OrthodoxChristianity.net
April 24, 2014, 12:15:33 PM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: The Rules page has been updated.  Please familiarize yourself with its contents!
 
   Home   Help Calendar Contact Treasury Tags Login Register  
Pages: « 1 2 3  All   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: New Ukrainian Catholic leader to ask Pope for patriarchal status  (Read 6707 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Paisius
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Multi-Jurisdictional
Posts: 816


Reframed


« Reply #90 on: April 07, 2011, 02:08:55 PM »

No, the Pope does not request communion with the other Catholic primates.  Just by the fact they are in commuinon already makes this unnecessary.


I don't understand that statement?  Huh
Logged

"Is it really true that political self-interest is nobler somehow than economic self-interest?" - Milton Friedman
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 5,671



« Reply #91 on: April 07, 2011, 02:17:23 PM »

When a new pope is elected does he request communion with the other Catholic primates?


And on another note. Does the pope commemorate the other Catholic patriarchs during liturgy?

Those are good questions. I hadn't really thought about it that way before, or at least not recently. I won't give you an answer because I see Neil (Irish Melkite) is already on it, and I know he's a much better one to address such questions than I am.
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
username!
Section Moderator
Protokentarchos
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Ukrainian Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Pennsylvaniadoxy
Posts: 4,748



« Reply #92 on: April 07, 2011, 03:44:52 PM »

In a semi-recent 60 minute segment they interviewed Patriarch of Constantinople.  They said all of his titles and asked him what they should call him, he replied "Bartholomew."  Now 60 minutes said they couldn't and would call him His Holiness because he deserves it because he's a great man.  None of us would ever call Patriarch Bartholomew just "Bartholomew."  However, it shows exactly the humility that needs to be remebered.  Titles are titles.  Patriarch is a great title that shows respect but also man glorifying man.  A bishop is a bishop no matter what his title is, he is the leader of his flock.  No title can make him more of a bishop, more of a leader.  The grace of God touched upon him as he was tonsured a reader, ordained a subdeacon, ordained a deacon, ordained a priest and then ordained a bishop.  But it is through God that everything comes to us.  You aren't ordained an archbishop, a protopresbyter, a mitred archpriest, or even a patriarch.  So while it may be cool in a way for the Greek Catholics to have that title on their bishop in Kyiv, he is still their bishop at the end of the day.
Logged

Irish_Melkite
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Jurisdiction: Eparchy of Newton MA
Posts: 98


« Reply #93 on: April 07, 2011, 03:52:09 PM »

When a new pope is elected does he request communion with the other Catholic primates?


And on another note. Does the pope commemorate the other Catholic patriarchs during liturgy?

Those are good questions. I hadn't really thought about it that way before, or at least not recently. I won't give you an answer because I see Neil (Irish Melkite) is already on it, and I know he's a much better one to address such questions than I am.

I need to change my nick.  There's Irish Melkite (Neil) and then there's Irish_Melkite (me, Tom).  Sorry for the confusion. 
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: 35,633



« Reply #94 on: April 07, 2011, 04:08:03 PM »

No, the Pope does not request communion with the other Catholic primates.  Just by the fact they are in commuinon already makes this unnecessary.


I don't understand that statement?  Huh

The Vatican has redefined "Catholic" as meaning in communion with their supreme pontiff.  Since according to them, as soon as he is selected, he becomes supreme pontiff, as long as he is already a bishop, then by their definition the primates have to be in communion with him.

We have  a few threads on the problem of how papal charisma is passed on without a consecration.
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,32995.0.html
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,32759.0.html
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,32995.0.html
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,33134.0.html
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,32532.0.html
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
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 5,671



« Reply #95 on: April 07, 2011, 08:54:51 PM »

I need to change my nick.  There's Irish Melkite (Neil) and then there's Irish_Melkite (me, Tom).  Sorry for the confusion.  

Sorry, I jumped to conclusions.

Pleased to meet you, Tom.  Smiley
« Last Edit: April 07, 2011, 08:56:47 PM by Peter J » Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
podkarpatska
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: ACROD
Posts: 7,589


SS Cyril and Methodius Church, Mercer, PA


WWW
« Reply #96 on: April 08, 2011, 10:46:49 AM »

When a new pope is elected does he request communion with the other Catholic primates?


And on another note. Does the pope commemorate the other Catholic patriarchs during liturgy?

Those are good questions. I hadn't really thought about it that way before, or at least not recently. I won't give you an answer because I see Neil (Irish Melkite) is already on it, and I know he's a much better one to address such questions than I am.

I need to change my nick.  There's Irish Melkite (Neil) and then there's Irish_Melkite (me, Tom).  Sorry for the confusion. 

That's funny as I just asked Neil if you were one and the same!
Logged
Hermogenes
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 493



« Reply #97 on: April 09, 2011, 07:27:08 AM »

Is it true that cardinals outrank Patriarchs in the Catholic Church?

No. Patriarchs of the Eastern Rite may be cardinals, however, in which case they always belong to the order of cardinal bishops. But a number of Latin Rite archbishops have the title patriarch, such as the patriarch of Venice, the patriarch of Lisbon, and the patriarch of the Gauls. They are normally cardinals, but the red hat is never automatic. And the Latin patriarch of Jerusalem isn't a cardinal, either in fact or by custom.

Okay, but hypothetically speaking, if a bishop is a patriarch, but not a cardinal, would a non-patriarch cardinal outrank him?
If you lined up bishops in order of precedence, the answer would be yes: A cardinal would come before non-cardinal patriarchs.

Why?
Logged
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 5,671



« Reply #98 on: April 09, 2011, 07:43:39 AM »

If you lined up bishops in order of precedence, the answer would be yes: A cardinal would come before non-cardinal patriarchs.

Source?
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
Irish Melkite
Information Mongeror
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite Greek-Catholic
Jurisdiction: Eparchy of Newton
Posts: 964


WWW
« Reply #99 on: April 11, 2011, 06:46:04 AM »

The order of precedence depends, to a minor degree, on the nature of the procession and the venue in which it occurs. However, as a general rule, it should not vary.

For instance, at the enthronement, a few years ago, of Archbishop Cyril (Bustros) as Eparch of Newton for the Melkites, the order of procession (forgive the inclusion of non-hierarchs - I cut and pasted this part from elsewhere and it's too late and I'm too tired to cull it down to the hierarchs, which are the focus of discussion) was:

Servers
Members of religious congregations not in holy orders
- Novices
- Nuns
- Religious Brothers
- Brother Monks
Seminarians
Non-celebrating minor clergy
- Readers
- Cantors
- Sub-deacons
- Deacons
Serving minor clergy
- Deacons
- Proto-deacons
- Arch-deacons
Orthodox Presbyters (other than those formally representing hierarchs)
Latin Presbyters
Eastern Hieromonks and Presbyters with no title of minor prelature
Orthodox Minor Prelates formally representing their hierarchs
Eastern, Oriental & Latin Minor Prelates
- Monsignori
- Archimandrites
- Archpriests
- Periodeuts
- Chorepiscopi
- Proto-Presbyters (non-Melkite)
Non-hierarchical Concelebrants
- Cathedral Rector
- Melkite Proto-Presbyters
- Maronite Chorbishop/Dean of New England
- Melkite Patriarchal Exarch
Hegumens
Abbots
Eastern, Oriental, and Latin Catholic bishops (intermingled, by date of episcopal ordination - note that this is how it should be done; there are those who would separate the Eastern and Oriental from the Latins, for the sake of uniformity of vesture, etc - to do so is blatantly incorrect and defies the concept of the unity of the Church)
Metropolitan Archbishop of Hartford (Latin)
Metropolitan Arch-Eparch of Philadelphia of the Ukrainians
Metropolitan Cardinal-Archbishop of Boston (Latin)
Metropolitan Arch-Eparch of Pittsburgh of the Ruthenians
Emeritus Eparch of Newton of the Melkites
Eparch-Designate of Newton of the Melkites
Apostolic Nuncio to the United States
Patriarch of Antioch, Alexandria, Jerusalem, and All the East of the Melkites  

Hartford and Philadelphia were sequenced for precedence by date of episcopal ordination
Boston had precedence over the other 2 Metropolitans (Hartford and Philadelphia) by virtue of being also a Cardinal
Pittsburgh had precedence over Boston by virtue of heading a sui iuris Church
Newton had its precedence by virtue of the ceremony being in and of their jurisdiction
Apostolic Nuncio had his precedence by virtue of representing the Pope
His Beatitude had precedence by virtue of his Patriarchy and by reason of being in a cathedral of his Church sui iuris

--------------------

In contrast, when Newton was still an exarchate, at the time (1969) of the enthronement of Archbishop Joseph (Tawil), of blessed memory, the differences in precedence were:

Pittsburgh - the Ruthenian Metropolia was not yet termed sui iuris
Philadelphia - by prior date of elevation to Archbishop
Hartford - again, by prior date of elevation
Newton - by virtue of being exarch-designate
Apostolic Delegate - by virtue of representation

and (being three hierarchs who genuinely liked and enjoyed one another's company) the then-Archbishop of Boston, Richard Cardinal Cushing, Patriarch Maximos V Hakim, and GO Archbishop Iakovos, all of blessed memory, processed side-by-side (truth be told, it was, most likely, the better to chit-chat among themselves while awaiting the start of the procession).

Had that not been the case, it would have been Archbishop Iakovos, followed by the Cardinal, followed by the Patriarch.

The Cardinal would have immediately preceded the Patriarch (rather than been factored into the other Metropolitans by date of episcopal ordination) because the cathedral of an apostolic exarchate in the diaspora (an apostolic exarchate being a papal jurisdiction) would have been technically within the geographic bounds of the Latin metropolitan, rather than being a distinct canonical jurisdiction. Thus, the Latin Cardinal Archbishop of Boston would not have been 'outside' his own canonical jurisdiction once he stepped onto its grounds (as is now the case when the Latin Archbishop of Boston enters upon the grounds of the cathedral or the other Melkite temples and institutions that are within the broader geographic bounds of the Boston Latin Archdiocese).    

-------------------

In general, Eastern and Oriental Catholic hierarchs attending and participating in a procession in a Latin venue should be ordered (by date of episcopal ordination) for precdeence with their Latin peers. That would include those who are the primatial hierarchs of sui iuris Churches in which an Exarchate or Eparchy is the highest status of canonical jurisdiction (e.g., the Byzantine Greek, Italo-Greico-Albanian, and Slovak Churches sui iuris). So, bishops, archbishops, and Latin metropolitan archbishops.

Next should be those Metropolitan Archbishops who are the ranking primates of Metropolitan Churches sui iuris, again by date; then Major-Archbishops of Churches sui iuris, again by date; and, finally, Patriarchs - Coptic, followed by  Melkite, and the others by date of election.

But, in a temple of his own Church sui iuris, a Patriarch has precedence over all other Patriarchs, and Patriarchs Emeritus of that same Church enjoy precedence over all Patriarchs other than the then-reigning Patriarch.
------------------

The one notable exception to the above is that, in a procession of the College of Cardinals, any Eastern or Oriental Catholic hierarch who is also a Cardinal (other than those who are Patriarchs) would be ordered with his fellow Cardinals by the date so named.

Patriarchs who are also Cardinals are automatically ascribed to the ranks of the Cardinal Bishops and would be ordered with their fellow-Cardinal Bishops, by date named as Cardinal; however, they (and all the Cardinal Bishops) would have precedence only after the Dean of the College of Cardinals.

-----------------------

Precedence, even as head of a Church sui iuris, would almost always give way to a Latin hierarch in whose canonical jurisdiction one is a guest and in which one is processing - although a Major-Archbishop or Patriarch is most likely to be afforded honorific precedence there (processing with or alongside the resident hierarch).

Such might also be accorded to a Metropolitan of a Church sui iuris if the resident hierarch is particularly sensitive to the distinction - although it's not a scenario one would expect to encounter very frequently. (A similar honorific precedence might well be accorded any visiting hierarch of higher status than the resident hierarch. The ordinary of a place is not likely to stand on strict protocol in the presence of a hierarch who is of higher ecclesiastical rank/stature than himself.)

-----------------------

In answer to Peter's query:  Cardinal is a dignity, not a separate episcopal rank or status. There is no 'authority' that attends to the cardinalate, other than that of serving as an elector - and that is not an authority, it is a prerogative. 

Not so, a Patriarch. A Patriarch enjoys authority as a function of being a Patriarch.

Canon 58 (CCEO)

Quote
Patriarchs of Eastern Churches precede all bishops of any degree everywhere in the world, with due regard for special norms of precedence established by the Roman Pontiff.

Canon 56 (CCEO)

Quote
A patriarch is a bishop who enjoys power over all bishops, including metropolitans and other Christian faithful of the Church over which he presides, according to the norm of law approved by the supreme authority of the Church.


A Cardinal is, at base, a bishop (other than in those rare instances of priests who have been named cardinal and whose request not to be ordained to the episcopate has been granted by the Pope). Any ecclesiastical authority that a Cardinal exercises is a function of his episcopal role as a bishop or archbishop or his office as the head of a curial function, not that he is a Cardinal. A Patriarch derives his authority from the fact of being Patriarch.

Canon 349 (Latin Code)

Quote
The Cardinals of the Holy Roman Church constitute a special College, whose prerogative it is to elect the Roman Pontiff in accordance with the norms of a special law. The Cardinals are also available to the Roman Pontiff, either acting collegially, when they are summoned together to deal with questions of major importance, or acting individually, that is, in the offices which they hold in assisting the Roman Pontiff[/b] especially in the daily care of the universal Church.


Canon 351 (Latin Code)

Quote
§1 Those to be promoted Cardinals are men freely selected by the Roman Pontiff, who are at least in the order of priesthood ...; those who are not already Bishops must receive episcopal consecration.


Many years,

Neil    
« Last Edit: April 11, 2011, 07:14:18 AM by Irish Melkite » Logged

"Not only is it unnecessary to adopt the customs of the Latin Rite to manifest one's Catholicism, it is an offense against the unity of the Church."

- Melkite Archbishop Joseph (Tawil), of blessed memory
Hermogenes
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 493



« Reply #100 on: April 11, 2011, 03:25:20 PM »

You have to paste it into your browser. As you can see not the whole one is the active link.

Thank you, the Google translation was awful, but I got the gist.

I wouldn't expect much of a change as Metropolitan Hilarion is not know for any history of kind words towards the Greek Catholics.
Or any other non-Orthodox. He had some especially choice remarks about the German Evangelicals after they elected a woman as their presiding bishop.
Logged
Hermogenes
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 493



« Reply #101 on: April 11, 2011, 03:27:51 PM »

If you lined up bishops in order of precedence, the answer would be yes: A cardinal would come before non-cardinal patriarchs.

Source?

The Catholic Encyclopedia. Cardinals, patriarchs, archbishops, bishops, suffragan bishops.
Logged
Irish Melkite
Information Mongeror
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite Greek-Catholic
Jurisdiction: Eparchy of Newton
Posts: 964


WWW
« Reply #102 on: April 12, 2011, 05:41:23 AM »

If you lined up bishops in order of precedence, the answer would be yes: A cardinal would come before non-cardinal patriarchs.

Source?

The Catholic Encyclopedia. Cardinals, patriarchs, archbishops, bishops, suffragan bishops.

In 1913, not any longer.

Many years,

Neil
Logged

"Not only is it unnecessary to adopt the customs of the Latin Rite to manifest one's Catholicism, it is an offense against the unity of the Church."

- Melkite Archbishop Joseph (Tawil), of blessed memory
podkarpatska
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: ACROD
Posts: 7,589


SS Cyril and Methodius Church, Mercer, PA


WWW
« Reply #103 on: April 12, 2011, 10:53:34 AM »

If you lined up bishops in order of precedence, the answer would be yes: A cardinal would come before non-cardinal patriarchs.

Source?

The Catholic Encyclopedia. Cardinals, patriarchs, archbishops, bishops, suffragan bishops.

In 1913, not any longer.

Many years,

Neil

New Advent is an important resource, but as Neil points out, it dates to 1913 and in many ways it is obsolete and misleading, especially to Orthodox. For example, the articles on Greek Catholics and Ruthenians are interesting as they point out the intellectual framework of the Vatican in dealing with the emigration of those populations to America and how they were regarded, or disregarded, as the case may be.
Logged
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 5,671



« Reply #104 on: April 12, 2011, 11:09:41 AM »

If you lined up bishops in order of precedence, the answer would be yes: A cardinal would come before non-cardinal patriarchs.

Source?

The Catholic Encyclopedia. Cardinals, patriarchs, archbishops, bishops, suffragan bishops.

In 1913, not any longer.

Many years,

Neil

New Advent is an important resource, but as Neil points out, it dates to 1913 and in many ways it is obsolete and misleading, especially to Orthodox.

I don't usually "plug" websites, but catholic.com put The Catholic Encyclopedia online too (they call it The Original Catholic Encyclopedia). So did catholic.org. I guess newadvent.org gets more traffic because they did it first.

But anyhow, I quite agree with you. The Catholic Encyclopedia is good if you're doing a historical study of Catholics a hundred or so years ago, but that's about it. (Ialmisry has attempted to establish the Catholic Encyclopedia as an authority on Catholicism, based on the fact that it received an impramatur from Bishop So-and-so in such-and-such year. Personally I just think that's an absurd argument.)

For example, the articles on Greek Catholics and Ruthenians are interesting as they point out the intellectual framework of the Vatican in dealing with the emigration of those populations to America and how they were regarded, or disregarded, as the case may be.
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
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: 35,633



« Reply #105 on: April 12, 2011, 12:26:36 PM »

If you lined up bishops in order of precedence, the answer would be yes: A cardinal would come before non-cardinal patriarchs.

Source?

The Catholic Encyclopedia. Cardinals, patriarchs, archbishops, bishops, suffragan bishops.

In 1913, not any longer.

Many years,

Neil

New Advent is an important resource, but as Neil points out, it dates to 1913 and in many ways it is obsolete and misleading, especially to Orthodox.

I don't usually "plug" websites, but catholic.com put The Catholic Encyclopedia online too (they call it The Original Catholic Encyclopedia). So did catholic.org. I guess newadvent.org gets more traffic because they did it first.

But anyhow, I quite agree with you. The Catholic Encyclopedia is good if you're doing a historical study of Catholics a hundred or so years ago, but that's about it. (Ialmisry has attempted to establish the Catholic Encyclopedia as an authority on Catholicism, based on the fact that it received an impramatur from Bishop So-and-so in such-and-such year. Personally I just think that's an absurd argument.)
The problem we often run into is that when we substantiate our points, we are told "that's not authoritative." So I like to uses sources vetted by your Magisterium (which the "Catholic Encyclopedia" is.  IIRC, the "New Catholic Encyclopedia" is not), and leave the apologists of the Vatican to fight its authority.  Now, to argue about things that have changed in the past century, I'm fine with citing something with equal authority (they still issue imprimatur and nihil obstat), but that often runs into the problems that the Vatican didn't start in 1961, the development of doctrine nonsense, the inconsistencies of the Vatican's magisterium, and the fact that although worded differently in tone much hasn't changed. What the old EC says is pertinent according to the St. Vincent of Lerins canon of Orthodoxy and Catholicity.
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
Irish Melkite
Information Mongeror
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite Greek-Catholic
Jurisdiction: Eparchy of Newton
Posts: 964


WWW
« Reply #106 on: April 12, 2011, 02:32:36 PM »

Quote
I'm fine with citing something with equal authority (they still issue imprimatur and nihil obstat),

Isa, my friend,


Keep in mind that the nihil obstat (tr: nothing obstructs or nothing stands in the way) is merely the declaration of a diocesan censor that a work contains nothing damaging to faith or morals - it does not make the work doctrinal or dogmatic. An imprimatur (tr: let it be published) is nothing more than an authorization by a bishop for a work to be printed. Carried to an extreme, one could probably apply these to the typical Father Brown mystery by Chesterton - carried to the ridiculous, to much secular literature.

Many years,

Neil

addendum, well much secular literature is probably a bit the exaggeration  Grin
Logged

"Not only is it unnecessary to adopt the customs of the Latin Rite to manifest one's Catholicism, it is an offense against the unity of the Church."

- Melkite Archbishop Joseph (Tawil), of blessed memory
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 5,671



« Reply #107 on: April 12, 2011, 03:01:50 PM »

If you lined up bishops in order of precedence, the answer would be yes: A cardinal would come before non-cardinal patriarchs.

Source?

The Catholic Encyclopedia. Cardinals, patriarchs, archbishops, bishops, suffragan bishops.

In 1913, not any longer.

Many years,

Neil

New Advent is an important resource, but as Neil points out, it dates to 1913 and in many ways it is obsolete and misleading, especially to Orthodox.

I don't usually "plug" websites, but catholic.com put The Catholic Encyclopedia online too (they call it The Original Catholic Encyclopedia). So did catholic.org. I guess newadvent.org gets more traffic because they did it first.

But anyhow, I quite agree with you. The Catholic Encyclopedia is good if you're doing a historical study of Catholics a hundred or so years ago, but that's about it. (Ialmisry has attempted to establish the Catholic Encyclopedia as an authority on Catholicism, based on the fact that it received an impramatur from Bishop So-and-so in such-and-such year. Personally I just think that's an absurd argument.)
The problem we often run into is that when we substantiate our points, we are told "that's not authoritative."

But you don't seem to listen, so we have to keep repeating "that's not authoritative" until we get tired of the sound of our own voices.

Although I guess I do have to give you credit for "going the extra mile". What I mean is, most Orthodox and Protestants who cite the Catholic Encyclopedia seem to just assume it's authoritative because it's called "the Catholic Encyclopedia". You have, at least, based your argument on imprimaturs.

So I like to uses sources vetted by your Magisterium (which the "Catholic Encyclopedia" is. 

So I guess they just haven't gotten around to putting it up on vatican.va yet, eh? Wink

j/k

IIRC, the "New Catholic Encyclopedia" is not)

Are you saying the New Catholic Encyclopedia doesn't have an imprimatur and/or nihil obstat? If so, that's surprising.

, and leave the apologists of the Vatican to fight its authority.  Now, to argue about things that have changed in the past century, I'm fine with citing something with equal authority (they still issue imprimatur and nihil obstat), but that often runs into the problems that the Vatican didn't start in 1961, the development of doctrine nonsense, the inconsistencies of the Vatican's magisterium, and the fact that although worded differently in tone much hasn't changed. What the old EC says is pertinent according to the St. Vincent of Lerins canon of Orthodoxy and Catholicity.
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
Robb
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: RC
Jurisdiction: Italian Catholic
Posts: 1,537



« Reply #108 on: April 12, 2011, 04:28:21 PM »

Why have they never put the "New " Catholic Encyclopedia online?  It was published back in the late 60's and contains updates on RC teachings after the Vatican Council II.  It seems that whoever at the New Advent website decided to put up the old Catholic Encyclopedia as opposed to the new one may have done so deliberately (Perhaps due to Traditionalist RC sympathies).  Maybe the New Advent people would like us all to believe that nothing has changed with the Vatican/Catholic Church and her teachings?
Logged

Men may dislike truth, men may find truth offensive and inconvenient, men may persecute the truth, subvert it, try by law to suppress it. But to maintain that men have the final power over truth is blasphemy, and the last delusion. Truth lives forever, men do not.
-- Gustave Flaubert
Schultz
Christian. Guitarist. Zymurgist. Librarian.
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 6,417


Scion of the McKeesport Becks.


WWW
« Reply #109 on: April 12, 2011, 04:37:52 PM »

Why have they never put the "New " Catholic Encyclopedia online?  It was published back in the late 60's and contains updates on RC teachings after the Vatican Council II.  It seems that whoever at the New Advent website decided to put up the old Catholic Encyclopedia as opposed to the new one may have done so deliberately (Perhaps due to Traditionalist RC sympathies).  Maybe the New Advent people would like us all to believe that nothing has changed with the Vatican/Catholic Church and her teachings?

Intellectual Property reasons.  The Old Catholic Encyclopedia is out of copyright and therefore in the public domain.  The New Catholic Encyclopedia is still being published and supplemented by the CUA and therefore they still have a reason to keep it out of the public domain. 

Almost every public library system in the United States has a copy of the New Catholic Encyclopedia, too.  It's not like it's hard to get a hold of.

Logged

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

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #110 on: April 12, 2011, 04:39:47 PM »

Why have they never put the "New " Catholic Encyclopedia online?  It was published back in the late 60's and contains updates on RC teachings after the Vatican Council II.  It seems that whoever at the New Advent website decided to put up the old Catholic Encyclopedia as opposed to the new one may have done so deliberately (Perhaps due to Traditionalist RC sympathies).  Maybe the New Advent people would like us all to believe that nothing has changed with the Vatican/Catholic Church and her teachings?

Intellectual Property reasons.  The Old Catholic Encyclopedia is out of copyright and therefore in the public domain.  The New Catholic Encyclopedia is still being published and supplemented by the CUA and therefore they still have a reason to keep it out of the public domain. 

Almost every public library system in the United States has a copy of the New Catholic Encyclopedia, too.  It's not like it's hard to get a hold of.

Pragmatist
Logged

podkarpatska
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: ACROD
Posts: 7,589


SS Cyril and Methodius Church, Mercer, PA


WWW
« Reply #111 on: April 12, 2011, 04:53:26 PM »

Why have they never put the "New " Catholic Encyclopedia online?  It was published back in the late 60's and contains updates on RC teachings after the Vatican Council II.  It seems that whoever at the New Advent website decided to put up the old Catholic Encyclopedia as opposed to the new one may have done so deliberately (Perhaps due to Traditionalist RC sympathies).  Maybe the New Advent people would like us all to believe that nothing has changed with the Vatican/Catholic Church and her teachings?

Intellectual Property reasons.  The Old Catholic Encyclopedia is out of copyright and therefore in the public domain.  The New Catholic Encyclopedia is still being published and supplemented by the CUA and therefore they still have a reason to keep it out of the public domain. 

Almost every public library system in the United States has a copy of the New Catholic Encyclopedia, too.  It's not like it's hard to get a hold of.

Pragmatist

I just hate it when there's not a good conspiracy lurking behind everything!   Smiley
Logged
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #112 on: April 12, 2011, 05:18:55 PM »

Why have they never put the "New " Catholic Encyclopedia online?  It was published back in the late 60's and contains updates on RC teachings after the Vatican Council II.  It seems that whoever at the New Advent website decided to put up the old Catholic Encyclopedia as opposed to the new one may have done so deliberately (Perhaps due to Traditionalist RC sympathies).  Maybe the New Advent people would like us all to believe that nothing has changed with the Vatican/Catholic Church and her teachings?

Intellectual Property reasons.  The Old Catholic Encyclopedia is out of copyright and therefore in the public domain.  The New Catholic Encyclopedia is still being published and supplemented by the CUA and therefore they still have a reason to keep it out of the public domain. 

Almost every public library system in the United States has a copy of the New Catholic Encyclopedia, too.  It's not like it's hard to get a hold of.

Pragmatist

I just hate it when there's not a good conspiracy lurking behind everything!   Smiley

 laugh laugh laugh
Logged

Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 5,671



« Reply #113 on: April 12, 2011, 08:30:59 PM »

Why have they never put the "New " Catholic Encyclopedia online?  It was published back in the late 60's and contains updates on RC teachings after the Vatican Council II.  It seems that whoever at the New Advent website decided to put up the old Catholic Encyclopedia as opposed to the new one may have done so deliberately (Perhaps due to Traditionalist RC sympathies).  Maybe the New Advent people would like us all to believe that nothing has changed with the Vatican/Catholic Church and her teachings?

Intellectual Property reasons.  The Old Catholic Encyclopedia is out of copyright and therefore in the public domain.  The New Catholic Encyclopedia is still being published and supplemented by the CUA and therefore they still have a reason to keep it out of the public domain. 

Quite right.
Logged

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

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 5,671



« Reply #114 on: April 12, 2011, 08:38:22 PM »

It seems that whoever at the New Advent website decided to put up the old Catholic Encyclopedia as opposed to the new one may have done so deliberately (Perhaps due to Traditionalist RC sympathies).

If they were traditionalists, then I could understand them putting the Catholic Encyclopedia online.

What I find troubling is that they really don't appear to be traditionalist. Ditto for catholic.com and catholic.org. What's even stranger is that the catholicity.com website, which is [from what I know about it] not even close to be traditionalist, also has it online.
« Last Edit: April 12, 2011, 08:46:08 PM by Peter J » Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
filipinopilgrim
Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 130


« Reply #115 on: April 13, 2011, 04:59:44 AM »

It seems that whoever at the New Advent website decided to put up the old Catholic Encyclopedia as opposed to the new one may have done so deliberately (Perhaps due to Traditionalist RC sympathies).

If they were traditionalists, then I could understand them putting the Catholic Encyclopedia online.

What I find troubling is that they really don't appear to be traditionalist. Ditto for catholic.com and catholic.org. What's even stranger is that the catholicity.com website, which is [from what I know about it] not even close to be traditionalist, also has it online.

Another reason is because of the sheer mass of historical data that can be found in the old Catholic Encyclopedia. It contains a lot of historical information and bibliographical entries that can't be found in newer Catholic reference works. Furthermore, given the extent to which Catholic liturgy and canon law has changed in the last 100 years, the CE is a valuable resource that gives Catholics like me information about long-forgotten facts about Catholic liturgy and canon law c. 1910. 
Logged
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 5,671



« Reply #116 on: April 13, 2011, 10:12:38 AM »

Another reason is because of the sheer mass of historical data that can be found in the old Catholic Encyclopedia. It contains a lot of historical information and bibliographical entries that can't be found in newer Catholic reference works. Furthermore, given the extent to which Catholic liturgy and canon law has changed in the last 100 years, the CE is a valuable resource that gives Catholics like me information about long-forgotten facts about Catholic liturgy and canon law c. 1910. 

Which I think is fine, so long as you understand that it isn't 1910 anymore. Wink
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
filipinopilgrim
Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 130


« Reply #117 on: April 13, 2011, 08:52:48 PM »

Another reason is because of the sheer mass of historical data that can be found in the old Catholic Encyclopedia. It contains a lot of historical information and bibliographical entries that can't be found in newer Catholic reference works. Furthermore, given the extent to which Catholic liturgy and canon law has changed in the last 100 years, the CE is a valuable resource that gives Catholics like me information about long-forgotten facts about Catholic liturgy and canon law c. 1910. 

Which I think is fine, so long as you understand that it isn't 1910 anymore. Wink

Of course it isn't 1910 anymore, and any Catholic who really knows anything about his faith would know that. Much more dangerous are those Catholics who want to obliterate any memory of what the Church was like a century ago.
Logged
cizinec
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 941


There ain't no way but the hard way.


« Reply #118 on: April 14, 2011, 09:36:23 PM »


You say that in Orthodoxy the process "isn't quite that simple", yet it seems to me that my church is being criticized precisely because it "isn't quite that simple" in Catholicism. For example,

If the Eastern Catholic Churches are Rome's sisters, then why do they need the Vatican's permission to change the title of one of their heads? Shouldn't the decision of the Holy Synod of the Ukrainian Catholic Church be official enough?

It's not a question of simplicity, it's a question of authority.

Whether it's the commemoration of a saint or the recognition of a patriarch, the Orthodox Church is not centralized.  Say Orthodoxy takes off in Mexico and they name a Patriarch.  Say the Russians recognize the patriarch of Mexico.  So I go to Mexico for vacation and I ask my priest (Serbian), "Hey, is it okay if I go to the Mexican Orthodox Church?"  Priest says, "Yeah, their good."  So they start getting recognized by guys at the top and guys at the bottom and there you go.  New patriarch.  Even if the Greeks say, "No good," if everyone else is on board, I guess it would suck to be Greek and go to Mexico.  In Orthodoxy the whole Church together has authority. 
Logged

"Brother, your best friend ain't your Momma, it's the Field Artillery."
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 5,671



« Reply #119 on: April 14, 2011, 09:52:03 PM »


You say that in Orthodoxy the process "isn't quite that simple", yet it seems to me that my church is being criticized precisely because it "isn't quite that simple" in Catholicism. For example,

If the Eastern Catholic Churches are Rome's sisters, then why do they need the Vatican's permission to change the title of one of their heads? Shouldn't the decision of the Holy Synod of the Ukrainian Catholic Church be official enough?

It's not a question of simplicity, it's a question of authority.

Whether it's the commemoration of a saint or the recognition of a patriarch, the Orthodox Church is not centralized.  Say Orthodoxy takes off in Mexico and they name a Patriarch.  Say the Russians recognize the patriarch of Mexico.  So I go to Mexico for vacation and I ask my priest (Serbian), "Hey, is it okay if I go to the Mexican Orthodox Church?"  Priest says, "Yeah, their good."  So they start getting recognized by guys at the top and guys at the bottom and there you go.  New patriarch.  Even if the Greeks say, "No good," if everyone else is on board, I guess it would suck to be Greek and go to Mexico.  In Orthodoxy the whole Church together has authority. 

Hi cizinec. I guess your argument makes sense, in-and-of-itself. However, I don't think you read the quote from kijabeboy03 very carefully. Here it is again (emphasis added):

If the Eastern Catholic Churches are Rome's sisters, then why do they need the Vatican's permission to change the title of one of their heads? Shouldn't the decision of the Holy Synod of the Ukrainian Catholic Church be official enough?

In other words, the UGCC decides that it should be a patriarchate, and presto it is a patriarchate.
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
cizinec
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 941


There ain't no way but the hard way.


« Reply #120 on: April 19, 2011, 01:28:16 PM »


Hi cizinec. I guess your argument makes sense, in-and-of-itself. However, I don't think you read the quote from kijabeboy03 very carefully. Here it is again (emphasis added):

If the Eastern Catholic Churches are Rome's sisters, then why do they need the Vatican's permission to change the title of one of their heads? Shouldn't the decision of the Holy Synod of the Ukrainian Catholic Church be official enough?

In other words, the UGCC decides that it should be a patriarchate, and presto it is a patriarchate.

Obviously it wouldn't be "Presto," but OTOH, it wouldn't require buy off from a single guy.  In our model, if the Melkites, Ruthenians, Malabar, etc., say he's a patriarch and the Pope says he isn't, he's a patriarch.  I think that's one reason why Rome is so hesitant to start allowing the EC Bishops from gaining traditional titles.  The other being that Ukraine has enough patriarchs the way it is.  The last thing Ukraine needs is another one.  Of course, Ukraine is a great example of the messiness of our system.  I'm Serbian, so I have faith that the Ukrainians will eventually figure it out. 
Logged

"Brother, your best friend ain't your Momma, it's the Field Artillery."
Tags:
Pages: « 1 2 3  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 0.139 seconds with 57 queries.