OrthodoxChristianity.net
December 19, 2014, 06:39:32 PM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Reminder: No political discussions in the public fora.  If you do not have access to the private Politics Forum, please send a PM to Fr. George.
 
   Home   Help Calendar Contact Treasury Tags Login Register  
Pages: 1 2 »  All   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Eastern Catholic Ecclesiology  (Read 4707 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Aindriú
Faster! Funnier!
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

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



WWW
« on: November 02, 2010, 06:00:29 PM »

As I said in the previous post, the Easten Catholics are members of the Catholic Church, therefore it has every authority.

You confuse Orthodox ecclesiology with Catholic. They aren't separate churches in communion, they are separate traditions in one Church.


I'm sorry my friend but that is just wrong.

Perhaps my wording was too strong. However, the Catholic Church can impose disciplines on all it's parts. Why do you disagree with this?

Because we, eastern Catholics, are sister Churches in communion with Rome.  It is what the Anglo-Catholics wanted as well and may have yet.  But for now it is the personal prelature and the Vatican will not impose its will over that of the Anglo-Catholic Prelate.  The generations of heavy-handedness are gone for better or worse but they are gone, transformed.  The centuries where the Roman Church was near equivalent to the Roman Rite were few and they were an anomaly in the universal Church.

You may check with any canonist you like for corroboration.

M.

Interesting. Looks like I've got it wrong.
No you didn't have it wrong.

There seems to be a disagreement, even among Catholics about the role of Catholic hierarchy and authority as it relates to the respective members/churches underneath the Catholic 'umbrella'. I had doubt as to my understanding when elijahmaria (an Eastern Catholic) denied my understanding in support of the position of Paisius.

With the disagreement, I am curious as to learn if perhaps we are talking past each other, and not really about the aspect, or if one of us truly doesn't understand the authority of the Catholic Church.
Logged


I'm going to need this.
Deacon Lance
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Jurisdiction: Archeparchy of Pittsburgh
Posts: 3,050


Liturgy at Mt. St. Macrina Pilgrimage


« Reply #1 on: November 02, 2010, 06:43:04 PM »

Catholic Teaching and Canon Law is quite clear that the One Church is made up of several Particular Churches.  Each Church has its own tradition and discipline which is to be respected.  Without rejecting the Pope's primacy I do reject the notion he can arbitrarily substitute the Latin Church's discipline and tradition for an Eastern Church's authentic ones.  The OCA and ACROD are prime examples of what happens when Rome has tried this.
Logged

My cromulent posts embiggen this forum.
Aindriú
Faster! Funnier!
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

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



WWW
« Reply #2 on: November 02, 2010, 06:48:32 PM »

Catholic Teaching and Canon Law is quite clear that the One Church is made up of several Particular Churches.  Each Church has its own tradition and discipline which is to be respected.  Without rejecting the Pope's primacy I do reject the notion he can arbitrarily substitute the Latin Church's discipline and tradition for an Eastern Church's authentic ones.  The OCA and ACROD are prime examples of what happens when Rome has tried this.

Can or should? Is it canonically possible to do so, but managerially asinine?
Logged


I'm going to need this.
Deacon Lance
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Jurisdiction: Archeparchy of Pittsburgh
Posts: 3,050


Liturgy at Mt. St. Macrina Pilgrimage


« Reply #3 on: November 02, 2010, 07:15:14 PM »

Catholic Teaching and Canon Law is quite clear that the One Church is made up of several Particular Churches.  Each Church has its own tradition and discipline which is to be respected.  Without rejecting the Pope's primacy I do reject the notion he can arbitrarily substitute the Latin Church's discipline and tradition for an Eastern Church's authentic ones.  The OCA and ACROD are prime examples of what happens when Rome has tried this.

Can or should? Is it canonically possible to do so, but managerially asinine?

I would hold that his primacy does not give him the right to do so.  Has he in the past? Yes.  Will he do so in the future? No, because it would be a PR disaster as well as inviting schism.
Logged

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

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,417


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #4 on: November 02, 2010, 07:24:29 PM »

Catholic Teaching and Canon Law is quite clear that the One Church is made up of several Particular Churches.  Each Church has its own tradition and discipline which is to be respected.  Without rejecting the Pope's primacy I do reject the notion he can arbitrarily substitute the Latin Church's discipline and tradition for an Eastern Church's authentic ones.  The OCA and ACROD are prime examples of what happens when Rome has tried this.

Can or should? Is it canonically possible to do so, but managerially asinine?
I think he can. The question is should he? Probably not.
Logged

You are right. I apologize for having sacked Constantinople. I really need to stop doing that.
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #5 on: November 02, 2010, 08:26:52 PM »

Catholic Teaching and Canon Law is quite clear that the One Church is made up of several Particular Churches.  Each Church has its own tradition and discipline which is to be respected.  Without rejecting the Pope's primacy I do reject the notion he can arbitrarily substitute the Latin Church's discipline and tradition for an Eastern Church's authentic ones.  The OCA and ACROD are prime examples of what happens when Rome has tried this.

Can or should? Is it canonically possible to do so, but managerially asinine?

It is not canonically possible for the Pope or any of his delegates to impose their will upon a sister Church.  That was not always the case, during those years when eastern Catholics were seen as rites within the Catholic Church, rather than as Churches in communion with Rome.

There was then, essentially, an ad hoc arrangement that indicated that in the home countries, eastern Catholic bishops ruled, but in the diaspora, priests had to yield to the local Roman rite Ordinary.

The then Roman rite was seen as superior to all other rites and Roman rite bishops behaved accordingly.

With the eventual recognition of eastern Catholic confessions as particular Churches all that changed and has become more clearly formalized, but the process is far from finished and, as we saw during the mid-east synodal meeting, as Deacon Lance has noted, there is still much that needs to be formalized.

So it was a gradual process of union, betrayal on the part of both eastern and western bishops, and finally acceptance and positive action, but the lived reality and the formal and canonical position never quite kept pace with life, and that is where you find the confusion and the heartbreak and the breakdown of much that should have been very straightforward from the beginning.

There's more I want to say but it is late and my eyes get tired looking at the monitor at my typing   Smiley

You must understand that I am phrasing all of this very idiosyncratically, but the essential elements are true, if not in precise ecclesial language.

M.

Logged

ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Moderated
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: 38,135



« Reply #6 on: November 02, 2010, 10:46:43 PM »

Catholic Teaching and Canon Law is quite clear that the One Church is made up of several Particular Churches.  Each Church has its own tradition and discipline which is to be respected.  Without rejecting the Pope's primacy I do reject the notion he can arbitrarily substitute the Latin Church's discipline and tradition for an Eastern Church's authentic ones.  The OCA and ACROD are prime examples of what happens when Rome has tried this.

Can or should? Is it canonically possible to do so, but managerially asinine?

It is not canonically possible for the Pope or any of his delegates to impose their will upon a sister Church. 

There is no such thing as sister churches under Mother Vatican.  Only daughters.

And you haven't read your "apostolic constitutions," code of canon law etc.  Your supreme pontiff is fully impowered to impose his will. It has happened and does happen all the time.

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

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #7 on: November 02, 2010, 11:20:29 PM »

Catholic Teaching and Canon Law is quite clear that the One Church is made up of several Particular Churches.  Each Church has its own tradition and discipline which is to be respected.  Without rejecting the Pope's primacy I do reject the notion he can arbitrarily substitute the Latin Church's discipline and tradition for an Eastern Church's authentic ones.  The OCA and ACROD are prime examples of what happens when Rome has tried this.

Can or should? Is it canonically possible to do so, but managerially asinine?

It is not canonically possible for the Pope or any of his delegates to impose their will upon a sister Church. 

There is no such thing as sister churches under Mother Vatican.  Only daughters.

And you haven't read your "apostolic constitutions," code of canon law etc.  Your supreme pontiff is fully impowered to impose his will. It has happened and does happen all the time.


You have no idea how to read or interpret Catholic Canon law or you would not say many of the false things you say against the papacy.  I have friends who are canonists, family who are canonists, and formal training in canon law and you are not a competent witness at all.

There are texts in the apostolic constitution and in the canons that limit the papacy to certain acts and certain procedures and sequences of activities.

His power is not absolute and does not replace the power of the local ordinary.

Most Orthodox would be shocked at the absolute power of Catholic bishops.  Those are the ones you should fear.  Not the papacy.

You need to humbly accept your ignorance and open your mind to reality if you wish to continue to speak substantively about the Catholic Church.

The pope has the power to call a council, to call a bishop to come to him and speak to him privately.  He does not need to ask permission to do either one of those things.

Once he has called a council or summoned a bishop, then the due process of the REST of the canons apply to him as much as anyone else...except for the bishops, who are above the law, according to the law.  According to the apostolic constitution, the power of the pope does not replace or substitute for the power of the local ordinary.

BTW, you also have no idea whatsoever about the canonical category of "office" in the Catholic Church. 

Parish pastors are also an ecclesial "office." 

You don't have the interest or inclination or integrity to do the kind of hard work necessary to actual learn the truth about the Catholic Church.  You are an exceptionally incredible opponent of the Church.

Cordially,

Mary
Logged

ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Moderated
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: 38,135



« Reply #8 on: November 03, 2010, 12:29:34 AM »

Catholic Teaching and Canon Law is quite clear that the One Church is made up of several Particular Churches.  Each Church has its own tradition and discipline which is to be respected.  Without rejecting the Pope's primacy I do reject the notion he can arbitrarily substitute the Latin Church's discipline and tradition for an Eastern Church's authentic ones.  The OCA and ACROD are prime examples of what happens when Rome has tried this.

Can or should? Is it canonically possible to do so, but managerially asinine?

It is not canonically possible for the Pope or any of his delegates to impose their will upon a sister Church. 

There is no such thing as sister churches under Mother Vatican.  Only daughters.

And you haven't read your "apostolic constitutions," code of canon law etc.  Your supreme pontiff is fully impowered to impose his will. It has happened and does happen all the time.


You have no idea how to read or interpret Catholic Canon law or you would not say many of the false things you say against the papacy. 

LOL. Yes, the fact that I do not accept the Vatican's claims proves I do not understand them. Roll Eyes

I can read Latin. I understand them quite fine. I just has no need nor inclination to apply the corban of the scholatics.

Quote
I have friends who are canonists, family who are canonists, and formal training in canon law and you are not a competent witness at all.

Is that what your unnamed friends and family say?

Texts are rather straight forward.  Casuitry is what requires formal training.

There are texts in the apostolic constitution and in the canons that limit the papacy to certain acts and certain procedures and sequences of activities.

Quote
His power is not absolute and does not replace the power of the local ordinary.

Somewhere here I posted the pertinent points of Lumen Gentium.

Quote
Most Orthodox would be shocked at the absolute power of Catholic bishops.  Those are the ones you should fear.  Not the papacy.

Well, not having either in the Church, we don't have to fear either as long as we keep such Ultramontanist at arms (or longer) length.

Quote
You need to humbly accept your ignorance and open your mind to reality if you wish to continue to speak substantively about the Catholic Church.

Toeing the Vatican's party line isn't speaking substantively about its ecclesiastical community, let alone the Catholic Church.

The pope has the power to call a council, to call a bishop to come to him and speak to him privately.  He does not need to ask permission to do either one of those things.

Quote
Once he has called a council or summoned a bishop, then the due process of the REST of the canons apply to him as much as anyone else...except for the bishops, who are above the law, according to the law.  According to the apostolic constitution, the power of the pope does not replace or substitute for the power of the local ordinary

If a bishop dies or is removed during a council, nothing happens. With a demise of the tiara, the council is dissolved.  Doesn't seem "as much as anyone else" because it is not.

Quote
BTW, you also have no idea whatsoever about the canonical category of "office" in the Catholic Church. 


That the Vatican is confused in its ecclesiology, sacramentology etc. gives no idea that I don't know what an office is.  The Patriarchate is an office. The Metropolitanate is an office. The Archbishoprick is an office. But the episcopacy is an order. Hence "Holy Orders."

Quote
Parish pastors are also an ecclesial "office." 


What charism do you claim for it?

Quote
You don't have the interest or inclination or integrity to do the kind of hard work necessary to actual learn the truth about the Catholic Church.

I have. That's why I have embraced her Orthodox Faith.

Quote
You are an exceptionally incredible opponent of the Church.

I am an obeident son of the Church. I am an opponent to the Ultramontanist ecclesiastical community, and other heresies.
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
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #9 on: November 03, 2010, 08:52:44 AM »

When you seek to control a debate you must first grasp the terms of the debate and control their meaning.  That is why you must name as casuistry all attempts at reclamation of meaning by the opposing viewpoint.   The same thing occurs to you when you are so challenged by Protestants who would call your own attempts to present Orthodox meaning as false and misleading and duplicitous.

In real life however there are more honest attempts at real understanding at work between our two confessions, so it is really only necessary to point out here for the record what the truth is, in reality, and move on till the next opportunity presents itself.

It is not casuistry for a Church to define the truths of her being and her faith.  It is an injustice to deny her that opportunity.

Catholic Teaching and Canon Law is quite clear that the One Church is made up of several Particular Churches.  Each Church has its own tradition and discipline which is to be respected.  Without rejecting the Pope's primacy I do reject the notion he can arbitrarily substitute the Latin Church's discipline and tradition for an Eastern Church's authentic ones.  The OCA and ACROD are prime examples of what happens when Rome has tried this.

Can or should? Is it canonically possible to do so, but managerially asinine?

It is not canonically possible for the Pope or any of his delegates to impose their will upon a sister Church. 

There is no such thing as sister churches under Mother Vatican.  Only daughters.

And you haven't read your "apostolic constitutions," code of canon law etc.  Your supreme pontiff is fully impowered to impose his will. It has happened and does happen all the time.


You have no idea how to read or interpret Catholic Canon law or you would not say many of the false things you say against the papacy. 

LOL. Yes, the fact that I do not accept the Vatican's claims proves I do not understand them. Roll Eyes

I can read Latin. I understand them quite fine. I just has no need nor inclination to apply the corban of the scholatics.

Quote
I have friends who are canonists, family who are canonists, and formal training in canon law and you are not a competent witness at all.

Is that what your unnamed friends and family say?

Texts are rather straight forward.  Casuitry is what requires formal training.

There are texts in the apostolic constitution and in the canons that limit the papacy to certain acts and certain procedures and sequences of activities.

Quote
His power is not absolute and does not replace the power of the local ordinary.

Somewhere here I posted the pertinent points of Lumen Gentium.

Quote
Most Orthodox would be shocked at the absolute power of Catholic bishops.  Those are the ones you should fear.  Not the papacy.

Well, not having either in the Church, we don't have to fear either as long as we keep such Ultramontanist at arms (or longer) length.

Quote
You need to humbly accept your ignorance and open your mind to reality if you wish to continue to speak substantively about the Catholic Church.

Toeing the Vatican's party line isn't speaking substantively about its ecclesiastical community, let alone the Catholic Church.

The pope has the power to call a council, to call a bishop to come to him and speak to him privately.  He does not need to ask permission to do either one of those things.

Quote
Once he has called a council or summoned a bishop, then the due process of the REST of the canons apply to him as much as anyone else...except for the bishops, who are above the law, according to the law.  According to the apostolic constitution, the power of the pope does not replace or substitute for the power of the local ordinary

If a bishop dies or is removed during a council, nothing happens. With a demise of the tiara, the council is dissolved.  Doesn't seem "as much as anyone else" because it is not.

Quote
BTW, you also have no idea whatsoever about the canonical category of "office" in the Catholic Church. 


That the Vatican is confused in its ecclesiology, sacramentology etc. gives no idea that I don't know what an office is.  The Patriarchate is an office. The Metropolitanate is an office. The Archbishoprick is an office. But the episcopacy is an order. Hence "Holy Orders."

Quote
Parish pastors are also an ecclesial "office." 


What charism do you claim for it?

Quote
You don't have the interest or inclination or integrity to do the kind of hard work necessary to actual learn the truth about the Catholic Church.

I have. That's why I have embraced her Orthodox Faith.

Quote
You are an exceptionally incredible opponent of the Church.

I am an obeident son of the Church. I am an opponent to the Ultramontanist ecclesiastical community, and other heresies.
Logged

ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Moderated
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: 38,135



« Reply #10 on: November 03, 2010, 11:46:05 AM »

When you seek to control a debate you must first grasp the terms of the debate and control their meaning.  That is why you must name as casuistry all attempts at reclamation of meaning by the opposing viewpoint.   The same thing occurs to you when you are so challenged by Protestants who would call your own attempts to present Orthodox meaning as false and misleading and duplicitous.

LOL. As verbose and vapid as anything I heard produced at the University of Chicago (academia specializing in such things).  Evading the plain import and meaning of statements, facts, etc. is not reclaiming meaning. It's called spin in layman's terms.

Quote
In real life however there are more honest attempts at real understanding at work between our two confessions, so it is really only necessary to point out here for the record what the truth is, in reality, and move on till the next opportunity presents itself.

It is not casuistry for a Church to define the truths of her being and her faith.  It is an injustice to deny her that opportunity.

Like Joseph Smith Jr., the Vatican is quite free to define itself and her faith. But it is not free to call that Truth and the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church of Christ and her Orthdoox Faith.

In real life that joint commission (is that aftet what they smoke during breaks?) might as well meet on Fantasy Island. The Vatican's dropping of the title of the patriarchate of the West and the followup explanations, among other things, has dug in its heals. Deal with the reality of that heresy, cease with dead end union schemes, and concentrate on things we both can oppose, like secularism and militant Islam.

We understand the Vatican's claims. Since they contradict the Orthodox confession, we reject them.
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
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #11 on: November 03, 2010, 12:12:32 PM »

Thankfully you do not speak for universal Orthodoxy.  That "we" you use below defines what I have heard some Orthodox clergy call the "lunatic fringe."


When you seek to control a debate you must first grasp the terms of the debate and control their meaning.  That is why you must name as casuistry all attempts at reclamation of meaning by the opposing viewpoint.   The same thing occurs to you when you are so challenged by Protestants who would call your own attempts to present Orthodox meaning as false and misleading and duplicitous.

LOL. As verbose and vapid as anything I heard produced at the University of Chicago (academia specializing in such things).  Evading the plain import and meaning of statements, facts, etc. is not reclaiming meaning. It's called spin in layman's terms.

Quote
In real life however there are more honest attempts at real understanding at work between our two confessions, so it is really only necessary to point out here for the record what the truth is, in reality, and move on till the next opportunity presents itself.

It is not casuistry for a Church to define the truths of her being and her faith.  It is an injustice to deny her that opportunity.

Like Joseph Smith Jr., the Vatican is quite free to define itself and her faith. But it is not free to call that Truth and the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church of Christ and her Orthdoox Faith.

In real life that joint commission (is that aftet what they smoke during breaks?) might as well meet on Fantasy Island. The Vatican's dropping of the title of the patriarchate of the West and the followup explanations, among other things, has dug in its heals. Deal with the reality of that heresy, cease with dead end union schemes, and concentrate on things we both can oppose, like secularism and militant Islam.

We understand the Vatican's claims. Since they contradict the Orthodox confession, we reject them.
Logged

ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Moderated
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: 38,135



« Reply #12 on: November 03, 2010, 01:12:42 PM »

Thankfully you do not speak for universal Orthodoxy.  That "we" you use below defines what I have heard some Orthodox clergy call the "lunatic fringe."

That's nice. If your nameless Orthodox clergy come out and say or do something that has to be dealt with, we will deal with it then. In the meantime, if you console yourself over the Vatican's union delusions with the likes of the former Fr. Chrysostom Frank-whose article
http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/1996/9601fea2sb2.asp
is often spread as "Thoughts from an Eastern Orthodox Priest" but without acknowledgement of his apostacy from Orthodoxy-, be my guest.  If you want to delude yourself into thinking he, or your nameless priests, speak for universal Orthodoxy, you're entitled to a reality of your own making.  You just have no right to expect us to share it.

Btw, the former Fr. Frank and the Vatican's "priest forever" got me thinking-if a supreme pontiff resigns, how can he be denied exercising those charism claimed for that "office?"  Lefebre's ordinations and consecrations were held as valid, what about an ex-pope's ex cathedra pronouncements?
« Last Edit: November 03, 2010, 01:15:23 PM by ialmisry » 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
Wyatt
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Posts: 2,395


« Reply #13 on: November 03, 2010, 01:17:03 PM »

if you console yourself over the Vatican's union delusions
Our Church is committed to bringing about the unity of all Christians. How evil of us.  Roll Eyes
Logged
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #14 on: November 03, 2010, 05:49:53 PM »

if you console yourself over the Vatican's union delusions
Our Church is committed to bringing about the unity of all Christians. How evil of us.  Roll Eyes

There are more Orthodox believers who are willing to dialogue than there are those eager to engage the monologue of rejection.  That is enough for me.

Don't get yourself moderated in your frustration!

M.
Logged

ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Moderated
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: 38,135



« Reply #15 on: November 03, 2010, 06:02:16 PM »

if you console yourself over the Vatican's union delusions
Our Church is committed to bringing about the unity of all Christians. How evil of us.  Roll Eyes
subjugation and compromise with heresy isn't unity.
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
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #16 on: November 03, 2010, 06:16:46 PM »

if you console yourself over the Vatican's union delusions
Our Church is committed to bringing about the unity of all Christians. How evil of us.  Roll Eyes
subjugation and compromise with heresy isn't unity.

Genuine theological understanding that is mutual has no need for the artifice of compromise.

Logged

Wyatt
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Posts: 2,395


« Reply #17 on: November 03, 2010, 06:24:07 PM »

if you console yourself over the Vatican's union delusions
Our Church is committed to bringing about the unity of all Christians. How evil of us.  Roll Eyes
subjugation and compromise with heresy isn't unity.
There isn't just black and white. There's also grey.
Logged
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Moderated
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: 38,135



« Reply #18 on: November 03, 2010, 06:30:58 PM »

if you console yourself over the Vatican's union delusions
Our Church is committed to bringing about the unity of all Christians. How evil of us.  Roll Eyes
subjugation and compromise with heresy isn't unity.

Genuine theological understanding that is mutual has no need for the artifice of compromise.
Indeed!
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
Moderated
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: 38,135



« Reply #19 on: November 03, 2010, 06:36:43 PM »

if you console yourself over the Vatican's union delusions
Our Church is committed to bringing about the unity of all Christians. How evil of us.  Roll Eyes
subjugation and compromise with heresy isn't unity.
There isn't just black and white. There's also grey.

Neither you nor I are in communion with the present official Archbishop of Canterburry (I know we are not.  I don't know the state of the Vatican's agreements/statements over communion with the Anglicans et alia), who specilalizes in grey. Your magisterium's claim of supremacy for the Vatican is very black, and our insistence of the absence of filioque is very white.
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
Wyatt
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Posts: 2,395


« Reply #20 on: November 03, 2010, 07:01:12 PM »

Neither you nor I are in communion with the present official Archbishop of Canterburry (I know we are not.  I don't know the state of the Vatican's agreements/statements over communion with the Anglicans et alia), who specilalizes in grey. Your magisterium's claim of supremacy for the Vatican is very black, and our insistence of the absence of filioque is very white.
Why would these things necessarily be a hindrance to resumption of Communion? The Eastern Catholic Churches don't say "and the Son" in their Creed and yet they are still in Full Communion with us. Also, besides acknowledging the Petrine Primacy that the Bishop of Rome possesses the Churches are, for the most part, self-governing.
Logged
podkarpatska
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: ACROD
Posts: 8,961


Pokrov


WWW
« Reply #21 on: November 03, 2010, 07:17:02 PM »

Neither you nor I are in communion with the present official Archbishop of Canterburry (I know we are not.  I don't know the state of the Vatican's agreements/statements over communion with the Anglicans et alia), who specilalizes in grey. Your magisterium's claim of supremacy for the Vatican is very black, and our insistence of the absence of filioque is very white.
Why would these things necessarily be a hindrance to resumption of Communion? The Eastern Catholic Churches don't say "and the Son" in their Creed and yet they are still in Full Communion with us. Also, besides acknowledging the Petrine Primacy that the Bishop of Rome possesses the Churches are, for the most part, self-governing.

To the Orthodox, the part about '...for the most part...' is the fly in the ointment in terms of 'self-governing' and the role of Papal primacy.  For example, the Ruthenian Metropolitan  Eparchy of Pittsburgh has been without a Metropolitan since the death of +Metropolitan Basil earlier this year. I have not heard of any plans for a meeting of the synod ( if there is one ) of the Ruthenian Bishops in America, an eparchy 'sobor' of the clergy and laity or any semi-transparent process regarding the selection and enthronement of a presiding hierarch. I am not being sarcastic since we all know that is not the way Bishops are chosen in the Church of Rome.  But, did not the treaties of union (Brest and Uzhorod) grant the right of episcopal selection to the local Church in the same manner as had been historically exercised within their Orthodox history?
Logged
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #22 on: November 03, 2010, 07:24:01 PM »

Neither you nor I are in communion with the present official Archbishop of Canterburry (I know we are not.  I don't know the state of the Vatican's agreements/statements over communion with the Anglicans et alia), who specilalizes in grey. Your magisterium's claim of supremacy for the Vatican is very black, and our insistence of the absence of filioque is very white.
Why would these things necessarily be a hindrance to resumption of Communion? The Eastern Catholic Churches don't say "and the Son" in their Creed and yet they are still in Full Communion with us. Also, besides acknowledging the Petrine Primacy that the Bishop of Rome possesses the Churches are, for the most part, self-governing.

To the Orthodox, the part about '...for the most part...' is the fly in the ointment in terms of 'self-governing' and the role of Papal primacy.  For example, the Ruthenian Metropolitan  Eparchy of Pittsburgh has been without a Metropolitan since the death of +Metropolitan Basil earlier this year. I have not heard of any plans for a meeting of the synod ( if there is one ) of the Ruthenian Bishops in America, an eparchy 'sobor' of the clergy and laity or any semi-transparent process regarding the selection and enthronement of a presiding hierarch. I am not being sarcastic since we all know that is not the way Bishops are chosen in the Church of Rome.  But, did not the treaties of union (Brest and Uzhorod) grant the right of episcopal selection to the local Church in the same manner as had been historically exercised within their Orthodox history?

Are you blaming the delay on Rome?
Logged

ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Moderated
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: 38,135



« Reply #23 on: November 03, 2010, 08:12:11 PM »

Neither you nor I are in communion with the present official Archbishop of Canterburry (I know we are not.  I don't know the state of the Vatican's agreements/statements over communion with the Anglicans et alia), who specilalizes in grey. Your magisterium's claim of supremacy for the Vatican is very black, and our insistence of the absence of filioque is very white.
Why would these things necessarily be a hindrance to resumption of Communion?

Because the One Church anathematizing any change to the Creed and an ecclesiastical community predicating the Faith on submission to its self-proclaimed head indicates, black and white, that the two are not in the same Church, do not share the same faith, and hence they have no communion.

Quote
The Eastern Catholic Churches don't say "and the Son" in their Creed and yet they are still in Full Communion with us.

However they want to rationalize it, they at least have officially submitted to the filioque, whether they say it or not.  Offically, the Vatican believes it, whether it says it or not.

Keeping up appearances isnt' the substance of the matter.

Those who have created a schism in the various Churches and joined the Vatican and joined into the latter's heresies, and are treated accordingly.  That many do not willingly/fully adopt the Vatican's teachings creates a grey area only for their own individual situations.

Quote
Also, besides acknowledging the Petrine Primacy

Vatican supremacy. Petrine primacy is something else, and Orthodox.

Quote
that the Bishop of Rome possesses the Churches are, for the most part, self-governing.

The Intolerable Acts, the Nullfication Crisis, the Fugitive Slave Law, the King–Byng Affair, the Austrian Dismissal of 1975 and other events have a tendency of bursing the bubble of "for the most part, self-governing."  The promulgation of the Code of Canon Law of the Eastern Church-and in Latin!-underlines that. As does things the Vatian posts on its official web site (vaticancity.va btw)
That they have to return is from a sincere effort to Latinize them.  The encouragement is disingenuous. Such tripe (wolves eat tripe, lambs do not) as this
http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cclergy/documents/rc_con_cclergy_doc_01011993_chisto_en.html
("Priestly celibacy in patristics and in the history of the Church." Roman Cholij, Secretary of the Apostolic Exarch for Ukrainian Catholics in Great Britain)
on the Vatican's own official web site shows that. For those who can see.

Then there the disparity that the "sui juris" organizations in the East do have diasporas (under the watchful eye of the Latin ordinaries), but they have no missions and, gaging from what I have seen and been told by your correlgionists, they are not allowed to have them (besides picking off the corresponding Orthodox, of course).

Your supreme pontiffs (what's a bishop of Christ's Church doing holding the office of pagan high priest of the Roman state, an office founded by the Roman kings?) have some interesting ideas, which they evidently picked up when St. Constantine donated (LOL) the papal state:

From your supreme pontiffs and there party congress, er, council:

The Vatican lost no time in profitting from it. The same Pope Innocent (what a misnomer!) III called a "ecumenical" council to "legitimize" the spoils.  Imposing a Latin Patriarchate on Constantinople, he finally formally accepted Constantinople as a Patriarchate and in second place, after it had moved to first place, due to Rome's apostasy.  The Vatican convened its so called 12th "Ecumenical" council of Lateran IV-which it has not repudiated-which stated:
Quote

5. The dignity of the patriarchal sees

Renewing the ancient privileges of the patriarchal sees, we decree, with the approval of this sacred universal synod, that after the Roman church, which through the Lord's disposition has a primacy of ordinary power over all other churches inasmuch as it is the mother and mistress of all Christ's faithful, the church of Constantinople shall have the first place, the church of Alexandria the second place, the church of Antioch the third place, and the church of Jerusalem the fourth place, each maintaining its own rank. Thus after their pontiffs have received from the Roman pontiff the pallium, which is the sign of the fullness of the pontifical office, and have taken an oath of fidelity and obedience to him [no such thing ever happened from the time of the Apostles until the Crudaders came] they may lawfully confer the pallium on their own suffragans, receiving from them for themselves canonical profession and for the Roman church the promise of obedience. They may have a standard of the Lord's cross carried before them anywhere except in the city of Rome or wherever there is present the supreme pontiff or his legate wearing the insignia of the apostolic dignity. In all the provinces subject to their jurisdiction let appeal be made to them, when it is necessary, except for appeals made to the apostolic see, to which all must humbly defer.[dream on]

Receiving the pallium from the supreme pontiff is not a Tradition received of the Apostles, but an innovation imposed (as in the case of the sees listed) by force of arms.  On that basis alone, Orthodoxy demands that it be rejected.

The functioning of the Patriarchs from the time of the Apostles until the coming of the Crusaders in the East bears no ressemblance to this excerpt from your council of Lateran IV.  Created to promulgate heresy, the Orthodox Faith demands that the Catholic Church not adopt it.

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
Moderated
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: 38,135



« Reply #24 on: November 03, 2010, 08:22:06 PM »

Neither you nor I are in communion with the present official Archbishop of Canterburry (I know we are not.  I don't know the state of the Vatican's agreements/statements over communion with the Anglicans et alia), who specilalizes in grey. Your magisterium's claim of supremacy for the Vatican is very black, and our insistence of the absence of filioque is very white.
Why would these things necessarily be a hindrance to resumption of Communion? The Eastern Catholic Churches don't say "and the Son" in their Creed and yet they are still in Full Communion with us. Also, besides acknowledging the Petrine Primacy that the Bishop of Rome possesses the Churches are, for the most part, self-governing.

To the Orthodox, the part about '...for the most part...' is the fly in the ointment in terms of 'self-governing' and the role of Papal primacy.  For example, the Ruthenian Metropolitan  Eparchy of Pittsburgh has been without a Metropolitan since the death of +Metropolitan Basil earlier this year. I have not heard of any plans for a meeting of the synod ( if there is one ) of the Ruthenian Bishops in America, an eparchy 'sobor' of the clergy and laity or any semi-transparent process regarding the selection and enthronement of a presiding hierarch. I am not being sarcastic since we all know that is not the way Bishops are chosen in the Church of Rome.  But, did not the treaties of union (Brest and Uzhorod) grant the right of episcopal selection to the local Church in the same manner as had been historically exercised within their Orthodox history?

Are you blaming the delay on Rome?

Are you admitting that Rome is useless in resolving it?
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
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #25 on: November 03, 2010, 08:23:18 PM »

Neither you nor I are in communion with the present official Archbishop of Canterburry (I know we are not.  I don't know the state of the Vatican's agreements/statements over communion with the Anglicans et alia), who specilalizes in grey. Your magisterium's claim of supremacy for the Vatican is very black, and our insistence of the absence of filioque is very white.
Why would these things necessarily be a hindrance to resumption of Communion?

Because the One Church anathematizing any change to the Creed and an ecclesiastical community predicating the Faith on submission to its self-proclaimed head indicates, black and white, that the two are not in the same Church, do not share the same faith, and hence they have no communion.


Dear Fellow Catholic,

There are many Orthodox believers who realize that the filioque, understood properly as the Catholic Church teaches it, is not an heretical teaching.  Even some Orthodox believers realize that many of the historic opponents of filioque were in error in their understanding of Catholic teaching.

You have such a hodge podge of sources for your own understanding of the Catholic Church that I don't blame you personally for being so confused.
Logged

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

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #26 on: November 03, 2010, 08:24:22 PM »

Neither you nor I are in communion with the present official Archbishop of Canterburry (I know we are not.  I don't know the state of the Vatican's agreements/statements over communion with the Anglicans et alia), who specilalizes in grey. Your magisterium's claim of supremacy for the Vatican is very black, and our insistence of the absence of filioque is very white.
Why would these things necessarily be a hindrance to resumption of Communion? The Eastern Catholic Churches don't say "and the Son" in their Creed and yet they are still in Full Communion with us. Also, besides acknowledging the Petrine Primacy that the Bishop of Rome possesses the Churches are, for the most part, self-governing.

To the Orthodox, the part about '...for the most part...' is the fly in the ointment in terms of 'self-governing' and the role of Papal primacy.  For example, the Ruthenian Metropolitan  Eparchy of Pittsburgh has been without a Metropolitan since the death of +Metropolitan Basil earlier this year. I have not heard of any plans for a meeting of the synod ( if there is one ) of the Ruthenian Bishops in America, an eparchy 'sobor' of the clergy and laity or any semi-transparent process regarding the selection and enthronement of a presiding hierarch. I am not being sarcastic since we all know that is not the way Bishops are chosen in the Church of Rome.  But, did not the treaties of union (Brest and Uzhorod) grant the right of episcopal selection to the local Church in the same manner as had been historically exercised within their Orthodox history?

Are you blaming the delay on Rome?

Are you admitting that Rome is useless in resolving it?

I don't remember ask you that question.  I'll wait for the answer from the discussant to whom I asked the question.
Logged

podkarpatska
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: ACROD
Posts: 8,961


Pokrov


WWW
« Reply #27 on: November 03, 2010, 08:26:56 PM »

Neither you nor I are in communion with the present official Archbishop of Canterburry (I know we are not.  I don't know the state of the Vatican's agreements/statements over communion with the Anglicans et alia), who specilalizes in grey. Your magisterium's claim of supremacy for the Vatican is very black, and our insistence of the absence of filioque is very white.
Why would these things necessarily be a hindrance to resumption of Communion? The Eastern Catholic Churches don't say "and the Son" in their Creed and yet they are still in Full Communion with us. Also, besides acknowledging the Petrine Primacy that the Bishop of Rome possesses the Churches are, for the most part, self-governing.

To the Orthodox, the part about '...for the most part...' is the fly in the ointment in terms of 'self-governing' and the role of Papal primacy.  For example, the Ruthenian Metropolitan  Eparchy of Pittsburgh has been without a Metropolitan since the death of +Metropolitan Basil earlier this year. I have not heard of any plans for a meeting of the synod ( if there is one ) of the Ruthenian Bishops in America, an eparchy 'sobor' of the clergy and laity or any semi-transparent process regarding the selection and enthronement of a presiding hierarch. I am not being sarcastic since we all know that is not the way Bishops are chosen in the Church of Rome.  But, did not the treaties of union (Brest and Uzhorod) grant the right of episcopal selection to the local Church in the same manner as had been historically exercised within their Orthodox history?

Are you blaming the delay on Rome?

No, I understand the fundamental difference in ecclesiology between us, I was merely pointing out what may seem from your perspective to be a minor 'for the most part' problem (I know, that was not your language) regarding self governance and a major issue to the Orthodox. One's perception certainly impacts one's understanding of their reality. That's all. When I hear some of my Ukrainian Greek Catholic brothers speak of being "Orthodox in union with Rome', I can't help but regard that as an oxymoron from my point of view.

(I also understand that part of this delay in selecting a new Metropolitan for Pittsburgh may be internal to the eparchy itself, but that is really not a topic for this Board. I certainly hope and pray that whomever assumes the throne will continue the brotherly relationship, with proper respect for the differences that exist between us, that has existed between your recent Metropolitans and our Metropolitan Nicholas in recent years.)
« Last Edit: November 03, 2010, 08:28:27 PM by podkarpatska » Logged
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Moderated
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: 38,135



« Reply #28 on: November 03, 2010, 08:36:59 PM »

Neither you nor I are in communion with the present official Archbishop of Canterburry (I know we are not.  I don't know the state of the Vatican's agreements/statements over communion with the Anglicans et alia), who specilalizes in grey. Your magisterium's claim of supremacy for the Vatican is very black, and our insistence of the absence of filioque is very white.
Why would these things necessarily be a hindrance to resumption of Communion? The Eastern Catholic Churches don't say "and the Son" in their Creed and yet they are still in Full Communion with us. Also, besides acknowledging the Petrine Primacy that the Bishop of Rome possesses the Churches are, for the most part, self-governing.

To the Orthodox, the part about '...for the most part...' is the fly in the ointment in terms of 'self-governing' and the role of Papal primacy.  For example, the Ruthenian Metropolitan  Eparchy of Pittsburgh has been without a Metropolitan since the death of +Metropolitan Basil earlier this year. I have not heard of any plans for a meeting of the synod ( if there is one ) of the Ruthenian Bishops in America, an eparchy 'sobor' of the clergy and laity or any semi-transparent process regarding the selection and enthronement of a presiding hierarch. I am not being sarcastic since we all know that is not the way Bishops are chosen in the Church of Rome.  But, did not the treaties of union (Brest and Uzhorod) grant the right of episcopal selection to the local Church in the same manner as had been historically exercised within their Orthodox history?

Are you blaming the delay on Rome?

Are you admitting that Rome is useless in resolving it?

I don't remember ask you that question.

I don't remember that ever stopping you from responding.

Quote
I'll wait for the answer from the discussant to whom I asked the question.

and then you can answer....?

« Last Edit: November 03, 2010, 08:37:24 PM by ialmisry » 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
Wyatt
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Posts: 2,395


« Reply #29 on: November 03, 2010, 08:40:01 PM »

That's all. When I hear some of my Ukrainian Greek Catholic brothers speak of being "Orthodox in union with Rome', I can't help but regard that as an oxymoron from my point of view.
I can sympathize with this. It's like when ialmisry refers to himself as "Catholic" even though he is not in full communion with Rome. Equally inaccurate and offensive from our point of view, but then again I guess it doesn't matter in our case since we're "the guests." :/
Logged
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Moderated
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: 38,135



« Reply #30 on: November 03, 2010, 08:41:47 PM »

Neither you nor I are in communion with the present official Archbishop of Canterburry (I know we are not.  I don't know the state of the Vatican's agreements/statements over communion with the Anglicans et alia), who specilalizes in grey. Your magisterium's claim of supremacy for the Vatican is very black, and our insistence of the absence of filioque is very white.
Why would these things necessarily be a hindrance to resumption of Communion?

Because the One Church anathematizing any change to the Creed and an ecclesiastical community predicating the Faith on submission to its self-proclaimed head indicates, black and white, that the two are not in the same Church, do not share the same faith, and hence they have no communion.


Dear Fellow Catholic,

There are many Orthodox believers who realize that the filioque, understood properly as the Catholic Church teaches it, is not an heretical teaching.

The Catholic Church doesn't teach the filioque, as it is a heretical teaching. Anyone who believes otherwise is ipso facto not a believer in the Orthodox Faith.

Quote
 Even some Orthodox believers realize that many of the historic opponents of filioque were in error in their understanding of Catholic teaching.

Such as?

Quote
You have such a hodge podge of sources for your own understanding of the Catholic Church that I don't blame you personally for being so confused.

Mulitple sources always provides the means for the best information.  I know that confuses those who hooked onto a party line they have to tow.
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
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #31 on: November 03, 2010, 08:49:41 PM »


No, I understand the fundamental difference in ecclesiology between us, I was merely pointing out what may seem from your perspective to be a minor 'for the most part' problem (I know, that was not your language) regarding self governance and a major issue to the Orthodox. One's perception certainly impacts one's understanding of their reality. That's all. When I hear some of my Ukrainian Greek Catholic brothers speak of being "Orthodox in union with Rome', I can't help but regard that as an oxymoron from my point of view.

(I also understand that part of this delay in selecting a new Metropolitan for Pittsburgh may be internal to the eparchy itself, but that is really not a topic for this Board. I certainly hope and pray that whomever assumes the throne will continue the brotherly relationship, with proper respect for the differences that exist between us, that has existed between your recent Metropolitans and our Metropolitan Nicholas in recent years.)

Lately I find myself in constant prayer for you Metropolitan.  I have met him face to face and he has a beautiful soul and is an intelligent and humble human being and has been well appointed as Metropolitan of ACROD.  God keep him strong and with us for as long as possible!

In response to part of your commentary:  I wish we had been blessed with someone of the same strength some generations ago.

I agree with you fully.  Eastern Catholics are now, eastern Catholics.  Some may aspire to being Orthodox in Communion with Rome.  That I do not doubt.  But it is a wishful category estranged from our current reality by schism.  I am happy to aspire to being eastern Catholic in prayerful spiritual communion with my fellow Orthodox Catholics.

It seems to me that the more Catholics become accustomed to the idea that the Catholic Church is not absolutely equivalent to the Roman rite and ritual, with all else being unequal, the more likely it will be that self-rule will mean something in reality, more than it has heretofore.  That "clock" will never be turned back.  It is too late for that I am certain.  

And again, I do think it is not unfair or unwise to place a great deal of the burden for the failure of the ["U" word omitted] on our own leadership, who, over many generations, lacked the fortitude to insist upon the continuance of local practice and tradition.  It was more difficult, prior to the recognition of our Churches as Churches, but it was not impossible as some stalwart and steadfast eastern bishops have demonstrated over time.

Beyond that, as you say, we should not go.

The idea of a lesser union with Orthodoxy is repugnant to me as well.  Perhaps you have sensed that.  IF so you have my gratitude.

M.





« Last Edit: November 03, 2010, 08:50:38 PM by elijahmaria » Logged

ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Moderated
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: 38,135



« Reply #32 on: November 03, 2010, 08:59:16 PM »

That's all. When I hear some of my Ukrainian Greek Catholic brothers speak of being "Orthodox in union with Rome', I can't help but regard that as an oxymoron from my point of view.
I can sympathize with this. It's like when ialmisry refers to himself as "Catholic" even though he is not in full communion with Rome. Equally inaccurate and offensive from our point of view, but then again I guess it doesn't matter in our case since we're "the guests." :/

Just sticking with the definition of Catholic from the days of Patriarch Ignatius writing it down, and as defined by the Fathers of the Ecumenical Counils. That the Vatican has "developed" the definition since then does not obligate anyone to adopt the innovated definition.

And I am in communion with Bishop Siluan of Rome, and SS. Peter, Paul, Clement, Leo, Gregory etc.

As for "Orthodox in communion with Rome," either, by Ultramontanist standards, superfluous-as Ultramontanism defines Orthodoxy, East or West, by communion with Rome-or disingenous-luring people by false advertising, identifying with a Church they are not in fact part of (this was more a problem at the turn of the last century.  People told me that they would not go to a Church unless the parish priest was married, to make sure they were in the right Church).  In any case, it is devoid of meaning. Unlike the term Catholic.
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
Wyatt
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Posts: 2,395


« Reply #33 on: November 03, 2010, 11:57:27 PM »

And I am in communion with Bishop Siluan of Rome, and SS. Peter, Paul, Clement, Leo, Gregory etc.
You are gravely mistaken here.

Lord have mercy!
Logged
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Moderated
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: 38,135



« Reply #34 on: November 04, 2010, 12:57:23 AM »

And I am in communion with Bishop Siluan of Rome, and SS. Peter, Paul, Clement, Leo, Gregory etc.
You are gravely mistaken here.

Nope. Both at Rome and in their origin See of Antioch (under which I remain for the time being), the latter of course maintaing the ecclesiology the Apostles would recognize, rencently restored by the Romanians at Rome.
« Last Edit: November 04, 2010, 12:58:53 AM by ialmisry » 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
Wyatt
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Posts: 2,395


« Reply #35 on: November 04, 2010, 01:00:13 AM »

And I am in communion with Bishop Siluan of Rome, and SS. Peter, Paul, Clement, Leo, Gregory etc.
You are gravely mistaken here.

Nope. Both at Rome and in their origin See of Antioch (under which I remain for the time being).
The martyrdom of SS. Peter and Paul in Rome established the Primacy of the See of Rome. That plus the fact that, according to Tradition, St. Peter was the Bishop of Rome for far longer than he was Bishop of Antioch.
Logged
mike
Warned
Stratopedarches
**************
Offline Offline

Posts: 21,536


« Reply #36 on: November 04, 2010, 06:10:33 AM »

I was taught that St. Peter wasn't the Bishop of Rome at all.
Logged
synLeszka
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Roman Catholic
Posts: 532


« Reply #37 on: November 04, 2010, 11:29:22 AM »


To the Orthodox, the part about '...for the most part...' is the fly in the ointment in terms of 'self-governing' and the role of Papal primacy.  For example, the Ruthenian Metropolitan  Eparchy of Pittsburgh has been without a Metropolitan since the death of +Metropolitan Basil earlier this year. I have not heard of any plans for a meeting of the synod ( if there is one ) of the Ruthenian Bishops in America, an eparchy 'sobor' of the clergy and laity or any semi-transparent process regarding the selection and enthronement of a presiding hierarch. I am not being sarcastic since we all know that is not the way Bishops are chosen in the Church of Rome.  But, did not the treaties of union (Brest and Uzhorod) grant the right of episcopal selection to the local Church in the same manner as had been historically exercised within their Orthodox history?
I have a question, who in 19th century Russia chose the bishops, a synod or the Tsar?
What is so good in an autocratic Tsar or Party Secretary and bad in the Bishop of Rome?

The Ultramontanist epitet: The older generation of socialists used the word ultramontanist to describe conservatives here. In American terms the word ultramontanist is equivalent to "right wing nut job". Please rephrase from using political phrases outside of the Politics forum.
« Last Edit: November 04, 2010, 11:33:05 AM by synLeszka » Logged
Schultz
Christian. Guitarist. Zymurgist. Librarian.
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 6,494


Scion of the McKeesport Becks.


WWW
« Reply #38 on: November 04, 2010, 11:32:37 AM »


To the Orthodox, the part about '...for the most part...' is the fly in the ointment in terms of 'self-governing' and the role of Papal primacy.  For example, the Ruthenian Metropolitan  Eparchy of Pittsburgh has been without a Metropolitan since the death of +Metropolitan Basil earlier this year. I have not heard of any plans for a meeting of the synod ( if there is one ) of the Ruthenian Bishops in America, an eparchy 'sobor' of the clergy and laity or any semi-transparent process regarding the selection and enthronement of a presiding hierarch. I am not being sarcastic since we all know that is not the way Bishops are chosen in the Church of Rome.  But, did not the treaties of union (Brest and Uzhorod) grant the right of episcopal selection to the local Church in the same manner as had been historically exercised within their Orthodox history?
I have a question, who in 19th century Russia chose the bishops, a synod or the Tsar?
What is so good in an autocratic Tsar or Party Secretary and bad in the Bishop of Rome?

Even the Russian Church will admit that such an arrangement was an anomaly of history. 
Logged

"Hearing a nun's confession is like being stoned to death with popcorn." --Abp. Fulton Sheen
podkarpatska
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: ACROD
Posts: 8,961


Pokrov


WWW
« Reply #39 on: November 04, 2010, 11:35:24 AM »


To the Orthodox, the part about '...for the most part...' is the fly in the ointment in terms of 'self-governing' and the role of Papal primacy.  For example, the Ruthenian Metropolitan  Eparchy of Pittsburgh has been without a Metropolitan since the death of +Metropolitan Basil earlier this year. I have not heard of any plans for a meeting of the synod ( if there is one ) of the Ruthenian Bishops in America, an eparchy 'sobor' of the clergy and laity or any semi-transparent process regarding the selection and enthronement of a presiding hierarch. I am not being sarcastic since we all know that is not the way Bishops are chosen in the Church of Rome.  But, did not the treaties of union (Brest and Uzhorod) grant the right of episcopal selection to the local Church in the same manner as had been historically exercised within their Orthodox history?
I have a question, who in 19th century Russia chose the bishops, a synod or the Tsar?
What is so good in an autocratic Tsar or Party Secretary and bad in the Bishop of Rome?

Even the Russian Church will admit that such an arrangement was an anomaly of history.  

"Put not your trust in Princes....." You can't make the argument about the error of Tsarist influence in the naming of Russian Bishops without acknowledging that the Pope was often equally subject to the whims of Kings and Princes in the selection of Roman bishops. Do the Medicis ring a bell, as one such example, or the Avignon papacy?
« Last Edit: November 04, 2010, 11:40:36 AM by podkarpatska » Logged
Aindriú
Faster! Funnier!
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

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



WWW
« Reply #40 on: November 04, 2010, 11:40:28 AM »

"Put not your trust in Princes....."

Psalm 146
Quote
[1] Alleluia, of Aggeus and Zacharias. [2] Praise the Lord, O my soul, in my life I will praise the Lord: I will sing to my God as long as I shall be. Put not your trust in princes: [3] In the children of men, in whom there is no salvation. [4] His spirit shall go forth, and he shall return into his earth: in that day all their thoughts shall perish.

Though it sounds so, I can't agree that passage is applicable.
Logged


I'm going to need this.
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Moderated
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: 38,135



« Reply #41 on: November 04, 2010, 12:29:42 PM »

I was taught that St. Peter wasn't the Bishop of Rome at all.
As an Apostle, he wasn't bishop anywhere.
Logged

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

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,417


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #42 on: November 04, 2010, 12:32:36 PM »

I was taught that St. Peter wasn't the Bishop of Rome at all.
As an Apostle, he wasn't bishop anywhere.
Yeah he was. Antioch and Rome.
Logged

You are right. I apologize for having sacked Constantinople. I really need to stop doing that.
synLeszka
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Roman Catholic
Posts: 532


« Reply #43 on: November 04, 2010, 01:04:27 PM »



"Put not your trust in Princes....." You can't make the argument about the error of Tsarist influence in the naming of Russian Bishops without acknowledging that the Pope was often equally subject to the whims of Kings and Princes in the selection of Roman bishops. Do the Medicis ring a bell, as one such example, or the Avignon papacy?
That is so easy to say today..
Actually the Pope many, many times during the Middle Ages went against the will of the Kings and Princes.
The Roman Catholic Church chose the way of sovereignty while the Orthodox and Protestant Churches of Europe chose servility.
The Roman Catholic Church choose the so-called French model of Church-State relations, which was based on the separation of church and state.
Logged
Wyatt
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Posts: 2,395


« Reply #44 on: November 04, 2010, 01:07:19 PM »

I was taught that St. Peter wasn't the Bishop of Rome at all.
As an Apostle, he wasn't bishop anywhere.
If you want to continue playing the semantics game that is your choice, but St. Peter established and presided over the Sees of Antioch and Rome (whether you want to split hairs over whether or not an Apostle presiding over a See can be called a bishop or not is irrelevant). Rome holds primacy both because St. Peter was there longer and because SS. Peter and Paul were martyred there so it is a very holy place.
Logged
Tags: catholic  eastern  ecclesiology 
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 0.213 seconds with 72 queries.