OrthodoxChristianity.net
October 02, 2014, 05:25:17 AM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Reminder: No political discussions in the public fora.  If you do not have access to the private Politics Forum, please send a PM to Fr. George.
 
   Home   Help Calendar Contact Treasury Tags Login Register  
Pages: 1 2 All   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Pope as Ruler of the World  (Read 5141 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Alpo
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Jerkodox
Posts: 6,801



« on: September 19, 2010, 07:18:01 AM »

So I came across the words which at least according to Wikipedia were used when new pope was crowned with papal tiara:

Quote from: Wikipedia
When popes were crowned, the following words were used:

 Accipe tiaram tribus coronis ornatam, et scias te esse Patrem Principum et Regnum, Rectorem Orbis, in terra Vicarium Salvatoris Nostri Jesu Christi, cui est honor et gloria in sæcula sæculorum.
    (Receive the tiara adorned with three crowns and know that thou art Father of Princes and Kings, Ruler of the World, Vicar of Our Savior Jesus Christ in earth, to whom is honor and glory in the ages of ages.)

Firstly, is this really accurate?  If so, what that means? Is pope also a sovereing according to RCC?
Logged

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

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,192


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #1 on: September 19, 2010, 11:14:36 AM »

The triple tiara actually represents the following:
1. The Pope as the Bishop of Rome
2. The Pope as Patriarch of the West
3. The Pope as, well the Pope of the Universal Church
Logged

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

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,192


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #2 on: September 19, 2010, 11:15:07 AM »

That being said, the Pope no longer wears the triple tiara.
Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
Alpo
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Jerkodox
Posts: 6,801



« Reply #3 on: September 19, 2010, 01:29:35 PM »

I'm not so interested about the papal tiara itself but the coronation service which was used when the tiara was still in use and RC teaching about temporal power of popes. Is that quote from Wikipedia really accurate? If so, what does "Ruler of the World" mean?
« Last Edit: September 19, 2010, 01:31:52 PM by Alpo » Logged

JLatimer
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: ROCOR
Posts: 1,202



« Reply #4 on: September 20, 2010, 01:48:38 PM »

The Pope has disavowed the title Patriarch of the West.
Logged

1 Samuel 25:22 (KJV)
So and more also do God unto the enemies of David, if I leave of all that pertain to him by the morning light any that pisseth against the wall.
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,192


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #5 on: September 20, 2010, 01:53:06 PM »

The Pope has disavowed the title Patriarch of the West.
Well, he took it off the list of titles because it's no longer historically relevent but that doesn't mean that he is not the Patriarch of the West.
Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
JLatimer
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: ROCOR
Posts: 1,202



« Reply #6 on: September 20, 2010, 02:03:24 PM »

The Pope has disavowed the title Patriarch of the West.
Well, he took it off the list of titles because it's no longer historically relevent but that doesn't mean that he is not the Patriarch of the West.

So the "list of titles" is a list of "historically relevant" titles and not a list of things the pope actually is (or claims to be)? If he's the Patriarch of the West, why would he bother to take it off the list? And how is that title irrelevant?
« Last Edit: September 20, 2010, 02:05:33 PM by JLatimer » Logged

1 Samuel 25:22 (KJV)
So and more also do God unto the enemies of David, if I leave of all that pertain to him by the morning light any that pisseth against the wall.
Aindriú
Faster! Funnier!
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Cynical
Jurisdiction: Vestibule of Hell
Posts: 3,918



WWW
« Reply #7 on: September 20, 2010, 02:19:13 PM »

The Pope has disavowed the title Patriarch of the West.
Well, he took it off the list of titles because it's no longer historically relevent but that doesn't mean that he is not the Patriarch of the West.

So the "list of titles" is a list of "historically relevant" titles and not a list of things the pope actually is (or claims to be)? If he's the Patriarch of the West, why would he bother to take it off the list? And how is that title irrelevant?

It is irrelevant for the same reason that of the four patriarchates in Catholicism, only two have actual bishops manning that position. The catholic church made a decision some time ago to be built as a single church ecclesiastically as well as in faith. Therefore, patriarch may mean something between the two halves, but within itself is becoming meaningless.
« Last Edit: September 20, 2010, 02:20:45 PM by Azurestone » Logged


I'm going to need this.
JLatimer
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: ROCOR
Posts: 1,202



« Reply #8 on: September 20, 2010, 02:25:42 PM »

The Pope has disavowed the title Patriarch of the West.
Well, he took it off the list of titles because it's no longer historically relevent but that doesn't mean that he is not the Patriarch of the West.

So the "list of titles" is a list of "historically relevant" titles and not a list of things the pope actually is (or claims to be)? If he's the Patriarch of the West, why would he bother to take it off the list? And how is that title irrelevant?

It is irrelevant for the same reason that of the four patriarchates in Catholicism, only two have actual bishops manning that position. The catholic church made a decision some time ago to be built as a single church ecclesiastically as well as in faith. Therefore, patriarch may mean something between the two halves, but within itself is becoming meaningless.

In other words, the pope has disavowed the title Patriarch of the West.
Logged

1 Samuel 25:22 (KJV)
So and more also do God unto the enemies of David, if I leave of all that pertain to him by the morning light any that pisseth against the wall.
Fabio Leite
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 3,162



WWW
« Reply #9 on: September 20, 2010, 02:37:06 PM »

But, what is it meant by "ruler of the world"? Taken as it is, it is an even stronger claim than "ruler of the church".
Logged

Many Energies, Three Persons, Two Natures, One God.
Jetavan
Argumentum ad australopithecum
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Science to the Fourth Power
Jurisdiction: Ohayo Gozaimasu
Posts: 6,580


Barlaam and Josaphat


WWW
« Reply #10 on: September 20, 2010, 03:59:20 PM »

The Pope has disavowed the title Patriarch of the West.
Well, he took it off the list of titles because it's no longer historically relevent but that doesn't mean that he is not the Patriarch of the West.

So the "list of titles" is a list of "historically relevant" titles and not a list of things the pope actually is (or claims to be)? If he's the Patriarch of the West, why would he bother to take it off the list? And how is that title irrelevant?

It is irrelevant for the same reason that of the four patriarchates in Catholicism, only two have actual bishops manning that position. The catholic church made a decision some time ago to be built as a single church ecclesiastically as well as in faith. Therefore, patriarch may mean something between the two halves, but within itself is becoming meaningless.

In other words, the pope has disavowed the title Patriarch of the West.
...only until re-union with the Orthodox, probably.
Logged

If you will, you can become all flame.
Extra caritatem nulla salus.
In order to become whole, take the "I" out of "holiness".
सर्वभूतहित
Ἄνω σχῶμεν τὰς καρδίας
"Those who say religion has nothing to do with politics do not know what religion is." -- Mohandas Gandhi
Y dduw bo'r diolch.
Jetavan
Argumentum ad australopithecum
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Science to the Fourth Power
Jurisdiction: Ohayo Gozaimasu
Posts: 6,580


Barlaam and Josaphat


WWW
« Reply #11 on: September 20, 2010, 04:14:34 PM »

On the Latin "rector":

Quote
Even Wikipedia concedes that the word Rector means "teacher" and is used in largely academic contexts.

Indeed it provides a list of such titles now in use which are virtually ALL in an academic context.

This simply re-inforces my point.

The use of the term is now in the context of a teacher or an administrator of an academic establishment. That, in turn, is because the meaning ascribed to the word over successive centuries by the Church was largely spiritual, didactic and only administrative in an ancillary sense.

Moreover, Wikipedia is hardly the last word on the meaning of ecclesiastical Latin.

It is in the ecclesiastical sense that the word is meant to be understood and that is why it is akin to the Rector of a church.

The Pope is Rector of the world in the same way that a Parish Priest is Rector of his parish and church. There are elements of temporal authority, inevitably, but the principal role is as a spiritual, not a temporal, governor.
Logged

If you will, you can become all flame.
Extra caritatem nulla salus.
In order to become whole, take the "I" out of "holiness".
सर्वभूतहित
Ἄνω σχῶμεν τὰς καρδίας
"Those who say religion has nothing to do with politics do not know what religion is." -- Mohandas Gandhi
Y dduw bo'r diolch.
Jetavan
Argumentum ad australopithecum
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Science to the Fourth Power
Jurisdiction: Ohayo Gozaimasu
Posts: 6,580


Barlaam and Josaphat


WWW
« Reply #12 on: September 20, 2010, 04:18:03 PM »

So I came across the words which at least according to Wikipedia were used when new pope was crowned with papal tiara:

Quote from: Wikipedia
When popes were crowned, the following words were used:

 Accipe tiaram tribus coronis ornatam, et scias te esse Patrem Principum et Regnum, Rectorem Orbis, in terra Vicarium Salvatoris Nostri Jesu Christi, cui est honor et gloria in sæcula sæculorum.
    (Receive the tiara adorned with three crowns and know that thou art Father of Princes and Kings, Ruler of the World, Vicar of Our Savior Jesus Christ in earth, to whom is honor and glory in the ages of ages.)

Firstly, is this really accurate?  If so, what that means? Is pope also a sovereing according to RCC?
The last Pope to be crowned with a tiara, and the last Pope to have the above sentence recited as part of his coronation, was Paul VI.
Logged

If you will, you can become all flame.
Extra caritatem nulla salus.
In order to become whole, take the "I" out of "holiness".
सर्वभूतहित
Ἄνω σχῶμεν τὰς καρδίας
"Those who say religion has nothing to do with politics do not know what religion is." -- Mohandas Gandhi
Y dduw bo'r diolch.
Aindriú
Faster! Funnier!
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Cynical
Jurisdiction: Vestibule of Hell
Posts: 3,918



WWW
« Reply #13 on: September 20, 2010, 05:21:29 PM »

But, what is it meant by "ruler of the world"? Taken as it is, it is an even stronger claim than "ruler of the church".

Is it? Ruler of the church is God. The pope is supposed to be the "vicar of Christ" in this world. Therefore, he is only pope of the church in this world.
Logged


I'm going to need this.
samkim
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian Orthodox Christian Archdiocese of North America
Posts: 735



« Reply #14 on: September 20, 2010, 05:41:54 PM »

The Latin word translated as "Ruler" is "Rector."
Logged

주 예수 그리스도 하느님의 아들이시여 저 이 죄인을 불쌍히 여기소서.
Aindriú
Faster! Funnier!
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Cynical
Jurisdiction: Vestibule of Hell
Posts: 3,918



WWW
« Reply #15 on: September 20, 2010, 05:54:30 PM »

The Latin word translated as "Ruler" is "Rector."

rector -oris m. [ruler , governor, director, guide]

So, whatever it is, it depends on the person's translation.
Logged


I'm going to need this.
biro
Excelsior
Site Supporter
Warned
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox
Posts: 13,645


Και κλήρονομον δείξον με, ζωής της αιωνίου

fleem
WWW
« Reply #16 on: September 20, 2010, 06:26:33 PM »

Oh, dear. I think it is possible to let us wander into possibilities more appropriate to a Dan Brown or Tom Clancy novel. I'm pretty sure the Roman Pope still also receives the title, Servant of the Servants of God. Now there's one.  Smiley Some of the Anglicans still have a clerical title, Rector. Will we ask them to abandon this term as well?

When I was in the Roman Catholic Church, I didn't spend much time sitting around feeling that the Pope was coming to get me or anything. I guess it looks different from one side than from the other.  Undecided For all the vaunted 'big words' in some of the titles, it may be noted that some of them go back a very long time, to days when the world was very different - when it was comprised largely of monarchies, and the language of the church wasn't much different from that of the state. Today there are more democracies, and other types of governments, so the older terms have fallen into disuse. Yet some of the church language survives on paper. (Every once in a while, when I read a history book, I'll learn about a Czar being called 'His Most Serene Orthodox Majesty.' There aren't czars today, but that's one of the things they used to call them. Or words to that effect.)

I'm not sure that, for all the worries, the Pope's use of 'ruler' or 'rector,' if that's what he means by it, is to be taken as so daunting. I was taught that Rector means second place priest in a parish (the junior priest to the pastor). This would then be a reference, in fact, to the fact that the Pope is under Christ spiritually as leader of the Church. So if all he's saying is assistant parish priest to the whole world, the power theories fall flat, don't they?  Huh  

Today, the Vatican City is the size of a fraction of Rome. It is filled with nuns and archbishops, and couldn't invade the rest of Rome if it tried. I don't think the Pope actually expects all the Christians on the planet to listen to him and do what he says. I mean, surely he knows that they don't. He has to know that. He's not sitting there confounded that only his church members read his encyclicals or something. It just doesn't make sense in a practical way.

If there ever comes a time for greater administrative or ecclesiastical union of the different churches, then perhaps things like this may be taken care of. Now, however, it won't be my top worry.
« Last Edit: September 20, 2010, 06:27:45 PM by biro » Logged

Charlie Rose: If you could change one thing about the world, what would it be?

Fran Lebowitz: Everything. There is not one thing with which I am satisfied.

http://spcasuncoast.org/
Paisius
Warned
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Wherever the wind blows......
Posts: 929


Reframed


« Reply #17 on: September 20, 2010, 10:01:42 PM »

But, what is it meant by "ruler of the world"? Taken as it is, it is an even stronger claim than "ruler of the church".

Whatever it means the title is certainly no more grandiose than the full title of the Pope of Alexandria.  Wink
Logged

"Government is the great fiction, through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else." - Frédéric Bastiat
Alpo
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Jerkodox
Posts: 6,801



« Reply #18 on: September 21, 2010, 07:41:07 AM »

So I came across the words which at least according to Wikipedia were used when new pope was crowned with papal tiara:

Quote from: Wikipedia
When popes were crowned, the following words were used:

 Accipe tiaram tribus coronis ornatam, et scias te esse Patrem Principum et Regnum, Rectorem Orbis, in terra Vicarium Salvatoris Nostri Jesu Christi, cui est honor et gloria in sæcula sæculorum.
    (Receive the tiara adorned with three crowns and know that thou art Father of Princes and Kings, Ruler of the World, Vicar of Our Savior Jesus Christ in earth, to whom is honor and glory in the ages of ages.)

Firstly, is this really accurate?  If so, what that means? Is pope also a sovereing according to RCC?
The last Pope to be crowned with a tiara, and the last Pope to have the above sentence recited as part of his coronation, was Paul VI.

It doesn't really matter whether it is used anymore or not. If it was part of the liturgical tradition of the Latin church the substance of the title must still be part of RC faith even though it is not used anymore. Or otherwise RC faith has changed after pope Paul IV and I don't quite think that RCs feel comfortable with that idea. Wink

That being said, I'm not trying to dig out some weirdo conspiracy theories like Dan Brown. I'm just curious.
« Last Edit: September 21, 2010, 07:48:20 AM by Alpo » Logged

Mardukm
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Coptic
Posts: 423


« Reply #19 on: September 21, 2010, 08:15:34 AM »

Dear brother Alpo

It doesn't really matter whether it is used anymore or not. If it was part of the liturgical tradition of the Latin church the substance of the title must still be part of RC faith even though it is not used anymore. Or otherwise RC faith has changed after pope Paul IV and I don't quite think that RCs feel comfortable with that idea. Wink

That being said, I'm not trying to dig out some weirdo conspiracy theories like Dan Brown. I'm just curious.
We can't lose sight of the fact that the primary definition of rector in Latin is "guide." Someone above gave a definition and placed "ruler" as first on the list.  That is misleading (though I'm sure it was not his intention).  If rector is translated as "ruler", it is always in the sense of "guide," not in the sense of "monarch." Other common synonyms of rector in medieval Latin are "director," "helmsman," "moderator," and "instructor." That range of definitions gives you an idea of what the word really means in Latin, and what the Latin Church means when she uses the word.

Blessings,
Marduk
Logged
Alpo
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Jerkodox
Posts: 6,801



« Reply #20 on: September 21, 2010, 08:25:25 AM »

That makes sense. Thank you for the explanation, Marduk. Smiley
Logged

Aindriú
Faster! Funnier!
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Cynical
Jurisdiction: Vestibule of Hell
Posts: 3,918



WWW
« Reply #21 on: September 21, 2010, 09:21:22 AM »

We can't lose sight of the fact that the primary definition of rector in Latin is "guide." Someone above gave a definition and placed "ruler" as first on the list.  That is misleading (though I'm sure it was not his intention).  If rector is translated as "ruler", it is always in the sense of "guide," not in the sense of "monarch." Other common synonyms of rector in medieval Latin are "director," "helmsman," "moderator," and "instructor." That range of definitions gives you an idea of what the word really means in Latin, and what the Latin Church means when she uses the word.

Blessings,
Marduk

Yes, the definition was obviously grabbed from a dictionary. Hense the masculine symbol. Therefore, I will agree and disagree with your assessment.

As far as primary definitions. The best way to read a definition is often to read ALL translations and take that concept in your mind. While rector could be used 'rector navis' for helmsman or steersman, it's meaning is meant more as a benevolent leader. Id est, a rector is like the teacher in a grade school class or, better yet, the principle. The rector is in charge, but who's duty is to lead (guide).

This is in contrast with imperator. Imperator is also a ruler. However, an imperator rules with strength. Think empire or imperial.
Logged


I'm going to need this.
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #22 on: September 21, 2010, 09:36:39 AM »

Consulting my old Lewis and Short Latin Dictionary (prodigiously heavy, even with two hands) I see that one of the primary meanings is the leader of an army of the governor general of a province.   I suspect that it is in this sense it is used as one of the Pope's defunct titles.
Logged
Iconodule
Uranopolitan
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA (Diocese of Eastern Pennsylvania)
Posts: 7,014


"My god is greater."


« Reply #23 on: September 21, 2010, 09:42:28 AM »

Consulting my old Lewis and Short Latin Dictionary (prodigiously heavy, even with two hands) I see that one of the primary meanings is the leader of an army of the governor general of a province.

Voivod?
Logged

"A riddle or the cricket's cry
Is to doubt a fit reply." - William Blake
Mardukm
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Coptic
Posts: 423


« Reply #24 on: September 21, 2010, 10:19:47 AM »

Dearest Father Ambrose,

Consulting my old Lewis and Short Latin Dictionary (prodigiously heavy, even with two hands) I see that one of the primary meanings is the leader of an army of the governor general of a province.   I suspect that it is in this sense it is used as one of the Pope's defunct titles.
Lewis and Short specifically states that the definitions you gave are figurative meanings.  So I wouldn't attach the word "primary" to them.

In line with Azurestone's explanation, what comes to mind is St. John Chrysostom's statement that while St. James was the bishop of Jerusalem, St. Peter was the teacher of the world.  I believe it should be understood in that sense.  I don't recall the Pope ever having claimed to have secular dominion over the world (which seems to be what you are implying).  Historically, his secular dominion has only been the papal states.  So the "of the world" must refer to something other than secular power.

Humbly,
Marduk
Logged
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #25 on: September 21, 2010, 10:35:23 AM »

Dearest Father Ambrose,

Consulting my old Lewis and Short Latin Dictionary (prodigiously heavy, even with two hands) I see that one of the primary meanings is the leader of an army of the governor general of a province.   I suspect that it is in this sense it is used as one of the Pope's defunct titles.

Lewis and Short specifically states that the definitions you gave are figurative meanings.


No.

Impression of 1962, London, p.1562
Logged
Fabio Leite
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 3,162



WWW
« Reply #26 on: September 21, 2010, 10:44:29 AM »

I like the idea of rector as the principal of a school. It just came to my mind that the head of a university can be called "Rector".

I think the term clarifies how the RC has deviated of the Catholic tradition about the primate.

The title of rector, clearly, shows the primate as head of the Church, seeing the Church as a school.

At the same time, the primate was the bishop of Rome and is now the bishop of Constantinople. What does this tell about how this school is organized?

A common rector, generally speaking, administrates over *all* the university. The directors of each faculty and other academic authorities are a committee or council over which the rector presides with authority, but not absolute authority. The head of the Law Faculty has full autonomy in his college and the interference of the rector is limited.

Now, one important factor is that usually, the rector is *not* the head of any faculty. He may have been, but, in the universities I have known, he has to leave the position as head of a faculty to become the rector of the university.

An administrative structure wherein one of the heads of the faculty is chosen as rector is definetely a *consiliary* administrative organization, where the counsil is highest authority and one of the counsil members holds presiding power over *the counsil*, not over the faculties themselves. The only faculty he is responsible for is his own.

This seems to be the case of the Church "first among equals". Each diocese is a university with its own director. The council of the Church is like the International Association of Universities. The primate is the president of this association, but not an universal principal for every university, college and faculty in the world. This seems to fit exactly what Justinian (and Phocas I guess) meant when they said that the Roman bishops were head of the *bishops* and of the *churches* and not head of the Church.

The "according to the whole" tradition also means that. The Church, with capital letter, has as its sole visible and invisible rector, the Incarnated and Resurrected Son of God, Our Lord Jesus Christ. Each church "iconizes" and actualizes that by being a local school with its own rector, the bishop, and faculty principals, the priests, and teachers, deacons (one cannot avoid to notice that liturgically, deacons were supposed to do most of the "talking", with comparatively fewer interventions of the priest. Priests only sing most of the liturgy because of the lack of deacons).

If the bishops are the "rectors" of the "universities", the Archbishops and Metropolitans are like the presidents of the regional "associations" of universities, although, they are rectors themselves. Likewise, the primate, the first among equals, is a rector to whom was given the honour of being the "president" of the "international association of universities". In practice, he manages his own university only. But is also the president of an international association of leaders. These regional and international associations, however, are not universities. The university only exists locally, with its head-rector. They are communication, exchange tools through which the various universities, each one "according to the whole", can improve their work, defend against common enemies and have some unity of action in the world.
Logged

Many Energies, Three Persons, Two Natures, One God.
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #27 on: September 21, 2010, 10:46:45 AM »



I don't recall the Pope ever having claimed to have secular dominion over the world (which seems to be what you are implying).


Oh, he could certainly dominate the secular world,.  You will remember that he was able to dethrone kings and princes who would not allow the Inquisition to operate in their domains.   I have always, although an Irishman, been proud that England told him to take a running hike on this score.

And of course there is our ancient enemy Unam Sanctam which subjects secular powers to the Pope's authority.
Logged
Mardukm
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Coptic
Posts: 423


« Reply #28 on: September 21, 2010, 11:02:37 AM »

Dearest Father Ambrose,


Impression of 1962, London, p.1562
Mine's the 1998 edition.  New, improved scholarship.  I'll trust mine. if you don't mind. Smiley

Humbly,
Marduk

Logged
theistgal
Byzantine (Ruthenian) Catholic gadfly
Site Supporter
Archon
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Follower of Jesus Christ
Jurisdiction: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 2,082


don't even go there!


« Reply #29 on: September 21, 2010, 11:12:20 AM »

Perhaps the best wayto interpret it would be to study history (study? eek! Cheesy ) and see how it actually played out in real life situations.
Logged

"Sometimes, you just gotta say, 'OK, I still have nine live, two-headed animals' and move on.'' (owner of Coney Island freak show, upon learning he'd been outbid on a 5-legged puppy)
Mardukm
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Coptic
Posts: 423


« Reply #30 on: September 21, 2010, 11:23:33 AM »

I don't recall the Pope ever having claimed to have secular dominion over the world (which seems to be what you are implying).

Oh, he could certainly dominate the secular world,.  You will remember that he was able to dethrone kings and princes who would not allow the Inquisition to operate in their domains.   I have always, although an Irishman, been proud that England told him to take a running hike on this score.
Do you have any sources to support those claims (1- that he threatened to dethrone kings who would not allow the Inquisition; 2) that England told him to take a hike)?  By the way, the Pope never had the authority to dethrone kings and princes. His sole authority was religious - he had the authority to excommunicate them. I believe your hierarchs excommunicated secular officials in the history of the Russian Church.  Is there a difference, aside from the context of a religious society during medieval Europe?

Quote
And of course there is our ancient enemy Unam Sanctam which subjects secular powers to the Pope's authority.
Luckily, that portion was not infallibly proclaimed.

Humbly,
Marduk
Logged
Aindriú
Faster! Funnier!
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Cynical
Jurisdiction: Vestibule of Hell
Posts: 3,918



WWW
« Reply #31 on: September 21, 2010, 11:24:02 AM »

Perhaps the best wayto interpret it would be to study history (study? eek! Cheesy )

Fail.  Grin
Logged


I'm going to need this.
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #32 on: September 21, 2010, 11:40:39 AM »

Quote
Fr Ambrose: Excuse me, Mardukm, but this "crazy" view was the official teaching of the Popes for many centuries. They claimed the right to depose rulers and to dispense people from their loyalty to the monarch and government. If they did not get their way they placed the whole country under Interdict. It was sheer blackmail on the part of the Pontiffs.

Quote
Mardukm: I deny that it was the official teaching of the Popes. I admit that it was the practice of several Popes. Officially speaking, the best reference I can think of is Unam Sanctam, but it does not make any claim about the deposing power. It does state that the religious power has the right to establish the secular power, but this was nothing more than what any secular power was willing to admit at the time..... etc.

The Forum has limits as to how much can be quoted from other sites so to see more please go to message 274 here
Logged
biro
Excelsior
Site Supporter
Warned
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox
Posts: 13,645


Και κλήρονομον δείξον με, ζωής της αιωνίου

fleem
WWW
« Reply #33 on: September 21, 2010, 12:06:41 PM »

Oh, he could certainly dominate the secular world,.  You will remember that he was able to dethrone kings and princes who would not allow the Inquisition to operate in their domains.

Hundreds of years ago.   Roll Eyes  The Inquisition is over.


Quote
I have always, although an Irishman, been proud that England told him to take a running hike on this score.

I'm Irish on my father's side, but I can't agree with you there. There was the sacking of the monasteries. As for objecting to foreign religious leaders, what do we do about, er, the Apostles and Jesus?  Huh

Quote
And of course there is our ancient enemy Unam Sanctam which subjects secular powers to the Pope's authority.


Oh, goodness. Did someone invent a time machine, and I missed it? Sigh...  Roll Eyes Some people are determined to be afraid of something, no matter how it plays out in reality. When I was a kid, I was afraid of the dark because I thought there was a 'monster' in the corner of my room. I went to look. It turned out to be a jacket I left on the side of a lamp. Outside of some bad potboiler which they may sell in airport lounges, I don't think the Pope has any bizarre political plans. This reminds me of the stories my parents used to tell, about the people who were afraid to vote for John Kennedy because he would (supposedly) be loyal to a dreaded foreign religious leader.  Roll Eyes The stereotypes and fears about Catholics and the Pope just got up to ridiculous levels.

Today, the Vatican City is literally one of the tiniest 'countries' in the world. It is in fact encompassed by another city. If the leaders of other churches wish to call a conference and discuss with the Pope the need for dismissal of certain old claims, titles and anything else which is objectionable, they may do so. Talk to a priest, write to your bishop. Why not try? If it worries you that much, it'd be something to do.
« Last Edit: September 21, 2010, 12:07:14 PM by biro » Logged

Charlie Rose: If you could change one thing about the world, what would it be?

Fran Lebowitz: Everything. There is not one thing with which I am satisfied.

http://spcasuncoast.org/
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #34 on: September 21, 2010, 12:09:31 PM »

Dearest Father Ambrose,


Impression of 1962, London, p.1562
Mine's the 1998 edition.  New, improved scholarship.  I'll trust mine. if you don't mind. Smiley


There must have been a massive upsurge in Latin scholarship between 1962 and 1998.   Was it discovered that the use of the word 'rector' in reference to leaders of armies and such as governors general of provinces was merely figurative?

I am puzzled though how one can be a "figurative" leader of an army?  or a "figurative" governor of a province?


Logged
biro
Excelsior
Site Supporter
Warned
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox
Posts: 13,645


Και κλήρονομον δείξον με, ζωής της αιωνίου

fleem
WWW
« Reply #35 on: September 21, 2010, 12:11:25 PM »

When was the last time a Pope actually led an army?

I repeat: does someone have a time machine I don't know about?   Huh

 Roll Eyes
Logged

Charlie Rose: If you could change one thing about the world, what would it be?

Fran Lebowitz: Everything. There is not one thing with which I am satisfied.

http://spcasuncoast.org/
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #36 on: September 21, 2010, 12:16:35 PM »

Oh, he could certainly dominate the secular world,.  You will remember that he was able to dethrone kings and princes who would not allow the Inquisition to operate in their domains.

Hundreds of years ago.   Roll Eyes  The Inquisition is over.


Quote
I have always, although an Irishman, been proud that England told him to take a running hike on this score.

I'm Irish on my father's side, but I can't agree with you there. There was the sacking of the monasteries. As for objecting to foreign religious leaders, what do we do about, er, the Apostles and Jesus?  Huh

Quote
And of course there is our ancient enemy Unam Sanctam which subjects secular powers to the Pope's authority.


Oh, goodness. Did someone invent a time machine, and I missed it? Sigh...  Roll Eyes Some people are determined to be afraid of something, no matter how it plays out in reality. When I was a kid, I was afraid of the dark because I thought there was a 'monster' in the corner of my room. I went to look. It turned out to be a jacket I left on the side of a lamp. Outside of some bad potboiler which they may sell in airport lounges, I don't think the Pope has any bizarre political plans. This reminds me of the stories my parents used to tell, about the people who were afraid to vote for John Kennedy because he would (supposedly) be loyal to a dreaded foreign religious leader.  Roll Eyes The stereotypes and fears about Catholics and the Pope just got up to ridiculous levels.

Today, the Vatican City is literally one of the tiniest 'countries' in the world. It is in fact encompassed by another city. If the leaders of other churches wish to call a conference and discuss with the Pope the need for dismissal of certain old claims, titles and anything else which is objectionable, they may do so. Talk to a priest, write to your bishop. Why not try? If it worries you that much, it'd be something to do.

Theistgal has a good answer, in message 29.
Logged
biro
Excelsior
Site Supporter
Warned
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox
Posts: 13,645


Και κλήρονομον δείξον με, ζωής της αιωνίου

fleem
WWW
« Reply #37 on: September 21, 2010, 12:21:12 PM »

I have studied history. And the Inquisition has, still, been over for hundreds of years.

When was the last time a Pope physically led an army?

Do you not know, or did you build something that would put H.G. Wells to shame?

 Huh

Logged

Charlie Rose: If you could change one thing about the world, what would it be?

Fran Lebowitz: Everything. There is not one thing with which I am satisfied.

http://spcasuncoast.org/
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #38 on: September 21, 2010, 12:27:42 PM »

When was the last time a Pope actually led an army?

I repeat: does someone have a time machine I don't know about?   Huh

 Roll Eyes

The last time the Pope went to war was about 140 years ago, the time of my great grandparents.  Pope Pius IX went to war against the State of Italy and appealed to the Catholic nations of Spain and France to assist his army by attacking Italy also.   To his bitter disappointment they refused to send armies to fight for him.

When Pope Pius IX lost that war and lost his sovereignty over the Papal States, he became the "prisoner of the Vatican" - not something he chose out of love for holy reclusion but because he feared to be assassinated on the streets of Rome by the fathers and brothers of those killed by the papal army.
Logged
biro
Excelsior
Site Supporter
Warned
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox
Posts: 13,645


Και κλήρονομον δείξον με, ζωής της αιωνίου

fleem
WWW
« Reply #39 on: September 21, 2010, 12:35:01 PM »

So, 140 years ago.

That's the best you can come up with.

That Pope is no longer hiding from anyone, would-be assassins or otherwise. He is deceased.

One hundred forty years ago. Wow.

And I was scared of the shadow of a jacket.  Shocked
Logged

Charlie Rose: If you could change one thing about the world, what would it be?

Fran Lebowitz: Everything. There is not one thing with which I am satisfied.

http://spcasuncoast.org/
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #40 on: September 21, 2010, 12:43:47 PM »

Here is the army for the spiritual "Conquest of Holy Mother Russia."

"Eastern Europe... Ready... Set....!

"The fall of the Iron Curtain has given the Church greater freedom of movement. The first to respond to the opportunity have been the religious orders. Their destination: the former Catholic nations. Their dream: to "conquer" Holy Mother Russia."


We are still seen as fodder for conversion. 



March, 1990 issue of the Catholic magazine 30 Days.
30 Days is one of Italy's best Catholic magazines and has a worldwide distribution in several languages.
Logged
Mardukm
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Coptic
Posts: 423


« Reply #41 on: September 21, 2010, 12:44:02 PM »

Dearest Father Ambrose,

There must have been a massive upsurge in Latin scholarship between 1962 and 1998.   Was it discovered that the use of the word 'rector' in reference to leaders of armies and such as governors general of provinces was merely figurative?

I am puzzled though how one can be a "figurative" leader of an army?  or a "figurative" governor of a province?
I don’t know if it’s because you’re Irish, or because of New Zealand culture, but you seem to have a rather different understanding of the English word “figurative” than I do.

Permit me to explain my understanding of the term via example.

Suppose I have a fat friend.  One day I say, “You are an elephant.”  Of course, he is not really an elephant, but there is something about my friend that makes him similar to the literal meaning of the word “elephant.”  Thus, I have used the word “elephant” figuratively.

Another way to look at it is suppose you went to look for the definition of the word “elephant” in the dictionary.  You find the entry, and you see as one of the definitions, “fat boy,” with a (fig.) next to it indicating that this is a figurative understanding of the word.  This means that “fat boy” is not the primary or literal definition or usage of the word “elephant,” but is rather a figurative usage of it.

Now let’s relate this to our discussion.  You look up the word “rector” in the dictionary, and you find that one of the definitions is “military leader” with a (fig.) next to it (in Lewis & Short, it’s actually (trop.)).  This means that “military leader” is not the primary or literal definition or usage of the word “rector,” but the figurative usage.  Someone may use the word “rector” when they are referring to a “military leader” only because there is something about a military leader that is similar to the literal meaning of the word “rector.”

Hope that helps.

Humbly,
Marduk
Logged
Mardukm
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Coptic
Posts: 423


« Reply #42 on: September 21, 2010, 12:48:29 PM »

Dearest Father Ambrose,

When was the last time a Pope actually led an army?

I repeat: does someone have a time machine I don't know about?   Huh
 Roll Eyes
The last time the Pope went to war was about 140 years ago, the time of my great grandparents.  Pope Pius IX went to war against the State of Italy and appealed to the Catholic nations of Spain and France to assist his army by attacking Italy also.   To his bitter disappointment they refused to send armies to fight for him.

When Pope Pius IX lost that war and lost his sovereignty over the Papal States, he became the "prisoner of the Vatican" - not something he chose out of love for holy reclusion but because he feared to be assassinated on the streets of Rome by the fathers and brothers of those killed by the papal army.
Huh Huh Huh
I believe the question was, “When was the last time the Pope led an army?” not, “when was the last time the Pope requested assistance from the secular powers?”

Seriously, is our English different from the English you speak over there in New Zealand?

Logged
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #43 on: September 21, 2010, 12:50:18 PM »

So, 140 years ago.

That's the best you can come up with.

You must be very young.  These were the 1870s, my great grandparents were alive.
Logged
Iconodule
Uranopolitan
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA (Diocese of Eastern Pennsylvania)
Posts: 7,014


"My god is greater."


« Reply #44 on: September 21, 2010, 12:50:34 PM »

I am puzzled though how one can be a "figurative" leader of an army?  or a "figurative" governor of a province?

Not to defend any Popery, but.... http://logismoitouaaron.blogspot.com/2009/04/dracula-orthodox-hymnography.html
Logged

"A riddle or the cricket's cry
Is to doubt a fit reply." - William Blake
biro
Excelsior
Site Supporter
Warned
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox
Posts: 13,645


Και κλήρονομον δείξον με, ζωής της αιωνίου

fleem
WWW
« Reply #45 on: September 21, 2010, 12:51:59 PM »

You must be very young.  These were the 1870s, my great grandparents were alive.

I am under 140.

Logged

Charlie Rose: If you could change one thing about the world, what would it be?

Fran Lebowitz: Everything. There is not one thing with which I am satisfied.

http://spcasuncoast.org/
Mardukm
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Coptic
Posts: 423


« Reply #46 on: September 21, 2010, 12:54:44 PM »

Here is the army for the spiritual "Conquest of Holy Mother Russia."
From Popes leading armies in the 19th century to spiritual conquests in the 20th. A bit of a leap.

Quote
We are still seen as fodder for conversion.
Really?  When did the Russian Orthodox Church officially change its name to “Holy Mother Russia?”  Inquiring minds want to know!

Quote
30 Days is one of Italy's best Catholic magazines and has a worldwide distribution in several languages.
And the relevance?
Logged
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #47 on: September 21, 2010, 12:55:47 PM »

Dearest Father Ambrose,

When was the last time a Pope actually led an army?

I repeat: does someone have a time machine I don't know about?   Huh
 Roll Eyes
The last time the Pope went to war was about 140 years ago, the time of my great grandparents.  Pope Pius IX went to war against the State of Italy and appealed to the Catholic nations of Spain and France to assist his army by attacking Italy also.   To his bitter disappointment they refused to send armies to fight for him.

When Pope Pius IX lost that war and lost his sovereignty over the Papal States, he became the "prisoner of the Vatican" - not something he chose out of love for holy reclusion but because he feared to be assassinated on the streets of Rome by the fathers and brothers of those killed by the papal army.
Huh Huh Huh
I believe the question was, “When was the last time the Pope led an army?” not, “when was the last time the Pope requested assistance from the secular powers?”

Seriously, is our English different from the English you speak over there in New Zealand?



I believe the last time the Pope led an army was when Pius IX ordered his army to fight the army of Italy.  Of course, that may be only a "figurative " leading as also the deaths of the young Italian men, victims of papal ambition and political stupidity.
Logged
Aindriú
Faster! Funnier!
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Cynical
Jurisdiction: Vestibule of Hell
Posts: 3,918



WWW
« Reply #48 on: September 21, 2010, 12:59:47 PM »

*figurative popcorn*
Logged


I'm going to need this.
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #49 on: September 21, 2010, 01:05:40 PM »

Dearest Father Ambrose,

There must have been a massive upsurge in Latin scholarship between 1962 and 1998.   Was it discovered that the use of the word 'rector' in reference to leaders of armies and such as governors general of provinces was merely figurative?

I am puzzled though how one can be a "figurative" leader of an army?  or a "figurative" governor of a province?
I don’t know if it’s because you’re Irish, or because of New Zealand culture, but you seem to have a rather different understanding of the English word “figurative” than I do.

Permit me to explain my understanding of the term via example.

Suppose I have a fat friend.  One day I say, “You are an elephant.”  Of course, he is not really an elephant, but there is something about my friend that makes him similar to the literal meaning of the word “elephant.”  Thus, I have used the word “elephant” figuratively.

Another way to look at it is suppose you went to look for the definition of the word “elephant” in the dictionary.  You find the entry, and you see as one of the definitions, “fat boy,” with a (fig.) next to it indicating that this is a figurative understanding of the word.  This means that “fat boy” is not the primary or literal definition or usage of the word “elephant,” but is rather a figurative usage of it.

Now let’s relate this to our discussion.  You look up the word “rector” in the dictionary, and you find that one of the definitions is “military leader” with a (fig.) next to it (in Lewis & Short, it’s actually (trop.)).  This means that “military leader” is not the primary or literal definition or usage of the word “rector,” but the figurative usage.  Someone may use the word “rector” when they are referring to a “military leader” only because there is something about a military leader that is similar to the literal meaning of the word “rector.”

Hope that helps.

Humbly,
Marduk


Thank you, that is now quite clear.

Have you looked at Icondule's link which shows an icon of the Mother of God as a military rector?  Figurative or not, I do not know. 
Logged
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #50 on: September 21, 2010, 01:10:02 PM »

We are still seen as fodder for conversion.
Really?  When did the Russian Orthodox Church officially change its name to “Holy Mother Russia?”  Inquiring minds want to know!

Good grief!  I was taking it to mean that the Vatican desires to bring the Russian Orthodox Church into submission.  Are you saying that in fact it is the entire country they desire to subjugate?
Logged
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,866



« Reply #51 on: September 21, 2010, 01:24:16 PM »

Dearest Father Ambrose,

When was the last time a Pope actually led an army?

I repeat: does someone have a time machine I don't know about?   Huh
 Roll Eyes
The last time the Pope went to war was about 140 years ago, the time of my great grandparents.  Pope Pius IX went to war against the State of Italy and appealed to the Catholic nations of Spain and France to assist his army by attacking Italy also.   To his bitter disappointment they refused to send armies to fight for him.

When Pope Pius IX lost that war and lost his sovereignty over the Papal States, he became the "prisoner of the Vatican" - not something he chose out of love for holy reclusion but because he feared to be assassinated on the streets of Rome by the fathers and brothers of those killed by the papal army.
Huh Huh Huh
I believe the question was, “When was the last time the Pope led an army?” not, “when was the last time the Pope requested assistance from the secular powers?”

Seriously, is our English different from the English you speak over there in New Zealand?


If we are going to be picky, when did a pope of Rome ever lead an army?  No pope I can recall led the Crusaders, but they sacked all the Eastern sees (except Alexandria, but that was not from lack of trying) in the name of the supreme pontiff, who implemented the innovative ideology behind Pastor Aeternus to install Latin "patriarchs" on the Orthodox cathedras.

IIRC, the Vatican took sides in the Spanish Civil War.  As I pointed out on the CAF thread, Comrade Stalin and the Bolsheviks found out the hard way that the pope didn't need any legions.
Logged

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

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Wherever the wind blows......
Posts: 929


Reframed


« Reply #52 on: September 21, 2010, 01:26:06 PM »

You must be very young.  These were the 1870s, my great grandparents were alive.


I am young and mine were alive too. Think about it, my dad knew people who were alive when these events occurred.  Shocked
Logged

"Government is the great fiction, through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else." - Frédéric Bastiat
Mardukm
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Coptic
Posts: 423


« Reply #53 on: September 21, 2010, 01:27:55 PM »

Dearest Father Ambrose.

Dearest Father Ambrose,

When was the last time a Pope actually led an army?

I repeat: does someone have a time machine I don't know about?   Huh
 Roll Eyes
The last time the Pope went to war was about 140 years ago, the time of my great grandparents.  Pope Pius IX went to war against the State of Italy and appealed to the Catholic nations of Spain and France to assist his army by attacking Italy also.   To his bitter disappointment they refused to send armies to fight for him.

When Pope Pius IX lost that war and lost his sovereignty over the Papal States, he became the "prisoner of the Vatican" - not something he chose out of love for holy reclusion but because he feared to be assassinated on the streets of Rome by the fathers and brothers of those killed by the papal army.
Huh Huh Huh
I believe the question was, “When was the last time the Pope led an army?” not, “when was the last time the Pope requested assistance from the secular powers?”

Seriously, is our English different from the English you speak over there in New Zealand?



I believe the last time the Pope led an army was when Pius IX ordered his army to fight the army of Italy.  Of course, that may be only a "figurative " leading as also the deaths of the young Italian men, victims of papal ambition and political stupidity.
As a Russian Orthodox, I don't think you want to go there.  Just a humble suggestion.

Humbly,
Marduk
Logged
danman916
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Roman Catholic
Posts: 80


« Reply #54 on: September 21, 2010, 04:00:51 PM »

Here is the army for the spiritual "Conquest of Holy Mother Russia."

"Eastern Europe... Ready... Set....!

"The fall of the Iron Curtain has given the Church greater freedom of movement. The first to respond to the opportunity have been the religious orders. Their destination: the former Catholic nations. Their dream: to "conquer" Holy Mother Russia."


We are still seen as fodder for conversion. 



March, 1990 issue of the Catholic magazine 30 Days.
30 Days is one of Italy's best Catholic magazines and has a worldwide distribution in several languages.


You offer this as proof? A page from a MAGAZINE?
You've got to be kidding, Father Ambrose. You do no favors for yourself to be taken seriously when you offer such silliness as this and try to pass off a magazine article as an arm of the Pope.
Just more polemical rhetoric...
Logged
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,192


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #55 on: September 21, 2010, 04:28:50 PM »

Here is the army for the spiritual "Conquest of Holy Mother Russia."

"Eastern Europe... Ready... Set....!

"The fall of the Iron Curtain has given the Church greater freedom of movement. The first to respond to the opportunity have been the religious orders. Their destination: the former Catholic nations. Their dream: to "conquer" Holy Mother Russia."


We are still seen as fodder for conversion. 



March, 1990 issue of the Catholic magazine 30 Days.
30 Days is one of Italy's best Catholic magazines and has a worldwide distribution in several languages.


You offer this as proof? A page from a MAGAZINE?
You've got to be kidding, Father Ambrose. You do no favors for yourself to be taken seriously when you offer such silliness as this and try to pass off a magazine article as an arm of the Pope.
Just more polemical rhetoric...

Father A's specialty.
Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,866



« Reply #56 on: September 21, 2010, 05:27:02 PM »

Dearest Father Ambrose.

Dearest Father Ambrose,

When was the last time a Pope actually led an army?

I repeat: does someone have a time machine I don't know about?   Huh
 Roll Eyes
The last time the Pope went to war was about 140 years ago, the time of my great grandparents.  Pope Pius IX went to war against the State of Italy and appealed to the Catholic nations of Spain and France to assist his army by attacking Italy also.   To his bitter disappointment they refused to send armies to fight for him.

When Pope Pius IX lost that war and lost his sovereignty over the Papal States, he became the "prisoner of the Vatican" - not something he chose out of love for holy reclusion but because he feared to be assassinated on the streets of Rome by the fathers and brothers of those killed by the papal army.
Huh Huh Huh
I believe the question was, “When was the last time the Pope led an army?” not, “when was the last time the Pope requested assistance from the secular powers?”

Seriously, is our English different from the English you speak over there in New Zealand?



I believe the last time the Pope led an army was when Pius IX ordered his army to fight the army of Italy.  Of course, that may be only a "figurative " leading as also the deaths of the young Italian men, victims of papal ambition and political stupidity.
As a Russian Orthodox, I don't think you want to go there.  Just a humble suggestion.

Humbly,
Marduk
Well, I'm not Russian Orthodox. Where do you want to take this fellow Egyptian?
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,866



« Reply #57 on: September 21, 2010, 05:29:58 PM »

I don't recall the Pope ever having claimed to have secular dominion over the world (which seems to be what you are implying).

Oh, he could certainly dominate the secular world,.  You will remember that he was able to dethrone kings and princes who would not allow the Inquisition to operate in their domains.   I have always, although an Irishman, been proud that England told him to take a running hike on this score.
Do you have any sources to support those claims (1- that he threatened to dethrone kings who would not allow the Inquisition; 2) that England told him to take a hike)?  By the way, the Pope never had the authority to dethrone kings and princes. His sole authority was religious - he had the authority to excommunicate them. I believe your hierarchs excommunicated secular officials in the history of the Russian Church.  Is there a difference, aside from the context of a religious society during medieval Europe?

Quote
And of course there is our ancient enemy Unam Sanctam which subjects secular powers to the Pope's authority.
Luckily, that portion was not infallibly proclaimed.

Humbly,
Marduk
How is this not ex cathedra?
Quote
Urged by faith, we are obliged to believe and to maintain that the Church is one, holy, catholic, and also apostolic. We believe in her firmly and we confess with simplicity that outside of her there is neither salvation nor the remission of sins, as the Spouse in the Canticles [Sgs 6:8] proclaims: 'One is my dove, my perfect one. She is the only one, the chosen of her who bore her,' and she represents one sole mystical body whose Head is Christ and the head of Christ is God [1 Cor 11:3]. In her then is one Lord, one faith, one baptism [Eph 4:5]. There had been at the time of the deluge only one ark of Noah, prefiguring the one Church, which ark, having been finished to a single cubit, had only one pilot and guide, i.e., Noah, and we read that, outside of this ark, all that subsisted on the earth was destroyed.

We venerate this Church as one, the Lord having said by the mouth of the prophet: 'Deliver, O God, my soul from the sword and my only one from the hand of the dog.' [Ps 21:20] He has prayed for his soul, that is for himself, heart and body; and this body, that is to say, the Church, He has called one because of the unity of the Spouse, of the faith, of the sacraments, and of the charity of the Church. This is the tunic of the Lord, the seamless tunic, which was not rent but which was cast by lot [Jn 19:23-24]. Therefore, of the one and only Church there is one body and one head, not two heads like a monster; that is, Christ and the Vicar of Christ, Peter and the successor of Peter, since the Lord speaking to Peter Himself said: 'Feed my sheep' [Jn 21:17], meaning, my sheep in general, not these, nor those in particular, whence we understand that He entrusted all to him [Peter]. Therefore, if the Greeks or others should say that they are not confided to Peter and to his successors, they must confess not being the sheep of Christ, since Our Lord says in John 'there is one sheepfold and one shepherd.' We are informed by the texts of the gospels that in this Church and in its power are two swords; namely, the spiritual and the temporal. For when the Apostles say: 'Behold, here are two swords' [Lk 22:38] that is to say, in the Church, since the Apostles were speaking, the Lord did not reply that there were too many, but sufficient. Certainly the one who denies that the temporal sword is in the power of Peter has not listened well to the word of the Lord commanding: 'Put up thy sword into thy scabbard' [Mt 26:52]. Both, therefore, are in the power of the Church, that is to say, the spiritual and the material sword, but the former is to be administered _for_ the Church but the latter by the Church; the former in the hands of the priest; the latter by the hands of kings and soldiers, but at the will and sufferance of the priest.

However, one sword ought to be subordinated to the other and temporal authority, subjected to spiritual power. For since the Apostle said: 'There is no power except from God and the things that are, are ordained of God' [Rom 13:1-2], but they would not be ordained if one sword were not subordinated to the other and if the inferior one, as it were, were not led upwards by the other.

For, according to the Blessed Dionysius, it is a law of the divinity that the lowest things reach the highest place by intermediaries. Then, according to the order of the universe, all things are not led back to order equally and immediately, but the lowest by the intermediary, and the inferior by the superior. Hence we must recognize the more clearly that spiritual power surpasses in dignity and in nobility any temporal power whatever, as spiritual things surpass the temporal. This we see very clearly also by the payment, benediction, and consecration of the tithes, but the acceptance of power itself and by the government even of things. For with truth as our witness, it belongs to spiritual power to establish the terrestrial power and to pass judgement if it has not been good. Thus is accomplished the prophecy of Jeremias concerning the Church and the ecclesiastical power: 'Behold to-day I have placed you over nations, and over kingdoms' and the rest. Therefore, if the terrestrial power err, it will be judged by the spiritual power; but if a minor spiritual power err, it will be judged by a superior spiritual power; but if the highest power of all err, it can be judged only by God, and not by man, according to the testimony of the Apostle: 'The spiritual man judgeth of all things and he himself is judged by no man' [1 Cor 2:15]. This authority, however, (though it has been given to man and is exercised by man), is not human but rather divine, granted to Peter by a divine word and reaffirmed to him (Peter) and his successors by the One Whom Peter confessed, the Lord saying to Peter himself, 'Whatsoever you shall bind on earth, shall be bound also in Heaven' etc., [Mt 16:19]. Therefore whoever resists this power thus ordained by God, resists the ordinance of God [Rom 13:2], unless he invent like Manicheus two beginnings, which is false and judged by us heretical, since according to the testimony of Moses, it is not in the beginnings but in the beginning that God created heaven and earth [Gen 1:1]. Furthermore, we declare, we proclaim, we define that it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff.
http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/b8-unam.html

Cf.Ineffabilis Deus: "We declare, pronounce, and define that....is a doctrine revealed by God and therefore to be believed firmly and constantly by all the faithful."

Pastor Aeternus: "We teach and define...So then, should anyone, which God forbid, have the temerity to reject this definition of ours: let him be anathema."

Munificentissimus Deus:  "By the authority of our Lord Jesus Christ, of the Blessed Apostles Peter and Paul, and by our own authority, we pronounce, declare, and define...Hence if anyone, which God forbid, should dare willfully to deny or to call into doubt that which we have defined, let him know that he has fallen away completely from the divine and Catholic Faith.'

In repsonse, Jean of Paris wrote  De potestate regia et papali (which also stated a pope could be deposed for heresy). In response, and in confirmation of Unam Sanctam, Pope Boniface VII excommunicated the king of France. Sounds rather official.
Logged

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

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: ROCOR
Posts: 1,202



« Reply #58 on: September 21, 2010, 06:06:30 PM »

I don't recall the Pope ever having claimed to have secular dominion over the world (which seems to be what you are implying).

Oh, he could certainly dominate the secular world,.  You will remember that he was able to dethrone kings and princes who would not allow the Inquisition to operate in their domains.   I have always, although an Irishman, been proud that England told him to take a running hike on this score.
Do you have any sources to support those claims (1- that he threatened to dethrone kings who would not allow the Inquisition; 2) that England told him to take a hike)?  By the way, the Pope never had the authority to dethrone kings and princes. His sole authority was religious - he had the authority to excommunicate them. I believe your hierarchs excommunicated secular officials in the history of the Russian Church.  Is there a difference, aside from the context of a religious society during medieval Europe?

Quote
And of course there is our ancient enemy Unam Sanctam which subjects secular powers to the Pope's authority.
Luckily, that portion was not infallibly proclaimed.

Humbly,
Marduk
How is this not ex cathedra?
Quote
Urged by faith, we are obliged to believe and to maintain that the Church is one, holy, catholic, and also apostolic. We believe in her firmly and we confess with simplicity that outside of her there is neither salvation nor the remission of sins, as the Spouse in the Canticles [Sgs 6:8] proclaims: 'One is my dove, my perfect one. She is the only one, the chosen of her who bore her,' and she represents one sole mystical body whose Head is Christ and the head of Christ is God [1 Cor 11:3]. In her then is one Lord, one faith, one baptism [Eph 4:5]. There had been at the time of the deluge only one ark of Noah, prefiguring the one Church, which ark, having been finished to a single cubit, had only one pilot and guide, i.e., Noah, and we read that, outside of this ark, all that subsisted on the earth was destroyed.

We venerate this Church as one, the Lord having said by the mouth of the prophet: 'Deliver, O God, my soul from the sword and my only one from the hand of the dog.' [Ps 21:20] He has prayed for his soul, that is for himself, heart and body; and this body, that is to say, the Church, He has called one because of the unity of the Spouse, of the faith, of the sacraments, and of the charity of the Church. This is the tunic of the Lord, the seamless tunic, which was not rent but which was cast by lot [Jn 19:23-24]. Therefore, of the one and only Church there is one body and one head, not two heads like a monster; that is, Christ and the Vicar of Christ, Peter and the successor of Peter, since the Lord speaking to Peter Himself said: 'Feed my sheep' [Jn 21:17], meaning, my sheep in general, not these, nor those in particular, whence we understand that He entrusted all to him [Peter]. Therefore, if the Greeks or others should say that they are not confided to Peter and to his successors, they must confess not being the sheep of Christ, since Our Lord says in John 'there is one sheepfold and one shepherd.' We are informed by the texts of the gospels that in this Church and in its power are two swords; namely, the spiritual and the temporal. For when the Apostles say: 'Behold, here are two swords' [Lk 22:38] that is to say, in the Church, since the Apostles were speaking, the Lord did not reply that there were too many, but sufficient. Certainly the one who denies that the temporal sword is in the power of Peter has not listened well to the word of the Lord commanding: 'Put up thy sword into thy scabbard' [Mt 26:52]. Both, therefore, are in the power of the Church, that is to say, the spiritual and the material sword, but the former is to be administered _for_ the Church but the latter by the Church; the former in the hands of the priest; the latter by the hands of kings and soldiers, but at the will and sufferance of the priest.

However, one sword ought to be subordinated to the other and temporal authority, subjected to spiritual power. For since the Apostle said: 'There is no power except from God and the things that are, are ordained of God' [Rom 13:1-2], but they would not be ordained if one sword were not subordinated to the other and if the inferior one, as it were, were not led upwards by the other.

For, according to the Blessed Dionysius, it is a law of the divinity that the lowest things reach the highest place by intermediaries. Then, according to the order of the universe, all things are not led back to order equally and immediately, but the lowest by the intermediary, and the inferior by the superior. Hence we must recognize the more clearly that spiritual power surpasses in dignity and in nobility any temporal power whatever, as spiritual things surpass the temporal. This we see very clearly also by the payment, benediction, and consecration of the tithes, but the acceptance of power itself and by the government even of things. For with truth as our witness, it belongs to spiritual power to establish the terrestrial power and to pass judgement if it has not been good. Thus is accomplished the prophecy of Jeremias concerning the Church and the ecclesiastical power: 'Behold to-day I have placed you over nations, and over kingdoms' and the rest. Therefore, if the terrestrial power err, it will be judged by the spiritual power; but if a minor spiritual power err, it will be judged by a superior spiritual power; but if the highest power of all err, it can be judged only by God, and not by man, according to the testimony of the Apostle: 'The spiritual man judgeth of all things and he himself is judged by no man' [1 Cor 2:15]. This authority, however, (though it has been given to man and is exercised by man), is not human but rather divine, granted to Peter by a divine word and reaffirmed to him (Peter) and his successors by the One Whom Peter confessed, the Lord saying to Peter himself, 'Whatsoever you shall bind on earth, shall be bound also in Heaven' etc., [Mt 16:19]. Therefore whoever resists this power thus ordained by God, resists the ordinance of God [Rom 13:2], unless he invent like Manicheus two beginnings, which is false and judged by us heretical, since according to the testimony of Moses, it is not in the beginnings but in the beginning that God created heaven and earth [Gen 1:1]. Furthermore, we declare, we proclaim, we define that it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff.
http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/b8-unam.html


Wow, Your Holiness, that's some really interesting scriptural interpretation there...

Freakin' scary
« Last Edit: September 21, 2010, 06:09:21 PM by JLatimer » Logged

1 Samuel 25:22 (KJV)
So and more also do God unto the enemies of David, if I leave of all that pertain to him by the morning light any that pisseth against the wall.
JLatimer
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: ROCOR
Posts: 1,202



« Reply #59 on: September 21, 2010, 06:15:17 PM »

Quote
but if the highest power of all err, it can be judged only by God, and not by man, according to the testimony of the Apostle...

I guess that settles the anathematizing the pope thread. What's weird is that it implies the pope can err; it's just that you can't do anything about it if he does lol
Logged

1 Samuel 25:22 (KJV)
So and more also do God unto the enemies of David, if I leave of all that pertain to him by the morning light any that pisseth against the wall.
Deacon Lance
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Jurisdiction: Archeparchy of Pittsburgh
Posts: 2,928


Liturgy at Mt. St. Macrina Pilgrimage


« Reply #60 on: September 21, 2010, 06:23:45 PM »

The Pope has disavowed the title Patriarch of the West.
Well, he took it off the list of titles because it's no longer historically relevent but that doesn't mean that he is not the Patriarch of the West.

So the "list of titles" is a list of "historically relevant" titles and not a list of things the pope actually is (or claims to be)? If he's the Patriarch of the West, why would he bother to take it off the list? And how is that title irrelevant?

The Vatican issued this statement:

"From a historical perspective," the communique reads as reported by the Vatican Information Service, "the ancient patriarchates of the East, defined by the Councils of Constantinople (381) and of Chalcedon (451), covered a fairly clearly demarcated territory. At the same time, the territory of the see of the bishop of Rome remained somewhat vague. In the East, under the ecclesiastical imperial system of Justinian (527-565), alongside the four Eastern patriarchates (Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch and Jerusalem), the pope was included as the patriarch of the West. Rome, on the other hand, favored the idea of the three Petrine episcopal sees: Rome, Alexandria and Antioch. Without using the title 'patriarch of the West,' the Fourth Council of Constantinople (869-870), the Fourth Lateran Council (1215) and the Council of Florence (1439), listed the pope as the first of the then five patriarchs.

"The title 'patriarch of the West' was adopted in the year 642 by Pope Theodore. Thereafter it appeared only occasionally and did not have a clear meaning. It flourished in the 16th and 17th centuries, in the context of a general increase in the pope's titles, and appeared for the first time in the Annuario Pontificio in 1863."

The term 'West' currently refers to a cultural context not limited only to Western Europe but including North America, Australia and New Zealand, thus differentiating itself from other cultural contexts, says the communique. "If we wished to give the term 'West' a meaning applicable to ecclesiastical juridical language, it could be understood only in reference to the Latin church."

"The title 'patriarch of the West,' never very clear, over history has become obsolete and practically unusable. It seems pointless, then, to insist on maintaining it. Even more so now that the Catholic Church, with Vatican Council II, has found, in the form of episcopal conferences and their international meetings, the canonical structure best suited to the needs of the Latin church today."

"Abandoning the title of 'patriarch of the West' clearly does not alter in any way the recognition of the ancient patriarchal churches, so solemnly declared by Vatican Council II,” the statement said. “The renouncement of this title aims to express a historical and theological reality, and at the same time... could prove useful to ecumenical dialogue."

Logged

My cromulent posts embiggen this forum.
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,192


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #61 on: September 21, 2010, 09:17:33 PM »

I am puzzled though how one can be a "figurative" leader of an army?  or a "figurative" governor of a province?

Not to defend any Popery, but.... http://logismoitouaaron.blogspot.com/2009/04/dracula-orthodox-hymnography.html
Ha! I have never seen a modern use of the term "Popery". That's awesome.
Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
Aindriú
Faster! Funnier!
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Cynical
Jurisdiction: Vestibule of Hell
Posts: 3,918



WWW
« Reply #62 on: September 21, 2010, 09:33:54 PM »

I am puzzled though how one can be a "figurative" leader of an army?  or a "figurative" governor of a province?

Not to defend any Popery, but.... http://logismoitouaaron.blogspot.com/2009/04/dracula-orthodox-hymnography.html
Ha! I have never seen a modern use of the term "Popery". That's awesome.

My mother used to keep a jar of popery around the house. I never thought it smelled that good. Oh, wait... nevermind.
Logged


I'm going to need this.
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,192


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #63 on: September 21, 2010, 10:39:17 PM »

I have ambitions to some day be ruler of the world. Wink
Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
ChristusDominus
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Latin Rite
Posts: 936


Saint Aloysius Gonzaga


« Reply #64 on: September 21, 2010, 11:53:01 PM »

I have ambitions to some day be ruler of the world. Wink
I'll vote for you. What the heck  Smiley
Logged

There is no more evident sign that anyone is a saint and of the number of the elect, than to see him leading a good life and at the same time a prey to desolation, suffering, and trials. - Saint Aloysius Gonzaga
Melodist
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: The Faith That Established The Universe
Jurisdiction: AOANA
Posts: 2,523



« Reply #65 on: September 22, 2010, 12:01:30 AM »

I have ambitions to some day be ruler of the world. Wink

You have some competition.

Logged

And FWIW, these are our Fathers too, you know.

Made Perfect in Weakness - Latest Post: The Son of God
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,192


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #66 on: September 22, 2010, 11:25:25 PM »

I have ambitions to some day be ruler of the world. Wink

You have some competition.


What makes you think that's not me? Wink
Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
Mardukm
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Coptic
Posts: 423


« Reply #67 on: September 22, 2010, 11:28:35 PM »

We are still seen as fodder for conversion.
Really?  When did the Russian Orthodox Church officially change its name to “Holy Mother Russia?”  Inquiring minds want to know!

Good grief!  I was taking it to mean that the Vatican desires to bring the Russian Orthodox Church into submission.  Are you saying that in fact it is the entire country they desire to subjugate?
Grin  Cheesy  Cheesy
That's a good one.  Your wit is as good as ever. I like.

Humbly,
Marduk
Logged
Mardukm
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Coptic
Posts: 423


« Reply #68 on: September 22, 2010, 11:36:09 PM »

Dearest Father Ambrose,

When was the last time a Pope actually led an army?

I repeat: does someone have a time machine I don't know about?   Huh
 Roll Eyes
The last time the Pope went to war was about 140 years ago, the time of my great grandparents.  Pope Pius IX went to war against the State of Italy and appealed to the Catholic nations of Spain and France to assist his army by attacking Italy also.   To his bitter disappointment they refused to send armies to fight for him.

When Pope Pius IX lost that war and lost his sovereignty over the Papal States, he became the "prisoner of the Vatican" - not something he chose out of love for holy reclusion but because he feared to be assassinated on the streets of Rome by the fathers and brothers of those killed by the papal army.
Huh Huh Huh
I believe the question was, “When was the last time the Pope led an army?” not, “when was the last time the Pope requested assistance from the secular powers?”

Seriously, is our English different from the English you speak over there in New Zealand?


If we are going to be picky, when did a pope of Rome ever lead an army?
Pope Julius II

Quote
No pope I can recall led the Crusaders, but they sacked all the Eastern sees (except Alexandria, but that was not from lack of trying) in the name of the supreme pontiff, who implemented the innovative ideology behind Pastor Aeternus to install Latin "patriarchs" on the Orthodox cathedras.
That’s a bunch of non-sequiturs stringed together to result in a non-sensical statement.

Quote
IIRC, the Vatican took sides in the Spanish Civil War.
And your point?  Never mind.  The only point of 99% of your posts is to put down the Catholic Church, even while neglecting the log in your own eye.

Blessings
Logged
podkarpatska
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: ACROD
Posts: 8,477


Pokrov


WWW
« Reply #69 on: September 23, 2010, 10:38:37 AM »

You must be very young.  These were the 1870s, my great grandparents were alive.

I am under 140.



From an historical perspective, 140 years ago is not a long time and it certainly is within the second hand narrative of lives in being. For example,I remember when I was young and my Aunt from Tennessee would relate how the surviving Confederate soldiers would assemble in Chattanooga to commemorate a great battle from the American Civil War. I thought she must have been as ancient as the Romans. My father would relate how the nation remembered the seventy-fifth anniversary of the battle of Gettysburg in 1938. Today, almost seventy years from Pearl Harbor, today's children are seeing the same thing with the aging survivors of the Second World War and forming their own memories from the still-living narrative. My point is that what seems frozen in the distant past can, and most likely is, directly relevant to our current situation in the world or in a culture. In order to fully understand the present times, you have to know about the world that preceded us.
Logged
Carl Kraeff (Second Chance)
Warned
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 6,833



« Reply #70 on: September 23, 2010, 03:41:08 PM »

I had read a post on some blog (I forget which--old age I guess) that related an ironic early development. It seems that the Emperor had called the Patriarch of Constantinople "the Universal Pontiff' or such. The Bishop of Rome was Saint Gregory the Great who vehemently objected to the notion that any Patriarch, including himself, can be called such a thing and that creating such a super category of bishop undermined the Church. Of course, later things were reversed, with our Catholic brothers and sisters insisting that the Universal Primacy of the Pope originated from the get go. I suppose St. Gregory must be turning over in his grave any time that he reads some of our posts.
Logged

Michal: "SC, love you in this thread."
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,128



« Reply #71 on: July 05, 2011, 10:49:31 PM »

It seems that I missed a lot of interesting threads during my years I was away from this forum.

Can anyone explain the thing about "Luckily, that portion was not infallibly proclaimed" to me? Is that anything like being lucky not to be immune to the chicken pox virus?
Logged

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

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,128



« Reply #72 on: July 05, 2011, 10:52:01 PM »

Dearest Father Ambrose,

When was the last time a Pope actually led an army?

I repeat: does someone have a time machine I don't know about?   Huh
 Roll Eyes
The last time the Pope went to war was about 140 years ago, the time of my great grandparents.  Pope Pius IX went to war against the State of Italy and appealed to the Catholic nations of Spain and France to assist his army by attacking Italy also.   To his bitter disappointment they refused to send armies to fight for him.

When Pope Pius IX lost that war and lost his sovereignty over the Papal States, he became the "prisoner of the Vatican" - not something he chose out of love for holy reclusion but because he feared to be assassinated on the streets of Rome by the fathers and brothers of those killed by the papal army.
Huh Huh Huh
I believe the question was, “When was the last time the Pope led an army?” not, “when was the last time the Pope requested assistance from the secular powers?”

Seriously, is our English different from the English you speak over there in New Zealand?


If we are going to be picky, when did a pope of Rome ever lead an army?
Pope Julius II

Quote
No pope I can recall led the Crusaders, but they sacked all the Eastern sees (except Alexandria, but that was not from lack of trying) in the name of the supreme pontiff, who implemented the innovative ideology behind Pastor Aeternus to install Latin "patriarchs" on the Orthodox cathedras.
That’s a bunch of non-sequiturs stringed together to result in a non-sensical statement.

Quote
IIRC, the Vatican took sides in the Spanish Civil War.
And your point?  Never mind.  The only point of 99% of your posts is to put down the Catholic Church, even while neglecting the log in your own eye.

Blessings

Interesting. I wonder what the point of the other 1% is.
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #73 on: July 05, 2011, 11:13:34 PM »


It seems that I missed a lot of interesting threads during my years I was away from this forum.
Can anyone explain the thing about "Luckily, that portion was not infallibly proclaimed" to me? Is that anything like being lucky not to be immune to the chicken pox virus?


I think Mardukm said that we were lucky that the part of "Unam Sanctam" where the Apostle Peter states through his 194th embodiment that he is the ruler of the secular powers of the world was not claimed as an infallible statement.   To this day Catholics are uncertain whether the Pope may dethrone the English Queen or deprive Obama of his office.  Learned theologians look at "Unam Sanctam" and argue both ways while the one man who knows stays silent.

Infallible statements are marvellous things.    The document may consist of several pages but only one particular sentence will actually be the infallible one and all the rest is really only supporting verbiage.  To find the one infallible sentence you have to know that it will be introduced by certain key phrases.
Logged
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,128



« Reply #74 on: July 05, 2011, 11:48:14 PM »

But, you see, infallibility is basically immunity to incorrectness. That's why I asked if  "Luckily, that portion was not infallibly proclaimed" is like being lucky not to be immune to the chicken pox virus.
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #75 on: July 06, 2011, 01:12:26 AM »

But, you see, infallibility is basically immunity to incorrectness. That's why I asked if  "Luckily, that portion was not infallibly proclaimed" is like being lucky not to be immune to the chicken pox virus.

Papal Bulls etc. seem rather like the Curate's Egg.  The bishop said to the poor young curate who was trying to eat an obviously bad egg... "I'm sorry to see you've got a bad egg."  "Not at all, Your Grace," says the curate, "parts of it are quite good."

Logged
Tags:
Pages: 1 2 All   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.18 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.255 seconds with 103 queries.