OrthodoxChristianity.net
July 26, 2014, 11:18:22 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: Eastern Catholic Ecclesiology  (Read 4393 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: 2,878


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: 2,878


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
************
Online Online

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,134


Truth, Justice, and the American way!


« 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

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

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,124



« Reply #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
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,124



« Reply #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
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,124



« Reply #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
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,124



« Reply #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
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,124



« Reply #15 on: 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
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,124



« Reply #18 on: 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
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,124



« Reply #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
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: ACROD
Posts: 8,020


SS Cyril and Methodius Church, Mercer, PA


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
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,124



« Reply #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
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,124



« Reply #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
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: ACROD
Posts: 8,020


SS Cyril and Methodius Church, Mercer, PA


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
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,124



« Reply #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
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,124



« Reply #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
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,124



« Reply #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
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,124



« Reply #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
Stratopedarches
**************
Offline Offline

Posts: 21,467


WWW
« 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

Byzantinism
no longer posting here
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: 6,462


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
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: ACROD
Posts: 8,020


SS Cyril and Methodius Church, Mercer, PA


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
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,124



« Reply #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
************
Online Online

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,134


Truth, Justice, and the American way!


« 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

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
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
FormerReformer
Convertodox of the convertodox
Site Supporter
Archon
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: I'll take (e) for "all of the above"
Posts: 2,402



WWW
« Reply #45 on: November 04, 2010, 01:25:13 PM »

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.

Longer than what?  We know St Peter went to Antioch fairly soon (within a few years) after Pentecost, we know he was still in Antioch at the time of the council in Jerusalem around AD 50 and we know he was martyred around AD 60.  That leaves him maybe a decade in Rome, assuming he left for Rome right after the council (which we can be fairly certain he didn't, all evidence points to St Paul being in Rome for a few years before St Peter).  St Peter would have been a tourist in Rome compared to Antioch.
« Last Edit: November 04, 2010, 01:29:20 PM by FormerReformer » Logged

"Funny," said Lancelot, "how the people who can't pray say that prayers are not answered, however much the people who can pray say they are."  TH White

Oh, no: I've succumbed to Hyperdoxy!
Wyatt
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Posts: 2,395


« Reply #46 on: November 04, 2010, 01:57:03 PM »

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.

Longer than what?  We know St Peter went to Antioch fairly soon (within a few years) after Pentecost, we know he was still in Antioch at the time of the council in Jerusalem around AD 50 and we know he was martyred around AD 60.  That leaves him maybe a decade in Rome, assuming he left for Rome right after the council (which we can be fairly certain he didn't, all evidence points to St Paul being in Rome for a few years before St Peter).  St Peter would have been a tourist in Rome compared to Antioch.
Here is an interesting article about what RCs believe about St. Peter and the Papacy: http://www.catholic.com/library/Was_Peter_in_Rome.asp

I admittedly only skimmed it for now and did not see any mention of how long St. Peter was in Rome before being martyred, but perhaps if there are any other RCs on here who are more well-versed in the subject than I am they could offer more information. It seems from that article, however, that the unique role of the Bishop of Rome due to SS. Peter and Paul being there and being martyred there was understand as fact from pretty early on. This is especially evident from the words of St. Ignatius of Antioch which is seen in the article where he mentions that he could not command the Christians in Rome as Peter and Paul once did.
Logged
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,124



« Reply #47 on: November 04, 2010, 02:20:59 PM »


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?

Both. The Holy Governing Synod presented three candidates for a bishoprick, and the Tsar would approve one.

Btw, among others the Austrian Emperor/Hungarian "apostolic king" exercised the same control over episcopal appointments even for the Vatican's bishoprick's, e.g.
Quote
The third Bishop of Linz, Sigismund von Hohenwart (1809-25), had been a cathedral canon of Gurk and Vicar-General of Klagenfurt. He was appointed by the emperor on 10 January, 1809, but the appointment did not receive papal approbation until December, 1814, on account of the imprisonment of the pope...Although the Church throughout Austria at this date was still dependent to a very great degree on the government in ecclesiastical matters, the bishop knew how to revive and strengthen the ecclesiastical spirit in his clergy and people.
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09273a.htm

Amongst other parrallels which can be multiplied in Austria-Hungary and elsehwere:
Quote
....On the 21st of December, 1867, the new fundamental laws received the imperial approval. The first granted full freedom of faith and conscience and freedom in scientific opinion. The second declared: "All jurisdiction in the state is exercised in the name of the emperor". Thereby the Church's exclusive jurisdiction over marriage was impugned. The third law obliged all officials to take an oath to support the constitution. Two professors of dogmatics did not take the oath; these were Schrader, the Jesuit, and Hyacinth Pellgrinetti, the Dominican successor of Guidi. They were obliged to resign their professorships, and their places have not yet [40 years later] been filled....After a long struggle the emperor signed, 25 May, 1808, the laws concerning marriage, schools, and the status of the several denominations. The first of these laws declares marriage to be a civil contract, makes the civil marriage obligatory, and takes from the Church the judicial power pro foro externo in matrimonial suits. The law concerning schools takes from the bishop any control of the management as well as the right of supervision. These powers are given to an official school committee of the district and town, of which committee ecclesiastics can be chosen members...The third law grants everyone the right to choose his own religion on attaining the age of fourteen years, but a child between seven and fourteen years of age cannot change his or her religion even at the wish of the parents. As these laws infringed the Concordat in essentials, a secret consistory was held at Rome, 22 June, at which the pope declared: "Leges auctoritate Nostrâ apostolicâ reprobamus, damnamus et decreta ipsa irrita proursus nulliusque roboris fuisse ac fore declaramus." ("By the Apostolic authority we reprobate and condemn these laws and declare that their purport was, and shall be, wholly invalid and of no force.") The bishops upon this issued pastorals. The joint letter of 3 June issued by the Bohemian bishops to the clergy and their joint pastoral of 24 June were condemned by the imperial civil courts of all three instances, on the ground that they were a disturbance of the public peace, and suppressed. Penal proceedings were not brought against Cardinal Schwarzenberg, but Bishop Francis Joseph Rudigier, of Linz, was prosecuted for his pastoral of 7 September. "On account of the misdemeanour committed in the pastoral letter"—of calling the law of 24 May a lie—he was brought before the Supreme Court, found guilty by the jury, and condemned to fourteen days' imprisonment with costs. The pastoral was ordered to be destroyed...The definition of the pope's infallibility afforded von Stremayr, the Austrian Minister of Instruction, a pretext to demand the abrogation of the Concordat, on the plea that the pope, one of the contracting parties, had received from the definition a new character, which invalidated the original agreement. Beust, the Minister of Foreign Affairs, addressed to Palomba a note which declared: "The Concordat exists no longer; it is annulled." The abrogation of the Concordat produced a gap in religious legislation. To remedy this four bills were introduced January, 1874, for regulating the legal status of the Catholic Church, the taxing of the fund for the support of religion, the legal status of monasteries, and the recognition of new religious societies. The pope expressed, on the 7th of March, his grief at the attack on the rights of the Church, implied in the assertion that the supreme power in all matters concerning the external life belonged to the State...The bishops again and again begged for a relaxation of the provisions of the law. But they had, for the time being, no redress except to appeal in individual cases to the indulgence of the emperor. When the bills reached the upper house the bishops defended themselves bravely. Rauscher closed his address of 10 April with these words: "So-called progress no longer considers it necessary to conceal its real aim, and has unmasked its hate against God and eternal truth. But Providence has set a natural limit to all things. The destruction of Christianity is impossible, but Austria may be destroyed if the war against religion is not checked in good time." Yet, for all this, the first two bills became law, 7 May, 1874. Among other things, the law concerning the legal status of the Church declares that: In order to obtain any ecclesiastical appointment or living, a candidate's record of past conduct must be blameless when judged by the standard of the civil law (§1); if the Government finds that an ecclesiastical regulation respecting a public church service is not consistent with the public interest, the Government shall then forbid it (§17); the total number of Catholics living in the district of a parish form the parish community (§35); in order to cover the expenses of a parish a tax is to be laid on its members (§36); the ministry of public worship and instruction is authorized to oversee the management of the funds of the churches and church instituitions (§38); the ministry of public workship and instruction is to take care that the ecclesiastical journals do not go beyond the sphere of their proper activity (§60)...The law (signed 20 May) in regard to the legal recognition of religious societies "accepts in full" the principle of religious equality...A law of 1868 enacted that in the case of mixed marriages the boys should be brought up in the faith of the father, the girls in that of the mother, even if this were contrary to the desire of the parents. But, when parents so requested, Catholic priests baptized those children who according to the law should be brought up non-Catholic. This practice was called Wegtaufen. Even when, in 1879, the criminal code made the conferring of baptism under such circumstances punishable, the priests were not dismayed—"Go, baptize". Besides this, they were regularly acquitted by the court of last resort in the suits which were brought against them by the Protestant pastors. In 1890 "dununciation" of such baptisms was forbidden by Rome, and the excitement gradually subsided....This decree provided that any priest who performed a baptism according to Art. LIII of 1868 must send a certificate of baptism to the legally responsible clergyman within eight days. Neglect to obey this law was to be considered a misdemeanour, and punished accordingly. This decree, called the Wegtaufung Decree (baptism away from the other side) marked the beginning of a new ecclesiastico-political conflict. According to this edict a Catholic priest when he baptized a child belonging to another faith must send the certificate of baptism to the minister of the other denomination; such an enactment was regarded by the Catholic clergy as contrary to conscience and the canonical ordinances. The bishops did not order that the law be carried out, although they declared that for a time it could be tolerated; the greater part of the parish priests, however, refused to obey it. A Catholic agitation for the modification in the interest of the Church of Art. LIII of 1868, and for the repeal of the decree issued by Csáky, did not succeed, while the supporters of the Government soon made use of the movement to further the introduction of obligatory civil marriage, civil registration, and the free exercise of religion. These latter proposals became law during the premiership of Alexander Wekerle. In 1893 the ecclesiastical bills were laid before the Diet, and after long debates, being once rejected by the House of Magnates, they became law in 1894 and took effect 1 October, 1895. Articles XXXI and XXXIII of 1894 contain enactments regarding marriage and registration. Civil marriage is made compulsory, and government recognition is only given to civil registration. Article XXXII of 1894 enacts that the parents can enter into an agreement before the registrar as to the religion of the children. Registrars are appointed by the minister of the interior and are responsible to him; a parish priest cannot be appointed to this office....Article 26 of the Diet of 1790 guaranteed to the Protestants of Hungary the entire control of the affairs of their religion. The Government has hardly any power in regard to either their churches, their schools, or religious foundations. Since 1848 the Catholics have been endeavouring to obtain autonomy. The Catholic congress of 1870 prepared a bill to this end...In 1906 the turning-point in the history of the autonomy question was probably reached in the address from the throne. The Minister of Public worship and Instruction, Count Albert Apponyi, has already requested the primate to state the position of the bishops in regard to autonomy, so that the bill may be properly prepared...The appointment of bishops, canons, abbots, etc. belongs to the king and follows upon the presentation of the names, with ministerial approval, by the minister of education and public worship. The bishops enter upon their office, take their seats in the House of Magnates, and receive their revenues without awaiting the papal confirmation. A royal edict of 1870 revived the old royal jus placeti and ordained that only after receiving royal approval could decisions, constitutions, and decrees of councils and popes be promulgated...
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02121b.htm
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07547a.htm

Not so different from what you are insinuating for Russia (not to say that you are correct on your charecterization of the Russian Orthodox Church under the Holy Governing Synod).

Quote
What is so good in an autocratic Tsar or Party Secretary and bad in the Bishop of Rome?

His Most Orthodox Imperial Majesty, "by the Grace of God, Emperor and Autocrat of All the Russias, Grand Duke of Finland and King/Tsar of Poland, and so forth..." confessed the Orthodox Faith. The bishop in the Vatican falls under the anathemas of the Ecumenical Councils. Bishop Siluan doesn't have the primacy, but otherwise is fine.  As for party secretarys:


Quote
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.
Please read up:Ultramontanism
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15125a.htm

The minutiae of Polish political culture isn't determinative here.
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 #48 on: November 04, 2010, 02:32:58 PM »

Please read up:Ultramontanism
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15125a.htm
That isn't the common usage of the word ultramontanism even if it may be a meaning of the word. It is most often used to describe the RC position as heretical. There is a schismatic on the Catholic forum I am a member of who is one of those who believes the "post-conciliar" Church is an entirely new religion altogether (i.e. Vatican II corrupted the True Church) and he refers to all of us who accept Vatican II and are in Full Communion with Rome as ultramontanists. He, like you, is clearly using that terminology because the word itself implies heresy.
Logged
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #49 on: November 04, 2010, 02:36:22 PM »

There never seems to be a point with this endless cutting and pasting.


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?

Both. The Holy Governing Synod presented three candidates for a bishoprick, and the Tsar would approve one.

Btw, among others the Austrian Emperor/Hungarian "apostolic king" exercised the same control over episcopal appointments even for the Vatican's bishoprick's, e.g.
Quote
The third Bishop of Linz, Sigismund von Hohenwart (1809-25), had been a cathedral canon of Gurk and Vicar-General of Klagenfurt. He was appointed by the emperor on 10 January, 1809, but the appointment did not receive papal approbation until December, 1814, on account of the imprisonment of the pope...Although the Church throughout Austria at this date was still dependent to a very great degree on the government in ecclesiastical matters, the bishop knew how to revive and strengthen the ecclesiastical spirit in his clergy and people.
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09273a.htm

Amongst other parrallels which can be multiplied in Austria-Hungary and elsehwere:
Quote
....On the 21st of December, 1867, the new fundamental laws received the imperial approval. The first granted full freedom of faith and conscience and freedom in scientific opinion. The second declared: "All jurisdiction in the state is exercised in the name of the emperor". Thereby the Church's exclusive jurisdiction over marriage was impugned. The third law obliged all officials to take an oath to support the constitution. Two professors of dogmatics did not take the oath; these were Schrader, the Jesuit, and Hyacinth Pellgrinetti, the Dominican successor of Guidi. They were obliged to resign their professorships, and their places have not yet [40 years later] been filled....After a long struggle the emperor signed, 25 May, 1808, the laws concerning marriage, schools, and the status of the several denominations. The first of these laws declares marriage to be a civil contract, makes the civil marriage obligatory, and takes from the Church the judicial power pro foro externo in matrimonial suits. The law concerning schools takes from the bishop any control of the management as well as the right of supervision. These powers are given to an official school committee of the district and town, of which committee ecclesiastics can be chosen members...The third law grants everyone the right to choose his own religion on attaining the age of fourteen years, but a child between seven and fourteen years of age cannot change his or her religion even at the wish of the parents. As these laws infringed the Concordat in essentials, a secret consistory was held at Rome, 22 June, at which the pope declared: "Leges auctoritate Nostrâ apostolicâ reprobamus, damnamus et decreta ipsa irrita proursus nulliusque roboris fuisse ac fore declaramus." ("By the Apostolic authority we reprobate and condemn these laws and declare that their purport was, and shall be, wholly invalid and of no force.") The bishops upon this issued pastorals. The joint letter of 3 June issued by the Bohemian bishops to the clergy and their joint pastoral of 24 June were condemned by the imperial civil courts of all three instances, on the ground that they were a disturbance of the public peace, and suppressed. Penal proceedings were not brought against Cardinal Schwarzenberg, but Bishop Francis Joseph Rudigier, of Linz, was prosecuted for his pastoral of 7 September. "On account of the misdemeanour committed in the pastoral letter"—of calling the law of 24 May a lie—he was brought before the Supreme Court, found guilty by the jury, and condemned to fourteen days' imprisonment with costs. The pastoral was ordered to be destroyed...The definition of the pope's infallibility afforded von Stremayr, the Austrian Minister of Instruction, a pretext to demand the abrogation of the Concordat, on the plea that the pope, one of the contracting parties, had received from the definition a new character, which invalidated the original agreement. Beust, the Minister of Foreign Affairs, addressed to Palomba a note which declared: "The Concordat exists no longer; it is annulled." The abrogation of the Concordat produced a gap in religious legislation. To remedy this four bills were introduced January, 1874, for regulating the legal status of the Catholic Church, the taxing of the fund for the support of religion, the legal status of monasteries, and the recognition of new religious societies. The pope expressed, on the 7th of March, his grief at the attack on the rights of the Church, implied in the assertion that the supreme power in all matters concerning the external life belonged to the State...The bishops again and again begged for a relaxation of the provisions of the law. But they had, for the time being, no redress except to appeal in individual cases to the indulgence of the emperor. When the bills reached the upper house the bishops defended themselves bravely. Rauscher closed his address of 10 April with these words: "So-called progress no longer considers it necessary to conceal its real aim, and has unmasked its hate against God and eternal truth. But Providence has set a natural limit to all things. The destruction of Christianity is impossible, but Austria may be destroyed if the war against religion is not checked in good time." Yet, for all this, the first two bills became law, 7 May, 1874. Among other things, the law concerning the legal status of the Church declares that: In order to obtain any ecclesiastical appointment or living, a candidate's record of past conduct must be blameless when judged by the standard of the civil law (§1); if the Government finds that an ecclesiastical regulation respecting a public church service is not consistent with the public interest, the Government shall then forbid it (§17); the total number of Catholics living in the district of a parish form the parish community (§35); in order to cover the expenses of a parish a tax is to be laid on its members (§36); the ministry of public worship and instruction is authorized to oversee the management of the funds of the churches and church instituitions (§38); the ministry of public workship and instruction is to take care that the ecclesiastical journals do not go beyond the sphere of their proper activity (§60)...The law (signed 20 May) in regard to the legal recognition of religious societies "accepts in full" the principle of religious equality...A law of 1868 enacted that in the case of mixed marriages the boys should be brought up in the faith of the father, the girls in that of the mother, even if this were contrary to the desire of the parents. But, when parents so requested, Catholic priests baptized those children who according to the law should be brought up non-Catholic. This practice was called Wegtaufen. Even when, in 1879, the criminal code made the conferring of baptism under such circumstances punishable, the priests were not dismayed—"Go, baptize". Besides this, they were regularly acquitted by the court of last resort in the suits which were brought against them by the Protestant pastors. In 1890 "dununciation" of such baptisms was forbidden by Rome, and the excitement gradually subsided....This decree provided that any priest who performed a baptism according to Art. LIII of 1868 must send a certificate of baptism to the legally responsible clergyman within eight days. Neglect to obey this law was to be considered a misdemeanour, and punished accordingly. This decree, called the Wegtaufung Decree (baptism away from the other side) marked the beginning of a new ecclesiastico-political conflict. According to this edict a Catholic priest when he baptized a child belonging to another faith must send the certificate of baptism to the minister of the other denomination; such an enactment was regarded by the Catholic clergy as contrary to conscience and the canonical ordinances. The bishops did not order that the law be carried out, although they declared that for a time it could be tolerated; the greater part of the parish priests, however, refused to obey it. A Catholic agitation for the modification in the interest of the Church of Art. LIII of 1868, and for the repeal of the decree issued by Csáky, did not succeed, while the supporters of the Government soon made use of the movement to further the introduction of obligatory civil marriage, civil registration, and the free exercise of religion. These latter proposals became law during the premiership of Alexander Wekerle. In 1893 the ecclesiastical bills were laid before the Diet, and after long debates, being once rejected by the House of Magnates, they became law in 1894 and took effect 1 October, 1895. Articles XXXI and XXXIII of 1894 contain enactments regarding marriage and registration. Civil marriage is made compulsory, and government recognition is only given to civil registration. Article XXXII of 1894 enacts that the parents can enter into an agreement before the registrar as to the religion of the children. Registrars are appointed by the minister of the interior and are responsible to him; a parish priest cannot be appointed to this office....Article 26 of the Diet of 1790 guaranteed to the Protestants of Hungary the entire control of the affairs of their religion. The Government has hardly any power in regard to either their churches, their schools, or religious foundations. Since 1848 the Catholics have been endeavouring to obtain autonomy. The Catholic congress of 1870 prepared a bill to this end...In 1906 the turning-point in the history of the autonomy question was probably reached in the address from the throne. The Minister of Public worship and Instruction, Count Albert Apponyi, has already requested the primate to state the position of the bishops in regard to autonomy, so that the bill may be properly prepared...The appointment of bishops, canons, abbots, etc. belongs to the king and follows upon the presentation of the names, with ministerial approval, by the minister of education and public worship. The bishops enter upon their office, take their seats in the House of Magnates, and receive their revenues without awaiting the papal confirmation. A royal edict of 1870 revived the old royal jus placeti and ordained that only after receiving royal approval could decisions, constitutions, and decrees of councils and popes be promulgated...
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02121b.htm
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07547a.htm

Not so different from what you are insinuating for Russia (not to say that you are correct on your charecterization of the Russian Orthodox Church under the Holy Governing Synod).

Quote
What is so good in an autocratic Tsar or Party Secretary and bad in the Bishop of Rome?

His Most Orthodox Imperial Majesty, "by the Grace of God, Emperor and Autocrat of All the Russias, Grand Duke of Finland and King/Tsar of Poland, and so forth..." confessed the Orthodox Faith. The bishop in the Vatican falls under the anathemas of the Ecumenical Councils. Bishop Siluan doesn't have the primacy, but otherwise is fine.  As for party secretarys:


Quote
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.
Please read up:Ultramontanism
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15125a.htm

The minutiae of Polish political culture isn't determinative here.
Logged

ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,124



« Reply #50 on: November 04, 2010, 02:41:42 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.
No. Bishops succeed Apostles. That's why they call it Apostolic succession.

The closest St. Peter comes is when, introduding himself as "an [note, btw: "a," not "the"] Apostle of Jesus Christ," identifies himself as a "fellow presbyter" when he invokes himself as a witness of Christ and a partaker of His glory, to exhort his fellow presbyters, whom he identifies as the bishops (5:1-2).  The Apostle John, the disciple whom Christ loved, doesn't give his autority to his second and third epistles as neither the Disciple nor Apostle, but as "the presbyter" i.e. bishop, signifying the final transition of the Apostolate fully and completely into the episcopate. Only the Desposynoi, the Lord's Brethren, were ordained bishops but were accounted Apostles.

Btw, there are several families, the Sema'ans, who claim descent from St. Peter in Antioch, spread through out the Levant, Egypt and Iraq, and now throughout the world.
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
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,124



« Reply #51 on: November 04, 2010, 02:43:59 PM »

There never seems to be a point with this endless cutting and pasting.

That you do not want to get it doesn't obviate 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 #52 on: November 04, 2010, 02:49:29 PM »

There never seems to be a point with this endless cutting and pasting.

That you do not want to get it doesn't obviate it.

Can't receive that which is not delivered. 

What you do with all that cutting and pasting is generally too vague and full of insinuendo to be of much use at all. 

Logged

mike
Stratopedarches
**************
Offline Offline

Posts: 21,467


WWW
« Reply #53 on: November 04, 2010, 03:49:59 PM »

Do you really believe that when after 60 AD (more than 20 years after the emergent of Christianity) St. Peter arrived to Rome (capital city of the empire) there had no been Christian at all?
Logged

Byzantinism
no longer posting here
Aindriú
Faster! Funnier!
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

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



WWW
« Reply #54 on: November 04, 2010, 03:53:27 PM »

Do you really believe that when after 60 AD (more than 20 years after the emergent of Christianity) St. Peter arrived to Rome (capital city of the empire) there had no been Christian at all?

Are you denying even Orthodox tradition that holds the Latin Patriarch to be Apostolic? Not to mention the more pro-patrine Orthodox (non-supremacy) hold that the West held the Papacy (just not with supreme authority) or, more common, the West held the highest place of the three Sees of St Peter.
Logged


I'm going to need this.
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,124



« Reply #55 on: November 04, 2010, 03:55:48 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.
Yes, the "servant of the servants of Christ" chose to act on his title of pontifex maximus (the office of pagan high priest of the state cult since the time of the Kings of Rome) as an emperor among emperors, digging up fragments of a voided council held in Constantinople in 869 and discarding the universal Council held in the same city in 879, in order to score propaganda points against the "Holy Roman Emperors" (the same "Holy Roman Emperors" who ordered the pope at their coronation to insert the filioque, after Pope Leo III forbade the same Franks from inserting it, and had affixed the original Orthodox Creed without it on the doors of St. Peter's and St Paul Outside the Walls, with the inscription "HAEC LEO POSUI AMORE ET CAUTELA ORTHODOXAE FIDEI» (I, Leo, put here for love and protection of Orthodox Faith")
This was one of the results:

and others

and another

which led to this

and then this (until held off by Grand Prince St. Alexander at the Neva, hence Nevsky)

which led to this

which is still with us it seems

http://delong.typepad.com/egregious_moderation/2009/01/an-imperial-palimpsest-on-polands-electoral-map.html

Quote
The Roman Catholic Church choose the so-called French model of Church-State relations, which was based on the separation of church and state.
Oh? When did the Vatican do that? When the French state seperated Vatican control of it? When Mussolini signed the Lateran Treaty?

As for sovereignty
Quote
When Leo XIII died in 1903, it was widely expected that Rampolla would be elected pope. His candidacy gained momentum until the last moment, but the Austrian Emperor Francis Joseph I (one of the three Catholic powers with pretensions to such a capacity) imposed a veto, the "Jus Exclusivæ", right in the middle of the Conclave, through the agency of Cardinal Jan Puzyna de Kosielsko, Prince-Archbishop of Kraków, who was subsequently awarded the highest Austro-Hungarian decoration, the Grand Cross of State. The Austrian Cardinal Anton Josef Gruscha refused to express the veto of his emperor, who turned then to the Polish Cardinal of Krakow. The Polish cardinal was booed by the others with pudeat te pudeat te, shame on you shame on you, when he announced the veto...While formally protesting this intrusion, the Cardinals recognized the existing legal right of the emperor and would not specifically offend such a prominent Catholic power, and support for Rampolla [who had received 29 of 60 votes] dissipated, leading to the election of Giuseppe Sarto as Pope Pius X. Explicitly abolishing any veto rights was one of the new Pope's first official acts.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mariano_Rampolla
 
« Last Edit: November 04, 2010, 03:58:39 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
mike
Stratopedarches
**************
Offline Offline

Posts: 21,467


WWW
« Reply #56 on: November 04, 2010, 03:59:30 PM »

Do you really believe that when after 60 AD (more than 20 years after the emergent of Christianity) St. Peter arrived to Rome (capital city of the empire) there had no been Christian at all?

Are you denying even Orthodox tradition that holds the Latin Patriarch to be Apostolic? Not to mention the more pro-patrine Orthodox (non-supremacy) hold that the West held the Papacy (just not with supreme authority) or, more common, the West held the highest place of the three Sees of St Peter.

I deny the fact that Church in Rome was established by St. Peter and that St. Peter was a Bishop of Rome.

I can't imagine anyone who can agree to the first statement. It's illogical.
« Last Edit: November 04, 2010, 04:00:18 PM by Michał Kalina » Logged

Byzantinism
no longer posting here
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,124



« Reply #57 on: November 04, 2010, 04:00:38 PM »

There never seems to be a point with this endless cutting and pasting.

That you do not want to get it doesn't obviate it.

Can't receive that which is not delivered. 

What you do with all that cutting and pasting is generally too vague and full of insinuendo to be of much use at all. 
And you post replys too vague and full of insinuendo to be of much use at all why?
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
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,124



« Reply #58 on: November 04, 2010, 04:03:53 PM »

Do you really believe that when after 60 AD (more than 20 years after the emergent of Christianity) St. Peter arrived to Rome (capital city of the empire) there had no been Christian at all?

Are you denying even Orthodox tradition that holds the Latin Patriarch to be Apostolic? Not to mention the more pro-patrine Orthodox (non-supremacy) hold that the West held the Papacy (just not with supreme authority) or, more common, the West held the highest place of the three Sees of St Peter.
The papacy as an institution, and office originated in Alexandria, not Rome.  Alexandria was given it long before Nicea I, and Rome did appropriate to itself until centuries after Nicea I.
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
Aindriú
Faster! Funnier!
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

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



WWW
« Reply #59 on: November 04, 2010, 04:10:29 PM »

Do you really believe that when after 60 AD (more than 20 years after the emergent of Christianity) St. Peter arrived to Rome (capital city of the empire) there had no been Christian at all?

Are you denying even Orthodox tradition that holds the Latin Patriarch to be Apostolic? Not to mention the more pro-patrine Orthodox (non-supremacy) hold that the West held the Papacy (just not with supreme authority) or, more common, the West held the highest place of the three Sees of St Peter.
The papacy as an institution, and office originated in Alexandria, not Rome.  Alexandria was given it long before Nicea I, and Rome did appropriate to itself until centuries after Nicea I.

Right, it started in Alexandria. St Peter then moved to Antioch, and eventually to Rome.

Before debating on who holds keys, if any. It is often shown that ECF recognized the Apostolic Succession of St. Peter within those three Sees. I believe even you have point out those quotes.

So, not only has Rome an Apostolic Succession, but it is understood to have also had the presence of St Peter to lay his hands on Bishops toward the end of his life.
Logged


I'm going to need this.
Aindriú
Faster! Funnier!
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

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



WWW
« Reply #60 on: November 04, 2010, 04:11:30 PM »

Isa,

The last post of pretty colors made be giddy and I ran to get my crayons. By the time I got back, I couldn't remember your point.
Logged


I'm going to need this.
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #61 on: November 04, 2010, 04:35:45 PM »

Isa,

The last post of pretty colors made be giddy and I ran to get my crayons. By the time I got back, I couldn't remember your point.

 laugh  I think you chose the better part!!

M.
Logged

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

Faith: Catholic
Posts: 2,395


« Reply #62 on: November 04, 2010, 04:41:32 PM »

Do you really believe that when after 60 AD (more than 20 years after the emergent of Christianity) St. Peter arrived to Rome (capital city of the empire) there had no been Christian at all?
Do you believe that St. Peter being the FIRST Christian in Rome is a prerequisite for Primacy being passed on in Rome? I don't think anyone here is saying that.
Logged
Aindriú
Faster! Funnier!
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

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



WWW
« Reply #63 on: November 04, 2010, 04:56:47 PM »

Do you really believe that when after 60 AD (more than 20 years after the emergent of Christianity) St. Peter arrived to Rome (capital city of the empire) there had no been Christian at all?

Are you denying even Orthodox tradition that holds the Latin Patriarch to be Apostolic? Not to mention the more pro-patrine Orthodox (non-supremacy) hold that the West held the Papacy (just not with supreme authority) or, more common, the West held the highest place of the three Sees of St Peter.

I deny the fact that Church in Rome was established by St. Peter and that St. Peter was a Bishop of Rome.

I can't imagine anyone who can agree to the first statement. It's illogical.

Does Peter need to be physically present in Rome to establish the Church? Were there the Apostles the only ones capable of evangelizing the Gospel?

If Peter was always the Pope, Rome is secondary. Rome doesn't make the Pope. So, St Peter only needed to be succeeded there to pass his primacy.


Do you deny that Ss Peter and Paul were martyred in Rome?

It is recorded in multiple places that Linus succeeded St Peter as Bishop in Rome:

Quote
"The blessed apostles [Peter and Paul], having founded and built up the church [of Rome] . . . handed over the office of the episcopate to Linus" (Against Heresies 3:3:3 [A.D. 189]).
 
"[T]his is the way in which the apostolic churches transmit their lists: like the church of the Smyrneans, which records that Polycarp was placed there by John, like the church of the Romans, where Clement was ordained by Peter" (Demurrer Against the Heretics 32:2 [A.D. 200]).


1 Peter 5:
Quote
[11] To him be glory and empire for ever and ever. Amen. [12] By Sylvanus, a faithful brother unto you, as I think, I have written briefly: beseeching and testifying that this is the true grace of God, wherein you stand. [13] The church that is in Babylon, elected together with you, saluteth you: and so doth my son Mark. [14] Salute one another with a holy kiss. Grace be to all you, who are in Christ Jesus. Amen.

Do you think St Peter was referring to Babylon? The city long destroyed of glory by war? Rome had been repeatedly referred to as Babylon. It is even repeated several times in Revelations. Why? Because, with Peter in Rome, and actively seen as in opposition of Rome due to persecution, it was necessary for him to make his whereabouts doubtful.

Logged


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

Faith: Roman Catholic
Posts: 532


« Reply #64 on: November 04, 2010, 05:13:21 PM »

I think that this mode of discussion is faulty.  In others thread this might work.

I suggest that one moderator suggests topics, giving the sides some time to work on polemical essays.
The essays should be about 2000-10000 words long, in English, following the 11th commandment "thou shalt not make the quotation mark in vain".
The sides post their essays, then each poster has the right to post a 100-1000 word response to the essays aforementioned, within a week.
Finally, there will be a summary of various view points mentioned and the topic will remain closed.

Possible topics:
 1.The sources of Marian devotion: liturgical and scriptural, or, mystical and symbolic
 2.The Christian personalist revolution of the early 20th century:
             subtopics: a.What separates us more, dogma or our existential condition
                            b. Are we under the rule of determinism or can we create a new theological reality
                            c. Berdiaev, Shestov v. Maritain, Gilson, Marcel: similarities and differences
                            d. Traditional Christianity in the face of Revolution: defensive or offensive strategies
 3. The Holy Trinity: supernatural phaenomenon or internal revelation
             subtopics: a. Is the Triune God worshipped by or does the Triune God worship us
                            b. Can we proceed into the Holy Trinity or does the Holy Trinity proceed into us    
                                  ba. Are we a byproduct of the love of the Trinity per se and in se or are we a product of the strife between    the vacuum of space and light, the light being the Trinity        
                            c. The Trinity is a symbol of unity: is humanity a symbol of the Trinity
                                 ca. is the Church the incarnation of the Trinity
                                 cb. the pan-Christian folk description of the strife amongst the Three Persons/Hypostases
                                
I think that we should try to civilise the debate here. This is my input in the perfection of our Christianity.
Logged
Aindriú
Faster! Funnier!
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

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



WWW
« Reply #65 on: November 04, 2010, 05:19:56 PM »

I think that we should try to civilise the debate here.

Incoming!!!
Logged


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

Faith: Roman Catholic
Posts: 532


« Reply #66 on: November 04, 2010, 05:24:01 PM »


Are you denying even Orthodox tradition that holds the Latin Patriarch to be Apostolic? Not to mention the more pro-patrine Orthodox (non-supremacy) hold that the West held the Papacy (just not with supreme authority) or, more common, the West held the highest place of the three Sees of St Peter.

I deny the fact that Church in Rome was established by St. Peter and that St. Peter was a Bishop of Rome.

I can't imagine anyone who can agree to the first statement. It's illogical.
[/quote]
Kolego, udowodnij to co mówisz! Jak poddasz 50 dowodów na to twierdzenie, to ja ci uwierzę! Ja mogę też tak powiedzieć, nio, że widziałem moją stryjenkę w łóżku z jakimś tam bliżej nieokreślonego wyznawcy prawosławia w sutannie z pektorałem... Ale jak się nie ma 50 stron dowodów, to nie można mówić że jesteś pewny w tym co mówisz. Przecież, gdyby takowy św.Piotr żył dzisiej i tutej, to on mógłby cię oskarżyć o pomówienie!

Forgive I had to start in Polish, I just had to

Friend, provide proof of your claims. If you can provide 50 pieces of evidence to back your claim, then I shall believe you! I can also say that I saw my uncle's wife with a guy who is Orthodox and wears a soutanne and pectoral ... But if you do not have 50 pages of proof, then you can state that you yourself are sre of what you are talking about. Obviously, if st.Peter was around here and now, then he could accuse you of calumny.
Logged
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,124



« Reply #67 on: November 04, 2010, 05:37:40 PM »

Do you really believe that when after 60 AD (more than 20 years after the emergent of Christianity) St. Peter arrived to Rome (capital city of the empire) there had no been Christian at all?

Are you denying even Orthodox tradition that holds the Latin Patriarch to be Apostolic? Not to mention the more pro-patrine Orthodox (non-supremacy) hold that the West held the Papacy (just not with supreme authority) or, more common, the West held the highest place of the three Sees of St Peter.
The papacy as an institution, and office originated in Alexandria, not Rome.  Alexandria was given it long before Nicea I, and Rome did appropriate to itself until centuries after Nicea I.

Right, it started in Alexandria. St Peter then moved to Antioch, and eventually to Rome.

It had nothing to do with St. Peter, there being no developed ancient tradition that he ever set foot in Egypt (the Coptic legend of today seems to be connecting 1 Pet. 5:13 with Babylon in Egypt (Old Cairo). And he certainly was not there before he was in Antioch, which is recorded in Holy Scripture.  Alexandria, unlike Antioch and Rome, has never claimed to have been founded directly by St. Peter.

Quote
Before debating on who holds keys, if any. It is often shown that ECF recognized the Apostolic Succession of St. Peter within those three Sees. I believe even you have point out those quotes.


The succession of St. Peter at Alexandria never claimed that St. Peter was ever there, just that his disciple St. Mark founded the Church of Alexandria. Odd thing that the traditions of those three sees never speak of Jerusalem, where St. Peter obviously was and received his consecration. Alexandria never precedes Antioch in the history of the Apostles, but it did in the imperial ordering of the metropolises.

Quote
So, not only has Rome an Apostolic Succession, but it is understood to have also had the presence of St Peter to lay his hands on Bishops toward the end of his life.
He was succeeded by St. Linus, who was consecrated by St. Paul.

As for having the presence of St. Peter to consecrate bishops until his martyrdom, that doesn't say anything after his martyrdom. Even according to the Vatican's own rules, a pope doesn't have to become pope in Rome (otherwise the Avignon papacy blows a nearly century hole in the institution), he becomes pope immediately when he accepts his election (which he doesn't have to do in Rome, nor does he have to be elected at Rome).  This is not like the Aaronic High Priest, who had to be consecrated in Jerusalem, nor the succession of the elders of Israel, who had to lay hands on their successors in the Promised Land.  Hence the basis of the relevance of where St. Peter was martyred does not exist to support the claims of the papacy.
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
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,124



« Reply #68 on: November 04, 2010, 05:40:09 PM »

Isa,

The last post of pretty colors made be giddy and I ran to get my crayons. By the time I got back, I couldn't remember your point.
Maybe for the best...can you color within the lines?
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
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,124



« Reply #69 on: November 04, 2010, 05:47:44 PM »

Please read up:Ultramontanism
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15125a.htm
That isn't the common usage of the word ultramontanism even if it may be a meaning of the word. It is most often used to describe the RC position as heretical.

Then the most often usage is correct.

Quote
There is a schismatic on the Catholic forum I am a member of who is one of those who believes the "post-conciliar" Church is an entirely new religion altogether (i.e. Vatican II corrupted the True Church) and he refers to all of us who accept Vatican II and are in Full Communion with Rome as ultramontanists. He, like you, is clearly using that terminology because the word itself implies heresy.

Your point?

So, has he renounced the papacy of Vatican I?
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
mike
Stratopedarches
**************
Offline Offline

Posts: 21,467


WWW
« Reply #70 on: November 04, 2010, 05:55:24 PM »

Does Peter need to be physically present in Rome to establish the Church? Were there the Apostles the only ones capable of evangelizing the Gospel?

Yes. He needed to be there to establish the Church there.

Quote
Do you deny that Ss Peter and Paul were martyred in Rome?

No.

edit:

I believe that St. Peter visited Rome where there had already been a local Church with her own Boshop (St. Linus ?). He was captured there an martyred.
« Last Edit: November 04, 2010, 05:59:12 PM by Michał Kalina » Logged

Byzantinism
no longer posting here
Aindriú
Faster! Funnier!
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

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



WWW
« Reply #71 on: November 04, 2010, 07:03:36 PM »

It had nothing to do with St. Peter, there being no developed ancient tradition that he ever set foot in Egypt (the Coptic legend of today seems to be connecting 1 Pet. 5:13 with Babylon in Egypt (Old Cairo). And he certainly was not there before he was in Antioch, which is recorded in Holy Scripture.  Alexandria, unlike Antioch and Rome, has never claimed to have been founded directly by St. Peter.

I'll provide a quote at the end for this. Alexandria inherited the "faith of St Peter" from the evangelist St Mark, who was St Peter's disciple. A line of Apostolic succession, though not physical presence.

The succession of St. Peter at Alexandria never claimed that St. Peter was ever there, just that his disciple St. Mark founded the Church of Alexandria. Odd thing that the traditions of those three sees never speak of Jerusalem, where St. Peter obviously was and received his consecration. Alexandria never precedes Antioch in the history of the Apostles, but it did in the imperial ordering of the metropolises.

You're correct. St Mark, St Peter's disciple, brought "St Peter's faith" to Alexandria. This is why is is recognized as such.

He was succeeded by St. Linus, who was consecrated by St. Paul.

Debatable due to resources.

The Apostolic Constitutions says that Linus was the first bishop of Rome and was ordained by Paul, and that he was succeeded by Clement, who was ordained by Peter. Cletus is given as Linus's successor by Irenaeus and others (St Jerome, Eusebius, John Chrysostom, the Liber Pontificalis, etc) who present Linus either as the first bishop of Rome or, if they give Peter as the first, as the second.

As for having the presence of St. Peter to consecrate bishops until his martyrdom, that doesn't say anything after his martyrdom. Even according to the Vatican's own rules, a pope doesn't have to become pope in Rome (otherwise the Avignon papacy blows a nearly century hole in the institution),

Rome has never had anything to do with the Papacy, other that that being the current seat. The papacy isn't Rome, the papacy is in Rome. If the Patriarch of Moscow became Pope, he could sit in Russia all day long, and still be the Pope.

he becomes pope immediately when he accepts his election (which he doesn't have to do in Rome, nor does he have to be elected at Rome).  This is not like the Aaronic High Priest, who had to be consecrated in Jerusalem, nor the succession of the elders of Israel, who had to lay hands on their successors in the Promised Land.  Hence the basis of the relevance of where St. Peter was martyred does not exist to support the claims of the papacy.

It wasn't mentioned to support the papacy. It was mentioned to support that he was ever in Rome. That was doubted by the previous poster.

Quote from St Gregory:
Quote
"Wherefore though there are many apostles, yet with regard to the principality itself the See of the Prince of the apostles alone has grown strong in authority, which in three places is the See of one. For he himself exalted the See in which he deigned even to rest and end the present life [Rome]. He himself adorned the See to which he sent his disciple as evangelist [Alexandria]. He himself established the See in which, though he was to leave it, he sat for seven years [Antioch]. Since then it is the See of one, and one See, over which by Divine authority three bishops now preside, whatever good I hear of you, this I impute to myself.”
(Book VII, Epistle XL of St Gregory I, Pope of Rome to Pope Eulogius of Alexandria)

It was said that the three original Patriarchates of Rome, Alexandria, and Antioch were given primacy in their respective regions partly due to their Petrine origins.

Additionally, the Arabic Hudoyo Canons gives the Patriarch of Patriarchs role to the Pope of Rome. (since we seem to be arguing papacy AND St Peter in Rome)
Logged


I'm going to need this.
Aindriú
Faster! Funnier!
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

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



WWW
« Reply #72 on: November 04, 2010, 07:04:39 PM »

Isa,

The last post of pretty colors made be giddy and I ran to get my crayons. By the time I got back, I couldn't remember your point.
Maybe for the best...can you color within the lines?

Rarely...  Cry It's worse than Vatican II art.   Grin
Logged


I'm going to need this.
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,124



« Reply #73 on: November 04, 2010, 11:02:27 PM »

It had nothing to do with St. Peter, there being no developed ancient tradition that he ever set foot in Egypt (the Coptic legend of today seems to be connecting 1 Pet. 5:13 with Babylon in Egypt (Old Cairo). And he certainly was not there before he was in Antioch, which is recorded in Holy Scripture.  Alexandria, unlike Antioch and Rome, has never claimed to have been founded directly by St. Peter.

I'll provide a quote at the end for this. Alexandria inherited the "faith of St Peter" from the evangelist St Mark, who was St Peter's disciple. A line of Apostolic succession, though not physical presence.

The succession of St. Peter at Alexandria never claimed that St. Peter was ever there, just that his disciple St. Mark founded the Church of Alexandria. Odd thing that the traditions of those three sees never speak of Jerusalem, where St. Peter obviously was and received his consecration. Alexandria never precedes Antioch in the history of the Apostles, but it did in the imperial ordering of the metropolises.

You're correct. St Mark, St Peter's disciple, brought "St Peter's faith" to Alexandria. This is why is is recognized as such.

He was succeeded by St. Linus, who was consecrated by St. Paul.

Debatable due to resources.

The Apostolic Constitutions says that Linus was the first bishop of Rome and was ordained by Paul, and that he was succeeded by Clement, who was ordained by Peter. Cletus is given as Linus's successor by Irenaeus and others (St Jerome, Eusebius, John Chrysostom, the Liber Pontificalis, etc) who present Linus either as the first bishop of Rome or, if they give Peter as the first, as the second.

As for having the presence of St. Peter to consecrate bishops until his martyrdom, that doesn't say anything after his martyrdom. Even according to the Vatican's own rules, a pope doesn't have to become pope in Rome (otherwise the Avignon papacy blows a nearly century hole in the institution),

Rome has never had anything to do with the Papacy, other that that being the current seat. The papacy isn't Rome, the papacy is in Rome. If the Patriarch of Moscow became Pope, he could sit in Russia all day long, and still be the Pope.

he becomes pope immediately when he accepts his election (which he doesn't have to do in Rome, nor does he have to be elected at Rome).  This is not like the Aaronic High Priest, who had to be consecrated in Jerusalem, nor the succession of the elders of Israel, who had to lay hands on their successors in the Promised Land.  Hence the basis of the relevance of where St. Peter was martyred does not exist to support the claims of the papacy.

It wasn't mentioned to support the papacy. It was mentioned to support that he was ever in Rome. That was doubted by the previous poster.

Quote from St Gregory:
Quote
"Wherefore though there are many apostles, yet with regard to the principality itself the See of the Prince of the apostles alone has grown strong in authority, which in three places is the See of one. For he himself exalted the See in which he deigned even to rest and end the present life [Rome]. He himself adorned the See to which he sent his disciple as evangelist [Alexandria]. He himself established the See in which, though he was to leave it, he sat for seven years [Antioch]. Since then it is the See of one, and one See, over which by Divine authority three bishops now preside, whatever good I hear of you, this I impute to myself.”
(Book VII, Epistle XL of St Gregory I, Pope of Rome to Pope Eulogius of Alexandria)

It was said that the three original Patriarchates of Rome, Alexandria, and Antioch were given primacy in their respective regions partly due to their Petrine origins.

Additionally, the Arabic Hudoyo Canons gives the Patriarch of Patriarchs role to the Pope of Rome. (since we seem to be arguing papacy AND St Peter in Rome)

LOL. The Arabic Canons of Nicea I, so called.  Even the sola scripturists can handle exposing them.
Quote
"The Peter Syndrome: Roman Catholic Writers See Papal Supremacy Behind Every Bush, or In Every Early Father: An Initial Review of Some Problems in the Newly Published Book, 'Jesus, Peter & the Keys' By Scott Butler, Norman Dahlgren, and David Hess" by James White

Jesus, Peter & the Keys provides us with a glaring example of how the "Peter Syndrome" can cause one to develop massive blind spots when it comes to historical data. One of the great problems that has faced Roman Catholic apologists over the centuries is found in the 6th Canon of the Council of Nic�a. This canon specifically limits the prerogatives of the bishop of Rome: an action utterly contrary to Roman claims of universal jurisdiction. To the honest or unbiased student of history, this canon tells us that three centuries into the Christian era the bishop of Rome held a high position in the Church's view. However, it was a limited position, one commensurate with the political and geographical factors that gave rise to the prominence first of the church at Rome, and eventually to the bishop of the Church itself. At this time the transition from the importance of the church to the bishop is taking place, but the church still holds the primary position. In any case, there is no Papacy functioning in the modern sense at all, despite all of Vatican I's claims to the contrary, and it is plain that the Christian Church as a whole sees no need for a monarchial leader in the bishop of Rome.

Many centuries after the Council of Nic�a, long after the rise of the Papacy into prominence (and just before its fall into the Pornocracy), supporters of this institution began the process of changing history through the use of forgeries. Documents like the famous Donation of Constantine began to circulate. The very fact that men had to create such documents tells us something very important: the belief they wished to substantiate in history could not be substantiated any other way. That is, if people had always believed in the Papacy as it was developing in later centuries, there would be no need to create forgeries to make it look otherwise. One of the forgeries that can be traced to this period involves an expansion in the canons that were passed at the Council of Nic�a. Originally the council passed twenty canons, including the famous 6th canon. Yet, centuries later, other collections began to appear. There is no question that these other canons are forgeries-fakes. Yet, amazingly enough, Scott Butler and his co-authors cite from these forgeries in an attempt to substantiate their position! They are not alone here, and in fact, as the quotation below shows, they at least admitted that these canons are not part of the "generally accepted" list. I have heard other apologists, such as Tim Staples, quote Canon 39 of the Arabic canons as if it were a part of the original Council of Nic�a, a tremendously dishonest thing to do. On page 308 of Jesus, Peter & the Keys, we find the following:
(From the Arabic Canons of the Council of Nicaea):

"[CANON XXXIX] Of the care and power which a Patriarch has over the bishops and archbishops of his patriarchate; and of the primacy of the Bishop of Rome over all.

"Let the patriarch consider what things are done by the archbishops and bishops in their provinces; and if he shall find anything done by them otherwise than it should be, let him change it, and order it, as seemeth him fit; for he is the father of all, and they are his sons. And although the archbishop be among the bishop as an elder brother, who hath the care of his brethren, and to whom they owe obedience because he is over them; yet the patriarch is to all those who are under this power, just as he who holds the seat of Rome, is the head and prince of all patriarchs; inasmuch as he is first, as was Peter, to whom power is given over all Christian princes, and over all their peoples, as he who is the Vicar of Christ our Lord over all peoples and over the whole Christian Church, and whoever shall contradict this, is excommunicated by the Synod. [While not a part of the generally accepted canons of the Council of Nic�a, these canons promulgated from the Eastern Church give a mind's eye view of the thinking of Eastern Christianity.]" Philip Schaff and Henry Wace, eds., Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers--The Seven Ecumenical Councils, vol.14, (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1994), 48.


The reader should note a few things. First, in the interest of charity, we will assume that the placement of the closing quotation is a simple error: the material enclosed in the brackets which states, "While not a part of the generally accepted canons of the Council of Nic�a, these canons promulgated from the Eastern Church gives a mind's eye view of the thinking of Eastern Christianity" is not a part of what is found in Schaff and Wace. It is, instead, the editorial comment of the authors of Jesus, Peter & the Keys. We only note that such a statement flies in the face of the Eastern Church's resistance of Papal claims over the centuries. We also note that the authors did not include the footnote attached to the canon in the source they themselves use: "I have translated the whole canon literally; the reader will judge of its antiquity." It should be noted that in context, the author is indicating that the canon is not ancient.

But much more importantly is what the citation of such a source tells us about the mindset of the authors and their drive to find anything in history that seems to be supportive of their claims. Allegiance to Papal authority seems to create a blind spot in this area. It seems rather obvious, to those who are not committed to such an allegiance, that the quotation of forgeries that date from half a millennium after the fact is hardly helpful to one's cause, but is, in fact, detrimental. But to those who seek any positive mention of Peter or Rome, it fits the bill, despite its lack of historical credibility. The Peter Syndrome functions in full here, for if one has to include materials with no more historical basis than the Donation of Constantine in one's work, it seems clear that the real sources of real history do not provide much in the way of meaningful support for one's thesis. For those interested in the issue of the Arabic canons, we provide, appended to the end of this article, an entire discussion of the subject, taken from the very same source (Schaff and Wace) used in Jesus, Peter & the Keys.

It is striking to note, however how the book handles a far more relevant and important historical fact, that being the 28th canon of the Council of Chalcedon. Note the words of this ecumenical council:

Following in all things the decisions of the holy Fathers, and acknowledging the canon, which has been just read...we also do enact and decree the same things concerning the privileges of the most holy Church of Constantinople, which is New Rome. For the Fathers rightly granted privileges to the throne of old Rome, because it was the royal city. And the One Hundred and Fifty most religious Bishops, actuated by the same consideration, gave equal privileges to the most holy throne of New Rome, justly judging that the city which is honored with the Sovereignty and the Senate, and enjoys equal privileges with the old imperial Rome, should in ecclesiastical matters also be magnified as she is, and rank next after her.
Note that here we have the real view of "Eastern Christianity" as expressed in a Council of the Church. This appears in the records centuries before the Arabic canons. We know who promulgated this canon (we don't know who created the Arabic canons). Yet, Jesus, Peter & the Keys does everything it can to down-play the canon from Chalcedon, while presenting the Arabic canons as being relevant! Such an action shows that this book is not, as Patrick Madrid has said (citation below), an evenhanded or complete iteration of historical facts. It is anything but.

Regarding the Arabic Canons of Nic�a:

Let us see first what is the testimony of those Greek and Latin authors who lived about the time of the Council, concerning the number.

a. The first to be consulted among the Greek authors is the learned Theodoret, who lived about a century after the Council of Nic�a. He says, in his History of the Church: "After the condemnation of the Arians, the bishops assembled once more, and decreed twenty canons on ecclesiastical discipline."

b. Twenty years later, Gelasius, Bishop of Cyzicus, after much research into the most ancient documents, wrote a history of the Nicene council Gelasius also says expressly that the Council decreed twenty canons; and, what is more important, he gives the original text of these canons exactly in the same order, and according to the tenor which we find elsewhere.

C. Rufinus is more ancient than these two historians. He was born near the period when the Council of Nic�a was held, and about half a century after he wrote his celebrated history of the Church, in which he inserted a Latin translation of the Nicene canons. Rufinus also knew only of these twenty canons; but as he has divided the sixth and the eighth into two parts, he has given twenty-two canons, which are exactly the same as the twenty furnished by the other historians.

d. The famous discussion between the African bishops and the Bishop of Rome, on the subject of appeals to Rome, gives us a very important testimony on the true number of the Nicene canons. The presbyter Apiarius of Sicca in Africa, having been deposed for many crimes, appealed to Rome. Pope Zosimus (417-418) took the appeal into consideration, sent legates to Africa; and to prove that he had the right to act thus, he quoted a canon of the Council of Nic�a, containing these words: "When a bishop thinks he has been unjustly deposed by his colleagues he may appeal to Rome, and the Roman bishop shall have the business decided by judices in partibus." The canon quoted by the Pope does not belong to the Council of Nicea, as he affirmed; it was the fifth canon of the Council of Sardica (the seventh in the Latin version). What explains the error of Zosimus is that in the ancient copies the canons of Nic�a and Sardica are written consecutively, with the same figures, and under the common title of canons of the Council of Nic�a; and Zosimus might optima fide fall into an error-which he shared with Greek authors, his contemporaries, who also mixed the canons of Nicea with those of Sardica. The African bishops, not finding the canon quoted by the Pope either in their Greek or in their Latin copies, in vain consulted also the copy which Bishop Cecilian, who had himself been present at the Council of Nic�a, had brought to Carthage. The legates of the Pope then declared that they did not rely upon these copies, and they agreed to send to Alexandria and to Constantinople to ask the patriarchs of these two cities for authentic copies of the canons of the Council of Nic�a. The African bishops desired in their turn that Pope Boniface should take the same step (Pope Zosimus had died meanwhile in 418)-that he should ask for copies from the Archbishops of Constantinople, Alexandria, and Antioch. Cyril of Alexandria and Atticus of Constantinople, indeed, sent exact and faithful copies of the Creed and canons of Nic�a; and two learned men of Constantinople, Theilo and Thearistus, even translated these canons into Latin. Their translation has been preserved to us in the acts of the sixth Council of Carthage, and it contains only the twenty ordinary canons. It might be thought at first sight that it contained twenty-one canons; but on closer consideration we see, as Hardoum has proved, that this twenty-first article is nothing but an historical notice appended to the Nicene canons by the Fathers of Carthage. It is conceived in these terms: "After the bishops had decreed these rules at Nicea, and after the holy Council had decided what was the ancient rule for the celebration of Easter, peace and unity of faith were re-established between the East and the West. This is what we (the African bishops) have thought it right to add according to the history of the Church.'

The bishops of Africa dispatched to Pope Boniface the copies which had been sent to them from Alexandria and Constantinople, in the month of November 419; and subsequently in their letters to Celestine I (423432), successor to Boniface, they appealed to the text of these documents.

& All the ancient collections of canons, either in Latin or Greek, composed in the fourth, or quite certainly at least in the fifth century, agree in giving only these twenty canons to Nicea. The most ancient of these collections were made in the Greek Church, and in the course of time a very great number of copies of them were written. Many of these copies have descended to us; many libraries possess copies; thus Montfaucon enumerates several in his Bibliotheca Coisliniana. Fabricius makes a similar catalogue of the copies in his Bibliotheca Graeca to those found in the libraries of Turin, Florence, Venice, Oxford, Moscow, etc.; and he adds that these copies also contain the so-called apostolic canons, and those of the most ancient councils. The French bishop John Tilius presented to Paris, in 1540, a MS. of one of these Greek collections as it existed in the ninth century. It contains exactly our twenty canons of Nicea, besides the so-called apostolic canons, those of Ancyra, etc. Elias Elunger published a new edition at Wittenberg in 1614, using a second MS. which was found at Augsburg; but the Roman collection of the Councils had before given in 1608, the Greek text of the twenty canons of Nicea. This text of the Roman editors, with the exception of some insignificant variations, was exactly the same as that of the edition of Tilius. Neither the learned Jesuit Sirmond nor his coadjutors have mentioned what manuscripts were consulted in preparing this edition; probably they were manuscripts drawn from several libraries, and particularly from that of the Vatican. The text of this Roman edition passed into all the following collections, even into those of Hardoum and Mansi while Justell in his Bibliotheca juris Canonici and Beveridge in his Synodicon (both of the eighteenth century), give a somewhat different text, also collated from MSS., and very similar to the text given by Tilius. Bruns, in his recent Bibliotheca Ecclesiastica, compares the two texts. Now all these Greek MSS. consulted at such different times, and by all these editors, acknowledge only twenty canons of Nicea, and always the same twenty which we possess.

The Latin collections of the canons of the Councils also give the same result-for example, the most ancient and the most remarkable of all, the Prisca, and that of Dionvsius the Less, which was collected about the year 500. The testimony of this latter collection is the more important for the number twenty, as Dionysius refers to the Graeca auctoritas.

f. Among the later Eastern witnesses we may further mention Photius, Zonaras and Balsamon. Photius, in his Collection of the Canons, and in his Nomocanon, as well as the two other writers in their commentaries upon the canons of the ancient Councils, quote only and know only twenty canons of Nicea, and always those which we possess.

g. The Latin canonists of the Middle Ages also acknowledge only these twenty canons of Nic�a. We have proof of this in the celebrated Spanish collection, which is generally but erroneously attributed to St. Isidore (it was composed at the commencement of the seventh century), and in that of Adrian (so called because it was offered to Charles the Great by Pope Adrian I). The celebrated Hincmar, Archbishop of Rheims, the first canonist of the ninth century, in his turn attributes only twenty canons to the Council of Nicea, and even the pseudo-Isidore assigns it no more.
http://vintage.aomin.org/SBNDDHrep.html

Yet Apologist for the Vatican keep on recycling this "canon"
Quote
CANON XXXIX.
"Of the care and power which a Patriarch has over the bishops and archbishops of his patriarchate; and of the primacy of the Bishop of Rome over all.
Let the patriarch consider what things are done by the archbishops and bishops in their provinces; and if he shall find anything done by them otherwise than it should be, let him change it, and order it, as seemeth him fit: for he is the father of all, and they are his sons. And although the archbishop be among the bishops as an elder brother, who hath the care of his brethren, and to whom they owe obedience because he is over them; yet the patriarch is to all those who are under his power, just as he who holds the seat of Rome, is the head and prince of all patriarchs; in-asmuch as he is first, as was Peter, to whom power is given over all Christian princes, and over all their peoples, as he who is the Vicar of Christ our Lord over all peoples and over the whole Christian Church, and whoever shall contradict this, is excommunicated by the Synod.
[I add Canon XXXVII. of Echellensis's Nova Versio LXXXIV. Arabic. Canonum Conc. Nicoeni, that the reader may compare it with the foregoing.]
Let there be only four patriarchs in the whole world as there are four writers of the Gospel, and four rivers, etc. And let there be a prince and chief over them, the lord of the see of the Divine Peter at Rome, according as the Apostles commanded. And after him the lord of the great Alexandria, which is the see of Mark. And the third is the lord of Ephesus, which is the see of John the Divine who speaks divine things. And the fourth and last is my lord of Antioch, which is another see of Peter. And let all the bishops be divided under the hands of these four patriarchs; and the bishops of the little towns which are under the dominion of the great cities let them be under the authority of these metropolitans. But let every metropolitan of these great cities appoint the bishops of his province, but let none of the bishops appoint him, for he is greater than they. Therefore let every man know his own rank, and let him not usurp the rank of another. And whosoever shall contradict this law which we have established the Fathers of the Synod subject him to anathema.
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf214.vii.vii.html

As Schaff shows, this fraud has been exposed well over a century ago
The Academy, Issue 3 (1872)
Quote
The Tradition of the Syriac Church of Antioch concerning the Primacy and the Prerogatives of St. Peter, and of his Successors, the Roman Pontiffs. By the Most Rev. Cyril Behnam Benni, Syriac Archbishop of Mossul. Translated under the Direction of the Author by the Rev. Joseph Gagliardi. Burns, Oates, and Co.

Archbishop Benni, a Syrian prelate, who took part in the Vatican Council, has published a collection of extracts from Eastern (chiefly Syriac) documents in behalf of papal authority. His readers are expected to look upon these extracts as exhibiting the primitive tradition of the East, as shown " by a diligent enquiry into the teaching of its great writers; who faithfully handed on to their successors those inviolable truths which they had received from their forefathers, in whose ears was still ringing the voice of the Apostles," &c.

If the book were intended for the learned, Archbishop Benni's preface might easily awaken the suspicion of being ironically written, for it is impossible, in fact, to display the nakedness of the land to intelligent eyes more completely than is done by this collection of extracts. But the majority of its readers must necessarily be incompetent critics of the evidence put before them, and if we may judge of them by the list of subscribers, they will have but little hesitation in concluding that the Eastern Church has always taught the dogmas lately denned in the Vatican Council...

...If we exclude the irrevelant evidence, and that which is manifestly purely Roman, there slil remains that of the spurious Arabic canons attributed Shocked the Council of Nice. The importance of these has been much exaggerated in consequence of their being accepted by the different Eastern communions. Erom the hostile feeling which keeps these communions apart, it has been argued that none of them would borrow from another, and that what is common to them all must be anterior to the schism. But a priori arguments like this require to be very rigorously verified. It was on exactly similar grounds that the Samaritan recension of the Pentateuch was formerly supposed (but most erroneously, as every scholar is now aware) to be of the utmost antiquity and purity. These Arabic canons contain gross anachronisms which prove them to be of much more recent date than the beginning of the schism. The hostile feeling referred to has not, in fact, been of a nature to prevent borrowings, especially of forgeries bearing names which did not awaken sectarian animosity. Nor has it been as persistent as is commonly thought. The Moslem invasion was productive of pacific and even kindly intercourse, sometimes closely approaching to religious intercommunion, between the separated churches, and great writers like Elias of Damascus on the Nestorian and Barhebraeus on the Jacobite side wrote treatises to prove that the great Eastern communities were equally orthodox in fact, that their differences were verbal, and that party spirit alone kept them asunder. There are repeated instances on record (see Lacroze, Histoire du Christianisme des Indes, torn. ii. p. 115) of Nestorians applying to Jacobites for bishops; the identity of rite being considered by them as of greater importance than the difference of dogmatic formula. And as for borrowing of literary forgeries, there is the well-known case of the Jacobites adopting the Nestorian fable of the transfer of the patriarchal dignity to the see of Seleucia. There is nothing in the Arabic canons on the dignity of the Roman see to shock either Nestorians or Jacobites, because they all consider that see as having disappeared from the Church many centuries ago. The canons therefore merely represent to them fragments of ecclesiastical discipline which have long since become obsolete. We have at present no means of determining the date of this forgery. The manuscripts which contain the canons are not of very great antiquity. The earliest writer who can be referred to as recognising their existence is Elias of Damascus; but no sensible person will accept such a reference as extract as a proof that they existed at the time of this writer. A collection of canons admits of an indefinite amount of increase, for which the author whose name it bears is in no way responsible. A very large number of the MSS. of Dionysius Exiguus contain documents which he certainly had not included in his collection. We require, then, to see the collection of Elias of Damascus as a whole, and to know its literary history as we know that of Dionysius Exiguus, before we can be sure that he really knew of the spurious Arabic canons of Nice. As to the propagation of canons supposed to be favourable to Rome, there is no historical difficulty whatever. The Catholicism of Rome was for a long time most powerful, nay dominant, in the East Besides the Latin kingdom of Jerusalem, there were the principalities of Tripoli and Edessa, the latter extending beyond the Euphrates. The principality of Antioch lasted for more than a century and a half. There was the nation of the Maronites, and there was the Armenian kingdom under the house of Rupen. In Alexandria one of the Melchite patriarchs was in communion with Rome, and sent a deputy to the Lateran Council. It is not improbably to his influence that the " Filioque " has found its way into the canons attributed to St Hippolytus. This, too, is the time of the daring fraud of the " ancient missionaries" denounced by the learned Dominican Lequien in his Panoplia contra Graecos (p. xiv), and of those " spurious and lying testimonies " forged in support of papal authority which imposed upon St Thomas Aquinas and all Latin theologians for many centuries.

The Arabic canons themselves, however, furnish us with a clue which enables us to conjecture their origin with a great amount of probability. De Marca long ago called attention to the canon which placed the island of Cyprus under the jurisdiction of the patriarch of Antioch. Is fecit cut prodest. The Maronite patriarchs of Antioch exercised jurisdiction in Cyprus over several bishops and churches of their own communion, and it was most probably in their interest that the canpn was forged in justification of an ecclesiastical arrangement directly at variance with ancient rule. If the fraud owes its origin to a Maronite hand, it is not to be wondered at if in some of the canons great authority is ascribed to the Bishop of Rome.

Fraud and forgery are not pleasant words, but they are unfortunately unavoidable in a discussion of the pontifical claims which Archbishop Benni has at heart. And if the whole truth must be spoken, his own book is itself no better than a pious fraud ; in saying which I do not wish to imply that the Archbishop is not the dupe of his own legerdemain. Far less would I wish to make any imputation on the excellent Italian priest by whom the book has been made accessible to English readers, and whose perfect sincerity in the pursuit of truth and knowledge is beyond all suspicion.
http://books.google.com/books?id=SIMNAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA454&dq=%22Fraud+and+forgery+are+not+pleasant+words%22&hl=en&ei=oGLTTJbJFIa9nAfasfjnBQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2&ved=0CC8Q6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=%22Fraud%20and%20forgery%20are%20not%20pleasant%20words%22&f=false

Even the Vatican's experts have admitted the same (although not with imprimatur):
A History of the Councils of the Church: From the Original Documents To the close of the Council of Nicea By Karl Joseph von Hefele, William Robinson Clark, Henry Nutcombe Oxenham, Edward Hayes Plumptre
Quote
In the following century, the Maronite Abraham Echellensis made the deepest researches with reference to the Arabic canons of the Council of Nicaea; and they led him to the opinion that these canons must have been collected from different Oriental nations, from the Syrians, Chaldeans, Maronites, Copts, Jacobites, and Nestorians, and that they had been translated into many Oriental languages. At the same time he started, and with truth, the suggestion that these Oriental collections were simply translations of ancient Greek originals, and that consequently in the Greek Church too they must have reckoned more than twenty canons of Nicuaa.3 After having compared other Arabian Mss. which he had obtained, Echellensis gave a fresh Latin translation of these canons at Paris in 1645. According to these Mss., there were eightyfour canons instead of eighty. However, this difference arose much more from the external arrangement than from the canons themselves. Thus the thirteenth, seventeenth, thirtysecond, and fifty-sixth canons of Turrianus were each divided into two in the translation by Abraham Echellensis; on the other hand, the forty-third and eighty-third of Echellensis each formed two canons in the work of Turrianus. The twenty-ninth, thirty-seventh, and forty-first of A Echellensis are wanting in Turrianus; but, again, Echellensis has not the forty-fifth canon of Turrianus. A superficial study of these two collections of canons would lead to the conclusion that they were almost identical; but it is not so. The corresponding canons in the two translations sometimes have an entirely different meaning. We can but conclude either that the Arabian translators understood the Greek original differently, or else that the MSS. which they used showed considerable variations. The latter supposition is the most probable; it would explain how the eighty-four Arabian canons contain the twenty genuine canons of Nicaea, but often with considerable changes. Without reckoning these eighty-four canons, Echellensis has also translated into Latin, and published, a considerable number of ecclesiastical decrees, Butrvn-waets, constitutiones, also attributed to the Nicene Council . He added to this work a Latin translation of the Arabic preface, which preceded the entire collection in the MS., together with a learned dissertation in defence of the eighty-four canons, with a good many notes. Mansi1 has retained all these articles, and Hardouin2 has also reproduced the principal part of them.

However it may be as to the latter point, it is certain that these Arabic canons are not the work of the Council of Nicaea: their contents evidently prove a much more recent origin. Thus:

a. The thirty-eighth canon (the thirty-third in Tumanus) ordains that the Patriarch of Ephesus should proceed to Constantinople, which is the urbs regia, ut honor sit regno et sacerdotio simul. This decree therefore supposes that Byzantium was then changed into Constantinople, and that it had become the imperial residence. Now this change did not take place until about five years after the Council of Nictea. At the period when the Council was held, Byzantium was still quite an insignificant town, almost reduced to ruins by a previous devastation.6 The bishopric of Constantinople was only raised to the dignity of a patriarchate by the second and fourth (Ecumenical Councils.6 Therefore this canon, translated into Arabic, could not have belonged to the Council of Nicaea, and does not date back further than the fourth (Ecumenical Council.

b. The forty-second canon of A. Echellensis (thirty-sixth in Turrianus) forbids the Ethiopians to, elect a patriarch : their spiritual head was to bear only the title of Catholicus, and to be under the jurisdiction of the Patriarch of Alexandria, etc. This canon also betrays a more recent origin than the time of the Council of Nicaea. At that period, indeed, Ethiopia had no bishop ; hardly had S. Frumentius begun the conversion of its people; and it was only subsequently, when S. Athanasius was already Archbishop of Alexandria, that S. Frumentius made him acquainted with the good results of his missions, and was consecrated by him bishop to the new converts.1 Our canon, on the contrary, supposes a numerous episcopate to be then existing in Ethiopia, and its head, the Catholicus, to be desirous to free himself from the mother church of Alexandria. This canon, as well as others quoted by Turrianus and by A Echellensis, assumes that the institution of patriarchates was then in full vigour, which was not the case at the time of the Council of Nicaea.'

c. Peter de Marca3 has already proved the forty-third canon of the text of A. Echellensis (thirty-seventh in Turr.) to be more recent than the third (Ecumenical Council of Ephesus (431). This Council of Ephesus rejected the pretensions of the Patriarch of Antioch respecting the choice of the bishops of Cyprus.4 According to Marca's demonstration, this dependence of Cyprus upon the see of Antioch cannot be verified before the year 900 : for in the time of the Emperor Leo the Wise (911), we know, from the Notitia of his reign, that Cyprus was not then dependent upon Antioch; whilst this Arabian canon makes out that this submission was already an accomplished fact, disputed by no one.6

d. The fifty-third canon (forty-ninth in Turr.), which condemns simony, has its origin from the second canon of the fourth (Ecumenical Council of Chalcedon.6 It is therefore evident that it was not formed at Mcaea.

e. In the thirty-eighth, thirty-ninth, and forty-second canons (c. 33, 34, and 36 in Turr.), the Bishop of Seleucia, Ahnodajen, is already called Catholicus,—a dignity to which he did not attain until the sixth century, under the Emperor Justinian.1 In this canon, as Seleucia has the Arabian name of Almodajen, Eenaudot concludes that these canons were not formed until the time of Mahomet.

We may therefore sum up the certain proofs resulting from all these facts, by affirming that these Arabic canons are not genuine; and all the efforts of Turrianus, Abraham Echellensis, and Cardinal d'Aguirre, cannot prevent an impartial observer from coming to this opinion even with regard to some of those canons which they were anxious to save, while abandoning the others.2 Together with the authenticity of these canons, the hypothesis of Abraham Echellensis also vanishes, which supposes them to have been collected by Jacob, the celebrated Bishop of Nisibis, who was present at the Nicene Synod. They belong to a later period. Assemani offers another supposition, supporting it by this passage from Ebed-jesu :3 " Bishop Maruthas of Tagrit * translated the seventy-three canons of Nicaea."6 Assemani believes these seventy-three canons to be identical with the eighty-four Arabic canons, but such identity is far from being proved. Even the number of the canons is different; and if it were not so, we know, from what we saw above, that several of the Arabic canons indicate a more recent period than those of Bishop Maruthas. It is probable that Maruthas really translated seventy-three canons, supposed to be Nicene; that is to say, that he had in his hands one of those Mss. spoken of above, which contained various collections of canons falsely attributed to the Council of Nicaea
http://books.google.com/books?output=text&id=ifECAAAAQAAJ&dq=Arabic+canons+nicea&q=Rome+four+patriarchs#v=snippet&q=four%20patriarchs&f=false

Btw, I take that by "Arabic Hudoyo Canons" you mean these "Arabic Canons of Nicea." Hudoyo isn't an Arabic word.

Do you post at Byzcath under Michael Thoma? There is a post on this very close to your post
http://www.byzcath.org/forums/ubbthreads.php/topics/353810/The%20Primacy%20of%20Saint%20Peter

If so, we're both in Chicago.
« Last Edit: November 04, 2010, 11:05:02 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
Aindriú
Faster! Funnier!
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

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



WWW
« Reply #74 on: November 05, 2010, 12:39:35 AM »

Btw, I take that by "Arabic Hudoyo Canons" you mean these "Arabic Canons of Nicea." Hudoyo isn't an Arabic word.

Do you post at Byzcath under Michael Thoma? There is a post on this very close to your post
http://www.byzcath.org/forums/ubbthreads.php/topics/353810/The%20Primacy%20of%20Saint%20Peter

If so, we're both in Chicago.

Quote from St Gregory:
Quote
"Wherefore though there are many apostles, yet with regard to the principality itself the See of the Prince of the apostles alone has grown strong in authority, which in three places is the See of one. For he himself exalted the See in which he deigned even to rest and end the present life [Rome]. He himself adorned the See to which he sent his disciple as evangelist [Alexandria]. He himself established the See in which, though he was to leave it, he sat for seven years [Antioch]. Since then it is the See of one, and one See, over which by Divine authority three bishops now preside, whatever good I hear of you, this I impute to myself.”
(Book VII, Epistle XL of St Gregory I, Pope of Rome to Pope Eulogius of Alexandria)

It was said that the three original Patriarchates of Rome, Alexandria, and Antioch were given primacy in their respective regions partly due to their Petrine origins.

Additionally, the Arabic Hudoyo Canons gives the Patriarch of Patriarchs role to the Pope of Rome. (since we seem to be arguing papacy AND St Peter in Rome)


I was trying to find a St Pope Gregory quote and ran into this last part. The quote I copied, the first sentence was what I was saying the whole time, and the last sounded interesting so I left it to see what you had to say.

Lol, did you.

So no, I'm not in Chicago, unfortunately. I'm on the other side of the country.

You always amaze me with the library of quotes you can grab. Do you have these things bookmarked?
Logged


I'm going to need this.
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 0.359 seconds with 102 queries.