner of man the ruler
   ought to be in sympathy, and what in contemplation, I weigh within
   myself that he "should be a near neighbour to every one in sympathy,
   and exalted above all in contemplation, to the end that through the
   bowels of loving-kindness, &c."  [See Reg. Past, Pt. II. ch. 5, to the
   end.]

   Again, when I betake myself to consider what manner of man the ruler
   ought to be in humility, and what in strictness, I weigh within myself
   how necessary it is that he "should be, through humility, a companion
   to good livers, and, through the zeal of righteousness rigid against
   the vices of evil-doers &c."  [See Regula Pastoralis, Pt. II. ch. 6,
   down to "towards the perverse;" there being only a slight variation,
   not affecting the sense, in the wording of the concluding clause.]  For
   hence it is that "Peter who had received from God, &c."  [See Reg.
   Past., Pt. II. ch. 6, down to "dominates over vices rather than over
   his brethren."]  He orders well the authority he has received who has
   learnt both to maintain it and to keep it in check.  He orders it well
   who knows how both through it to tower above sins, and with it to set
   himself on an equality with other men.

   Moreover, the virtue of humility ought to be so maintained that the
   rights of government be not relaxed; lest, when any prelate has lowered
   himself more than is becoming, he be unable to restrain the life of his
   subordinates under the bond of discipline; and the severity of
   discipline is to be so maintained that gentleness be not wholly lost
   through the over-kindling of zeal.  For often vices shew themselves off
   as virtues, so that niggardliness would fain appear as frugality,
   extravagance as liberality, cruelty as righteous zeal, laxity as
   loving-kindness.  Wherefore both discipline and mercy are far from what
   they should be, if one be maintained without the other.  But there
   ought to be kept up with great skill of discernment both mercy justly
   considerate, and discipline smiting kindly.  "For hence it is that, as
   the Truth teaches (Luke x. 34), the man is brought by the care of the
   Samaritan, &c."  [See Reg. Past., Pt. II. ch. 6, down to "manna of
   sweetness."]

   Thus, having undertaken the burden of pastoral care, when I consider
   all these things and many others of like kind, I seem to be what I
   cannot be, especially as in this place whosoever is called a Pastor is
   onerously occupied by external cares; so that it often becomes
   uncertain whether he exercises the function of a pastor or of an
   earthly noble.  And indeed whosoever is set over his brethren to rule
   them cannot be entirely free from external cares; and yet there is need
   of exceeding care lest he be pressed down by them too much.  "Whence it
   is rightly said to Ezekiel, The priests shall not shave their heads,
   &c."  [See Reg. Past., Pt. II., ch. 7, to the end.]

   But in this place I see that no such discreet management is possible,
   since cases of such importance hang over me daily as to overwhelm the
   mind, while they kill the bodily life.  Wherefore, most holy brother, I
   beseech thee by the Judge who is to come, by the assembly of many
   thousand angels, by the Church of the firstborn who are written in
   heaven, help me, who am growing weary under this burden of pastoral
   care, with the intercession of thy prayer, lest its weight oppress me
   beyond my strength.  But, being mindful of what is written, Pray for
   one another, that ye may be healed (James v. 16), I give also what I
   ask for.  But I shall receive what I give.  For, while we are joined to
   you through the aid of prayer, we hold as it were each other by the
   hand while walking through slippery places, and it comes to pass,
   through a great provision of charity, that the foot of each is the more
   firmly planted in that one leans upon the other.

   Besides, since with the heart man believeth unto righteousness, and
   with the mouth confession is made unto salvation, I confess that I
   receive and revere, as the four books of the Gospel so also the four
   Councils:
to wit, the Nicene, in which the perverse doctrine of Arius
   is overthrown; the Constantinopolitan also, in which the error of
   Eunomius and Macedonius is refuted; further, the first Ephesine, in
   which the impiety of Nestorius is condemned; and the Chalcedonian, in
   which the pravity of Eutyches and Dioscorus is reprobated.  These with
   full devotion I embrace, and adhere to with most entire approval; since
   on them, as on a four-square stone, rises the structure of the holy
   faith; and whosoever, of whatever life and behaviour he may be, holds
   not fast to their solidity, even though he is seen to be a stone, yet
   he lies outside the building.
The fifth council also I equally
   venerate, in which the epistle which is called that of Ibas, full of
   error, is reprobated; Theodorus, who divides the Mediator between God
   and men into two subsistences, is convicted of having fallen into the
   perfidy of impiety; and the writings of Theodoritus, in which the faith
   of the blessed Cyril is impugned, are refuted as having been published
   with the daring of madness.  But all persons whom the aforesaid
   venerable Councils repudiate I repudiate; those whom they venerate I
   embrace; since, they having been constituted by universal consent, he
   overthrows not them but himself, whosoever presumes either to loose
   those whom they bind, or to bind those whom they loose
.  Whosoever,
   therefore, thinks otherwise, let him be anathema.  But whosoever holds
   the faith of the aforesaid synods, peace be to him from God the Father,
   through Jesus Christ His Son, Who lives and reigns consubstantially God
   with Him in the Unity of the Holy Spirit for ever and ever.  Amen.

     __________________________________________________________________

   [1322] A paribus denotes that the Epistle is a copy of an identical one
   that has been sent to more than one person, exemplis being perhaps
   understood.  Cf. I. 80; VI. 52, 54, 58; IX. 60, 106.

   [1323] What is here printed between inverted commas, with much of what
   has come before, occurs also in Regula Pastoralis, II. 1.  So also long
   passages afterwards, as will be seen.
     __________________________________________________________________
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf212.txt


Even more confirmation here:

St. Gregory first presents himself to the other Patriarch to give them assurance of holding the Orthodox faith;

St. Gregory receives and reveres the councils. He does not validate them. They validate him. And if there is any doubt that the Petrine see is included in that, he says:"and whosoever, of whatever life and behaviour he may be, holds   not fast to their solidity, even though he is seen to be a stone, yet he lies outside the building.", that is, even those who are seen as "stones" or rocks must be validated by the councils. Orthodox faith validates authority, not authority validates what is orthodox or not. The teaching could not be clearer.

The councils were constituted by universal consent. Not by the "authority" of the Pope. And anyone, including the Pope, who tries to "loose those who were binded" by the council or to "bind those who were loosed", is just putting himself outside the Church. I hope radical ecumenists of the theory of "The Great Misunderstanding about Non-Chalcedoneans" are reading this as well.
Many Energies, 3 Persons, 2 Natures, 1 God, 1 Church, 1 Baptism, and 1 Cup. The Son begotten only from the Father, the Spirit proceeding only from the Father, Each glorifying the Other. The Son sends the Spirit, the Spirit Reveals the Son, the Father is seen in the Son. The Spirit spoke through the Prophets and Fathers and does so even today.

Offline Fabio Leite

  • Protokentarchos
  • *********
  • Posts: 4,790
    • Vida Ortodoxa
Re: Gregory the Great and his letter to the Bishopof Constantinople.
« Reply #80 on: June 13, 2014, 04:04:42 PM »
Too lazy, not going to read it.  :D

Read the parts in bold at least. Very instructive.
Many Energies, 3 Persons, 2 Natures, 1 God, 1 Church, 1 Baptism, and 1 Cup. The Son begotten only from the Father, the Spirit proceeding only from the Father, Each glorifying the Other. The Son sends the Spirit, the Spirit Reveals the Son, the Father is seen in the Son. The Spirit spoke through the Prophets and Fathers and does so even today.

Offline xOrthodox4Christx

  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 7,322
  • Faith: Orthodox Catholic Church
  • Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America
Re: Gregory the Great and his letter to the Bishopof Constantinople.
« Reply #81 on: June 13, 2014, 04:15:32 PM »
Too lazy, not going to read it.  :D

Read the parts in bold at least. Very instructive.

Just joshing. I read it all, except the Scripture and the last two paragraphs.

The hatred for the non-Chalcedonians isn't needed though. Ecumenism aside, if we take everything the Popes said seriously...
« Last Edit: June 13, 2014, 04:26:20 PM by xOrthodox4Christx »
I reject all that I wrote that isn't in accordance with the teachings of the Orthodox Church. Also, my posts reflect my opinions (present or former) and nothing else.

Offline Mor Ephrem

  • A highly skilled and trained Freudian feminist slut
  • Section Moderator
  • Hypatos
  • *****
  • Posts: 35,840
  • I am the Provisional Supreme Church Authority
    • OrthodoxChristianity.net
  • Faith: Mercenary Freudianism
  • Jurisdiction: Texas Feminist Coptic
Re: Gregory the Great and his letter to the Bishopof Constantinople.
« Reply #82 on: June 13, 2014, 04:18:22 PM »
The councils were constituted by universal consent. Not by the "authority" of the Pope. And anyone, including the Pope, who tries to "loose those who were binded" by the council or to "bind those who were loosed", is just putting himself outside the Church. I hope radical ecumenists of the theory of "The Great Misunderstanding about Non-Chalcedoneans" are reading this as well.

Yes, and they reject papal infallibility, whether or not it is convenient to invoke it. 

Offline Fabio Leite

  • Protokentarchos
  • *********
  • Posts: 4,790
    • Vida Ortodoxa
Re: Gregory the Great and his letter to the Bishopof Constantinople.
« Reply #83 on: June 13, 2014, 04:21:21 PM »
Tried to correct a typo, but could no longer modify and repeated a post by mistake. To compensate for the hindrance, here's Spider-Man living la vida loca with a belly dancer...
« Last Edit: June 13, 2014, 04:39:09 PM by Fabio Leite »
Many Energies, 3 Persons, 2 Natures, 1 God, 1 Church, 1 Baptism, and 1 Cup. The Son begotten only from the Father, the Spirit proceeding only from the Father, Each glorifying the Other. The Son sends the Spirit, the Spirit Reveals the Son, the Father is seen in the Son. The Spirit spoke through the Prophets and Fathers and does so even today.

Offline Fabio Leite

  • Protokentarchos
  • *********
  • Posts: 4,790
    • Vida Ortodoxa
Re: Gregory the Great and his letter to the Bishopof Constantinople.
« Reply #84 on: June 13, 2014, 04:49:24 PM »
The councils were constituted by universal consent. Not by the "authority" of the Pope. And anyone, including the Pope, who tries to "loose those who were binded" by the council or to "bind those who were loosed", is just putting himself outside the Church. I hope radical ecumenists of the theory of "The Great Misunderstanding about Non-Chalcedoneans" are reading this as well.

Yes, and they reject papal infallibility, whether or not it is convenient to invoke it. 

No need of infallibility for the obvious. ;)
Many Energies, 3 Persons, 2 Natures, 1 God, 1 Church, 1 Baptism, and 1 Cup. The Son begotten only from the Father, the Spirit proceeding only from the Father, Each glorifying the Other. The Son sends the Spirit, the Spirit Reveals the Son, the Father is seen in the Son. The Spirit spoke through the Prophets and Fathers and does so even today.

Offline wainscottbl

  • Swine of the Sheep
  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 2,943
Re: Gregory the Great and his letter to the Bishopof Constantinople.
« Reply #85 on: June 13, 2014, 09:19:30 PM »
Thanks for that latest epistle form St. Gregory. I'll start following again from here because I am too lazy to read through the whole thread even though it would educate me a lot. It's just a lot to read through. Should have kept up with it form the beginning. Read the original epistle. Question that may have already been answered. Is Rome, in this context and in such letters the Apostolic See?
The roots of education are bitter, but the fruit is sweet.
                                                             -Aristotle



Mor Ephrem, section moderator[/b][/color]

Offline Deacon Lance

  • Protokentarchos
  • *********
  • Posts: 4,060
  • Faith: Byzantine Catholic
  • Jurisdiction: Archeparchy of Pittsburgh
Re: Gregory the Great and his letter to the Bishopof Constantinople.
« Reply #86 on: June 14, 2014, 01:01:22 AM »
I would simply note that the Oriental Congregations power has largely eroded since Vatican II.  For all the complaints they have done a lot of good work, the many volumes of liturgical texts published for the various Eastern Churches being the greatest contribution.  Th Eastern Catholic Synods do what they want.  The congregations biggest area of responsibility is looking after the smaller eparchy/exarchate only Churches.  And I say this as a person all for abolishing the Congregation.
My cromulent posts embiggen this forum.

Offline Peter J

  • still a CAF poster
  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 6,492
  • Faith: Christian
Re: Gregory the Great and his letter to the Bishopof Constantinople.
« Reply #87 on: June 16, 2014, 10:21:26 AM »
That's because they are outside their local lands. Adhere to the customs of the foreign land you are in. In the west where Latins are the dominant church it is only natural that customs should be kept and if easterners wish to ordain married men , approval by the Latin church is needed since this is not the custom of the land.

Funny how "local lands" and adhering to "the customs of the foreign land you are in" doesn't apply to the Latin Church in "the East". 

It does. The only problem is the east don't have an exclusive married clergy.

Neither does the Roman Church.  There are more married RC priests in America than married Eastern Catholic priests.  And the latter are being held back by the same Curia which promotes the former.  Talk about pathetic. 

Or you can admit that this answer of yours was really a non-answer. 

When it's the Anglican's local custom and they want to be received as Latin priests it's no problem.
but their sons do not have that same option.

You should read:

Quote
In this regard, Kasper says in the interview:

"In Cyprus, in order to avoid misunderstandings, I immediately told our Orthodox counterparts that this is not a matter of proselytism or a new Uniatism. [...] Uniatism is an historical phenomenon involving the Eastern Churches, while the Anglicans are from the Latin tradition. The Balamand document of 1993 is still valid, according to which this is a phenomenon of the past that took place in unrepeatable circumstances. It is not a method for the present or the future. The Orthodox were mainly interested in understanding the nature of the personal ordinariates for the Anglicans, and I clarified that this is not a matter of a Church 'sui iuris', and therefore there will not be the head of a Church, but an ordinary with delegated powers."

In simpler terms: while a "Uniate" Church has its own structured hierarchy, with a patriarch and territorial dioceses, none of this will apply to the former Anglican "personal ordinariates," which will provide pastoral care for the faithful but without their own ecclesiastical territory, a little bit like the military ordinariates.

...

But only former Anglican priests and bishops who are already married will be able to be ordained to the priesthood in the Catholic Church. For the young men aspiring to be priests, the rule of celibacy will apply as it does in the rest of the Latin Church, except ...

- abridged from http://chiesa.espresso.repubblica.it/articolo/1341020?eng=y
- Peter Jericho

Offline podkarpatska

  • Merarches
  • ***********
  • Posts: 9,732
  • Pokrov
    • ACROD (home)
Re: Gregory the Great and his letter to the Bishopof Constantinople.
« Reply #88 on: June 16, 2014, 11:14:34 AM »
That's because they are outside their local lands. Adhere to the customs of the foreign land you are in. In the west where Latins are the dominant church it is only natural that customs should be kept and if easterners wish to ordain married men , approval by the Latin church is needed since this is not the custom of the land.

Funny how "local lands" and adhering to "the customs of the foreign land you are in" doesn't apply to the Latin Church in "the East".  

It does. The only problem is the east don't have an exclusive married clergy.

Neither does the Roman Church.  There are more married RC priests in America than married Eastern Catholic priests.  And the latter are being held back by the same Curia which promotes the former.  Talk about pathetic.  

Or you can admit that this answer of yours was really a non-answer.  

When it's the Anglican's local custom and they want to be received as Latin priests it's no problem.
but their sons do not have that same option.

Quite true...the celibacy decree effectively ended the priestly lineage of a number of venerable families of Greek Catholics who could trace their histories pre-union in the clergy. In America two of my father's classmates were sons of such a line, their father's actually left the Unia to become Orthodox in order to ensure the same. Of course, the irony was that after that first generation of American married Orthodox clergy, the two lines in question died out.. but others - as in my family, now ( or at least soon to be later this summer) three generations of American born Orthodox priests - started new family traditions.
« Last Edit: June 16, 2014, 11:14:56 AM by podkarpatska »

Offline Peter J

  • still a CAF poster
  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 6,492
  • Faith: Christian
Re: Gregory the Great and his letter to the Bishop of Constantinople.
« Reply #89 on: June 16, 2014, 11:44:12 AM »
Further, the Congregation has "exclusive authority over the following regions: Egypt and the Sinai peninsula, Eritrea and Northern Ethiopia, Southern Albania and Bulgaria, Cyprus, Greece, Iran, Iraq, Lebanon, Palestine, Syria, Jordan and Turkey."

I didn't know this about the Congregation of the Oriental Church, and I'm afraid I'm as puzzled by it as anyone. (I also read the rest of the profile, but it sheds no light on that statement.) Doesn't (for example) the very existence of the Coptic Catholic patriarchate immediately tell you that the Congregation does not have "exclusive authority" over Egypt? One might think so, but apparently not.  ???

Hopefully the quoted statement is just a mistake.
- Peter Jericho