OrthodoxChristianity.net
September 30, 2014, 06:45:49 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 3 4 5 »  All   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: The Vatican and Unia more oppressive than the Stalinist Regime  (Read 10344 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
WetCatechumen
Roman Catholic
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic Christianity
Jurisdiction: Latin Rite - Archdiocese of Santa Fe; Ruthenian Byzantine Catholic Eparchy of Phoenix
Posts: 297



« Reply #135 on: August 18, 2011, 02:29:07 AM »

those cramped, wizened philetic Latin lungs are nowhere as healthy as the lungs of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church connected to a myriad of tongues..
You don't get to claim the miaphysites as your own.
They say otherwise, and that's between us and them.  When we want the your opinion of that matter, we'll give it to you.

Sorry. Orthodoxy is a Greek Rite only club (yeah, WRO exists, but come on. It's about as big as Anglican Use Catholicism. They're converting by the DOZENS!).

And I have been to Mass in Syriac, Slavonic, Latin, English, and Spanish. Greek Rite (Slavonic, English, and Spanish), Maronite Syriac Rite (Syriac and English), and Roman Rite (Latin, English, and Spanish). And there are tons more.
That's nice.  I've been to divine liturgy in English, Slavonic, Slovak, Polish, Bulgarian, Greek, Arabic, Coptic, Syriac, Armenian, Spanish, Latin, Romanian, Serbian, Finnish, Ukrainian, and I haven't exhausted them by far.

When your hierarchs and theirs concelebrate, or there is a synod in which you acknowledge each other to be orthodox, give me a call.
why would we call you?
Otherwise don't spout things that aren't true but you wish are true.
I have taken communion from the Syriac Patriarch's own hand, he knowing that I am EO. I could go on, but then it's none of your business and doesn't concern you.
You saying that the EO churches are diverse because of the OO is as silly as the Catholic Church saying that it is diverse because of the Assyrian Church of the East. Just because many of you intercommune with the permission or blind eye of hierarchs doesn't mean that you guys are all the same group.

The Eastern Orthodox are the Eastern Orthodox. They only use the Greek Rite with the caveat that there are a few Roman Rite derivative parishes, but not many.

The Oriental Orthodox are not the Eastern Orthodox, and you trying to claim them as to how diverse orthodoxy is is silly.

And that's great about the Syriac Orthodox. I happen to know a few myself. We have a quickly growing Syriac community in Albuquerque (thank you George W. Bush and U.S. Congress and American warhawks). They all go to the local Ruthenian Catholic parish, whether they're Orthodox or Catholic. They intercommune all the time back home in Iraq. They commune at the Byzantine church. Furthermore, the Syriac Orthodox and Syriac Catholics have formal agreements concerning sharing of sacraments (and how it's okay).

ialmisry, I understand that you love the OO. I understand how you feel about them, but your communion of churches is not in communion with them. Your faiths are very similar, but the differences are there. There are reasons that the EO and the OO are not in communion with each other. Those issues have not been resolved, otherwise your hierarchs would concelebrate.

You can try to make your own Zhoghby initiative concerning them, but the Antiochian Greek Orthodox and the Melkite Greek Catholics are not the same, despite how similar they are (and that intercommunion and concelebration happens all the time in the home countries).
Logged

"And because they have nothing better to do, they take cushion and chairs to Rome. And while the Pope is saying liturgy, they go, 'Oh, oh, oh, filioque!' And the Pope say, 'Filioque? That-uh sound nice! I think I divide-uh the Church over it!'" - Comrade Real Presence
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,808



« Reply #136 on: August 18, 2011, 02:38:15 AM »

I did a search regarding the Orthodox Divine Liturgy in Latin and was forwarded to 'Catholic Answers' of all places!  Haven't been there since I was one of the original thirteen or so Orthodox Catholics kicked off for eternity!

looks like you will have to go to Turin, Italy -

==================================================

And here you go... 

The Latin version of the Divine Liturgy of Saint John Chrysostom, translated by Erasmus of Rotterdam, and made available especially for you by those pesky Orthodox in Turin...

http://www.ortodossia.org/sanmassimo...-sez2-art1.htm
__________________

Orthodoc
I clicked on the link and got: "This page cannot be found."
Divina Liturgia Sancti Patris nostri Ioannis Chrysostomi
http://www.allmercifulsavior.com/Liturgy/Liturgia%20Sci.%20Joannis%20Chrysostomi.pdf
Logged

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

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,808



« Reply #137 on: August 18, 2011, 02:48:35 AM »


Emerge?  They started emerging in around 33-70.


Right: and in good Apostolic fashion, consensus was nearly impossible to achieve.  We've been struggling with it ever since:  the west in the wider world of peoples:  the east in their little ethnic enclaves.

I am amused by the fact that you think cramped, wizened, philetic lungs are somehow healthier than the lungs of the one holy catholic and apostolic Church.

M.
Considering that until Pope John Paul II there hadn't been a non-Italian pope for centuries and that the median age of modern popes has been around social security age, that comment about 'cramped, wizened, philetic lungs' is tough to take without a chuckle from our side.

The pope is ONE person.  The Catholic Church is diverse and HUGE.  If you could say that ALL bishops or even MOST bishops were Italian for centuries, you might get my attention.

But the pope is the only Roman Catholic bishop who is considreed 'Vicar of Christ on earth' and infallible in matters of faith Mary.

So it's immaterial what other RC bishops think when it comes to what the RC faithful are required to believe.
Orthodoc
come to think of it, of the 16 councils the Vatican has claimed to call as ecumenical (after the 7 Ecumenical Councils, which it also claims it called), 11 of them were held in Italy (whereas not a single Ecumenical Council, despite the Popes trying, were ever held in Italy).
Logged

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

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,808



« Reply #138 on: August 18, 2011, 02:54:50 AM »



Well, we're shriking, are we?  Well, then, you need not bother with us insignificant folk.  Leave us alone and don't include us in your union fantasies.


Unfortunately the present Masters of my Church have decided that I have to be kind to you no matter how crappy you are to me and mine.   laugh laugh laugh

So you show up in my realities which is a whole lot worse than any fantasy...ya know...

 laugh

Guess I better not hold my breath while waiting for statistical backup on the shrinking Orthodox Catholic Church.  Maybe you are talking about those within your own church who still suffer from an identity crisis after 400+ years and call themselves 'Orthodox in communion with Rome'!

Mary, you come out looking like you are blowing smoke out of your mouth (or other appendages)  when you make statements like this and are unanable to back them up.

Orthodox
I am still waiting to find out where I can attend a Divine Liturgy in Latin as an Orthodox poster stated in post # 107.
That's nice.  I've been to divine liturgy in English, Slavonic, Slovak, Polish, Bulgarian, Greek, Arabic, Coptic, Syriac, Armenian, Spanish, Latin, Romanian, Serbian, Finnish, Ukrainian, and I haven't exhausted them by far.
and you fixated on the Latin.

What I had in mind was DL of St. Gregory which was partly in Latin, but if you were in the altar area of my parish, you could hear my parish priest-he does much of the priest's prayers in Latin (his favorite language).
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
stanley123
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Roman Catholic
Posts: 3,809


« Reply #139 on: August 18, 2011, 02:57:00 AM »



Well, we're shriking, are we?  Well, then, you need not bother with us insignificant folk.  Leave us alone and don't include us in your union fantasies.


Unfortunately the present Masters of my Church have decided that I have to be kind to you no matter how crappy you are to me and mine.   laugh laugh laugh

So you show up in my realities which is a whole lot worse than any fantasy...ya know...

 laugh

Guess I better not hold my breath while waiting for statistical backup on the shrinking Orthodox Catholic Church.  Maybe you are talking about those within your own church who still suffer from an identity crisis after 400+ years and call themselves 'Orthodox in communion with Rome'!

Mary, you come out looking like you are blowing smoke out of your mouth (or other appendages)  when you make statements like this and are unanable to back them up.

Orthodox
I am still waiting to find out where I can attend a Divine Liturgy in Latin as an Orthodox poster stated in post # 107.
That's nice.  I've been to divine liturgy in English, Slavonic, Slovak, Polish, Bulgarian, Greek, Arabic, Coptic, Syriac, Armenian, Spanish, Latin, Romanian, Serbian, Finnish, Ukrainian, and I haven't exhausted them by far.
and you fixated on the Latin.

What I had in mind was DL of St. Gregory which was partly in Latin, but if you were in the altar area of my parish, you could hear my parish priest-he does much of the priest's prayers in Latin (his favorite language).
Some Roman Catholics like to fixate on Latin. After all, we belong to the Latin Church, don't we?
Logged
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,808



« Reply #140 on: August 18, 2011, 03:48:04 AM »

those cramped, wizened philetic Latin lungs are nowhere as healthy as the lungs of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church connected to a myriad of tongues..
You don't get to claim the miaphysites as your own.
They say otherwise, and that's between us and them.  When we want the your opinion of that matter, we'll give it to you.

Sorry. Orthodoxy is a Greek Rite only club (yeah, WRO exists, but come on. It's about as big as Anglican Use Catholicism. They're converting by the DOZENS!).

And I have been to Mass in Syriac, Slavonic, Latin, English, and Spanish. Greek Rite (Slavonic, English, and Spanish), Maronite Syriac Rite (Syriac and English), and Roman Rite (Latin, English, and Spanish). And there are tons more.
That's nice.  I've been to divine liturgy in English, Slavonic, Slovak, Polish, Bulgarian, Greek, Arabic, Coptic, Syriac, Armenian, Spanish, Latin, Romanian, Serbian, Finnish, Ukrainian, and I haven't exhausted them by far.

When your hierarchs and theirs concelebrate, or there is a synod in which you acknowledge each other to be orthodox, give me a call.
why would we call you?
Otherwise don't spout things that aren't true but you wish are true.
I have taken communion from the Syriac Patriarch's own hand, he knowing that I am EO. I could go on, but then it's none of your business and doesn't concern you.
You saying that the EO churches are diverse because of the OO
I said no such thing.

is as silly as the Catholic Church saying that it is diverse because of the Assyrian Church of the East.
and yet I have seen that argument made, over and over, although none of what you now call sui juris churches have only been around for about 500 years-most far less-i.e. only less than half the history of the Vatican, only only its latter (not its beginning) half.

Just because many of you intercommune with the permission or blind eye of hierarchs doesn't mean that you guys are all the same group.
don't confuse your Vatican's bad habits with our practice: we don't turn a blind eye.

The Eastern Orthodox are the Eastern Orthodox.
LOL.  We define ourselves.  We don't need pontificating from the Vatican to tell us who we are.

They only use the Greek Rite with the caveat that there are a few Roman Rite derivative parishes, but not many.
Your Vatican categories are showing:you are refering, I assUme, to the rite of Constantinople.  Yes it's originally Greek, just as was the rite of Alexandria which the Copts still use (and still use much of it in Greek) and the Greek EO used from the earliest times to c. 1200; and the rite of Antioch, which was used just as earlier until the same date by the Greek (and Arab) EO until around the same date, and still used by the Syriac Orthodox;and the rite of Jerusalem, still in limited use.  In fact, the rite of Rome was originally in Greek as well, Latin being introduced by the provincial Pope St. Victor c. 190 and not fully Latinized until Pope St. Damasus two centuries later.

The Oriental Orthodox are not the Eastern Orthodox, and you trying to claim them as to how diverse orthodoxy is is silly.

And that's great about the Syriac Orthodox. I happen to know a few myself. We have a quickly growing Syriac community in Albuquerque (thank you George W. Bush and U.S. Congress and American warhawks). They all go to the local Ruthenian Catholic parish, whether they're Orthodox or Catholic.

Orthodox=Catholic.  If they go commune at a Ruthenian parish in submission to the Vatican, then they belong to the Vatican.

They intercommune all the time back home in Iraq.

You sure you're not confusing them with their ethnic cousins, the Chaldeans and Nestorians, who are far more numerious in Iraq? In which case if heretics commune with heretics, that doesn't involve the Orthodox.

They commune at the Byzantine church. Furthermore, the Syriac Orthodox and Syriac Catholics have formal agreements concerning sharing of sacraments (and how it's okay).
The Syriac Orthodox, like the rest of the Orthodox, exercise economia regarding those in schism from the Mother Church.  It is, for instance, why the wayward flocks that St. Alexis brought back to Orthodoxy are refered to "coming back," although they had been mired in the heresies of the Vatican for generations, and strictly speaking should have been looked on the same way as any Ultramontanist from Italy, Spain, Poland, France, Austria, Hungary or Croatia.

ialmisry, I understand that you love the OO. I understand how you feel about them, but your communion of churches is not in communion with them.
The status of our communion concerns you how? as it doesn't include you.

Your faiths are very similar, but the differences are there. There are reasons that the EO and the OO are not in communion with each other. Those issues have not been resolved, otherwise your hierarchs would concelebrate.
Again, you worry about our business.  We are more than competent and able to manage our own affairs.

It is a little pregnant: both Popes (unlike your bishops in submission there, ours, both, can hold the see' ancient title) of Alexandria and Patriarchs of Antioch recognize each others baptism (something we don't do for others), marriages (something we do not do for any other), ordinations (something we do not do for others) and consecrations (something we don't do for others).

You can try to make your own Zhoghby initiative concerning them,

no the agreements that the Popes and Patriarchs have signed more than suffice.

but the Antiochian Greek Orthodox and the Melkite Greek Catholics are not the same, despite how similar they are (and that intercommunion and concelebration happens all the time in the home countries).
not quite sure how the Melkites, who are by definition not OO, got brought up.

We say a pox on both your houses to the squabbles of Old and New Rome, something that vexes the Vatican, but is why EO Antioch does not look at the Melkites the same way as the Ultramontanists.
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 #141 on: August 18, 2011, 10:29:57 AM »


But the pope is the only Roman Catholic bishop who is considreed 'Vicar of Christ on earth' and infallible in matters of faith Mary.

So it's immaterial what other RC bishops think when it comes to what the RC faithful are required to believe.
Orthodoc

This is absolute ignorance of what The Catholic Church [my Church] actually teaches concerning both bishops and the pope.

It's sad that you and many other Orthodox think in this way.  It perpetuates a myth that really pleases only those who think and act as Isa does toward my Church.  He is the archetype of the soul that is cramped and wizened in Orthodoxy.  And in my mind, he is personally guilty, for he has the resources to know better and purposefully refuses.  I suspect that you simply do not know and are following what you presume must be correct.

M.
Logged

Orthodoc
Supporter & Defender Of Orthodoxy
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 2,526

Those who ignore history tend to repeat it.


« Reply #142 on: August 18, 2011, 11:01:16 AM »


But the pope is the only Roman Catholic bishop who is considreed 'Vicar of Christ on earth' and infallible in matters of faith Mary.

So it's immaterial what other RC bishops think when it comes to what the RC faithful are required to believe.
Orthodoc

This is absolute ignorance of what The Catholic Church [my Church] actually teaches concerning both bishops and the pope.

It's sad that you and many other Orthodox think in this way.  It perpetuates a myth that really pleases only those who think and act as Isa does toward my Church.  He is the archetype of the soul that is cramped and wizened in Orthodoxy.  And in my mind, he is personally guilty, for he has the resources to know better and purposefully refuses.  I suspect that you simply do not know and are following what you presume must be correct.

M.

So tell us Mary what your version of the Catholic Church teaches regarding papal infallibility regarding faith and morals.  And how and when does a synod of bishops in your version of the Catholic Church have the authority to over ride a papal proclaimation?  What does 'Vicar of Christ on earth' really mean Mary?  Can you give us just one example of where a Synod of your bishops succeeded in over riding a papal proclaimation?

Orthodoc
Logged

Oh Lord, Save thy people and bless thine inheritance.
Grant victory to the Orthodox Christians over their adversaries.
And by virtue of thy Cross preserve thy habitation.
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #143 on: August 18, 2011, 11:14:12 AM »


But the pope is the only Roman Catholic bishop who is considreed 'Vicar of Christ on earth' and infallible in matters of faith Mary.

So it's immaterial what other RC bishops think when it comes to what the RC faithful are required to believe.
Orthodoc

This is absolute ignorance of what The Catholic Church [my Church] actually teaches concerning both bishops and the pope.

It's sad that you and many other Orthodox think in this way.  It perpetuates a myth that really pleases only those who think and act as Isa does toward my Church.  He is the archetype of the soul that is cramped and wizened in Orthodoxy.  And in my mind, he is personally guilty, for he has the resources to know better and purposefully refuses.  I suspect that you simply do not know and are following what you presume must be correct.

M.

So tell us Mary what your version of the Catholic Church teaches regarding papal infallibility regarding faith and morals.  And how and when does a synod of bishops in your version of the Catholic Church have the authority to over ride a papal proclaimation?  What does 'Vicar of Christ on earth' really mean Mary?  Can you give us just one example of where a Synod of your bishops succeeded in over riding a papal proclaimation?

Orthodoc

You don't want MY version.  You want my Church's version.

M.
Logged

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

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,808



« Reply #144 on: August 18, 2011, 12:00:17 PM »


But the pope is the only Roman Catholic bishop who is considreed 'Vicar of Christ on earth' and infallible in matters of faith Mary.

So it's immaterial what other RC bishops think when it comes to what the RC faithful are required to believe.
Orthodoc

This is absolute ignorance of what The Catholic Church [my Church] actually teaches concerning both bishops and the pope.

It's sad that you and many other Orthodox think in this way.  It perpetuates a myth that really pleases only those who think and act as Isa does toward my Church.  He is the archetype of the soul that is cramped and wizened in Orthodoxy.  And in my mind, he is personally guilty, for he has the resources to know better and purposefully refuses.  I suspect that you simply do not know and are following what you presume must be correct.

M.

So tell us Mary what your version of the Catholic Church teaches regarding papal infallibility regarding faith and morals.  And how and when does a synod of bishops in your version of the Catholic Church have the authority to over ride a papal proclaimation?  What does 'Vicar of Christ on earth' really mean Mary?  Can you give us just one example of where a Synod of your bishops succeeded in over riding a papal proclaimation?

Orthodoc

You don't want MY version.  You want my Church's version.

M.
In reality, we want neither. We want the Church's POV.
Logged

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

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,808



« Reply #145 on: August 18, 2011, 12:04:53 PM »


But the pope is the only Roman Catholic bishop who is considreed 'Vicar of Christ on earth' and infallible in matters of faith Mary.

So it's immaterial what other RC bishops think when it comes to what the RC faithful are required to believe.
Orthodoc

This is absolute ignorance of what The Catholic Church [my Church] actually teaches concerning both bishops and the pope.

It's sad that you and many other Orthodox think in this way.  It perpetuates a myth that really pleases only those who think and act as Isa does toward my Church.  He is the archetype of the soul that is cramped and wizened in Orthodoxy.  And in my mind, he is personally guilty, for he has the resources to know better and purposefully refuses.  I suspect that you simply do not know and are following what you presume must be correct.
I've said it before. I'll say it again: your problem is that I call a spade a spade.  And I've been breathing quite easy ever since my resources led me to Orthodoxy, The Catholic Church.  Part of those resources is seeing the similarity of Lumen Gentium and the Soviet constitution.
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
Orthodoc
Supporter & Defender Of Orthodoxy
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 2,526

Those who ignore history tend to repeat it.


« Reply #146 on: August 18, 2011, 12:06:29 PM »


But the pope is the only Roman Catholic bishop who is considreed 'Vicar of Christ on earth' and infallible in matters of faith Mary.

So it's immaterial what other RC bishops think when it comes to what the RC faithful are required to believe.
Orthodoc

This is absolute ignorance of what The Catholic Church [my Church] actually teaches concerning both bishops and the pope.

It's sad that you and many other Orthodox think in this way.  It perpetuates a myth that really pleases only those who think and act as Isa does toward my Church.  He is the archetype of the soul that is cramped and wizened in Orthodoxy.  And in my mind, he is personally guilty, for he has the resources to know better and purposefully refuses.  I suspect that you simply do not know and are following what you presume must be correct.

M.

So tell us Mary what your version of the Catholic Church teaches regarding papal infallibility regarding faith and morals.  And how and when does a synod of bishops in your version of the Catholic Church have the authority to over ride a papal proclaimation?  What does 'Vicar of Christ on earth' really mean Mary?  Can you give us just one example of where a Synod of your bishops succeeded in over riding a papal proclaimation?

Orthodoc

You don't want MY version.  You want my Church's version.

M.

Mary, Mary, Mary!  OK.  How about giving me both versions so I can compare.
Your version and your churches version should be one in the same.  Otherwise why belong to your church in the first place if you don't agree with its version of dogma or official proclaimations and have your own version of things?
Orthodoc
Logged

Oh Lord, Save thy people and bless thine inheritance.
Grant victory to the Orthodox Christians over their adversaries.
And by virtue of thy Cross preserve thy habitation.
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #147 on: August 18, 2011, 12:09:51 PM »


But the pope is the only Roman Catholic bishop who is considreed 'Vicar of Christ on earth' and infallible in matters of faith Mary.

So it's immaterial what other RC bishops think when it comes to what the RC faithful are required to believe.
Orthodoc

This is absolute ignorance of what The Catholic Church [my Church] actually teaches concerning both bishops and the pope.

It's sad that you and many other Orthodox think in this way.  It perpetuates a myth that really pleases only those who think and act as Isa does toward my Church.  He is the archetype of the soul that is cramped and wizened in Orthodoxy.  And in my mind, he is personally guilty, for he has the resources to know better and purposefully refuses.  I suspect that you simply do not know and are following what you presume must be correct.

M.

So tell us Mary what your version of the Catholic Church teaches regarding papal infallibility regarding faith and morals.  And how and when does a synod of bishops in your version of the Catholic Church have the authority to over ride a papal proclaimation?  What does 'Vicar of Christ on earth' really mean Mary?  Can you give us just one example of where a Synod of your bishops succeeded in over riding a papal proclaimation?

Orthodoc

You don't want MY version.  You want my Church's version.

M.
In reality, we want neither. We want the Church's POV.

Most of you don't have an accurate understanding of The Catholic Church [papal Catholic] at all.  So to cling to your own mis-understandings so violently is not destructive of us but of yourselves with regard to being able to discern truth and reality.

Logged

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

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #148 on: August 18, 2011, 12:12:52 PM »


But the pope is the only Roman Catholic bishop who is considreed 'Vicar of Christ on earth' and infallible in matters of faith Mary.

So it's immaterial what other RC bishops think when it comes to what the RC faithful are required to believe.
Orthodoc

This is absolute ignorance of what The Catholic Church [my Church] actually teaches concerning both bishops and the pope.

It's sad that you and many other Orthodox think in this way.  It perpetuates a myth that really pleases only those who think and act as Isa does toward my Church.  He is the archetype of the soul that is cramped and wizened in Orthodoxy.  And in my mind, he is personally guilty, for he has the resources to know better and purposefully refuses.  I suspect that you simply do not know and are following what you presume must be correct.

M.

So tell us Mary what your version of the Catholic Church teaches regarding papal infallibility regarding faith and morals.  And how and when does a synod of bishops in your version of the Catholic Church have the authority to over ride a papal proclaimation?  What does 'Vicar of Christ on earth' really mean Mary?  Can you give us just one example of where a Synod of your bishops succeeded in over riding a papal proclaimation?

Orthodoc

You don't want MY version.  You want my Church's version.

M.

Mary, Mary, Mary!  OK.  How about giving me both versions so I can compare.
Your version and your churches version should be one in the same.  Otherwise why belong to your church in the first place if you don't agree with its version of dogma or official proclaimations and have your own version of things?
Orthodoc

I never offer my own version here.  I offer what I learn from my Church.
Logged

Orthodoc
Supporter & Defender Of Orthodoxy
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 2,526

Those who ignore history tend to repeat it.


« Reply #149 on: August 18, 2011, 12:18:08 PM »


But the pope is the only Roman Catholic bishop who is considreed 'Vicar of Christ on earth' and infallible in matters of faith Mary.

So it's immaterial what other RC bishops think when it comes to what the RC faithful are required to believe.
Orthodoc

This is absolute ignorance of what The Catholic Church [my Church] actually teaches concerning both bishops and the pope.

It's sad that you and many other Orthodox think in this way.  It perpetuates a myth that really pleases only those who think and act as Isa does toward my Church.  He is the archetype of the soul that is cramped and wizened in Orthodoxy.  And in my mind, he is personally guilty, for he has the resources to know better and purposefully refuses.  I suspect that you simply do not know and are following what you presume must be correct.

M.

So tell us Mary what your version of the Catholic Church teaches regarding papal infallibility regarding faith and morals.  And how and when does a synod of bishops in your version of the Catholic Church have the authority to over ride a papal proclaimation?  What does 'Vicar of Christ on earth' really mean Mary?  Can you give us just one example of where a Synod of your bishops succeeded in over riding a papal proclaimation?

Orthodoc

You don't want MY version.  You want my Church's version.

M.

Mary, Mary, Mary!  OK.  How about giving me both versions so I can compare.
Your version and your churches version should be one in the same.  Otherwise why belong to your church in the first place if you don't agree with its version of dogma or official proclaimations and have your own version of things?
Orthodoc

I never offer my own version here.  I offer what I learn from my Church.

 Huh Huh Huh Huh Huh Huh

Anyone ever tell you that you talk in circles.  Especially when you don't have an answer.  That's why no one takes you seriously.  Both here and elsewhere.

Orthodoc
Logged

Oh Lord, Save thy people and bless thine inheritance.
Grant victory to the Orthodox Christians over their adversaries.
And by virtue of thy Cross preserve thy habitation.
Severian
God save Egypt, Syria, Lebanon & Iraq
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Coptic/Egyptian Orthodoxy
Posts: 5,039


In solidarity with Iraqi and Syrian Christians

Partisangirl
WWW
« Reply #150 on: August 18, 2011, 12:19:41 PM »

The viciousness of this thread is unbelievable.
« Last Edit: August 18, 2011, 12:36:52 PM by Severian » Logged

"These things I have spoken unto you, that in me ye might have peace. In the world ye shall have tribulation: but be of good cheer; I have overcome the world." -Jesus Christ (Cf. St. John 16:33)
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #151 on: August 18, 2011, 12:26:03 PM »


But the pope is the only Roman Catholic bishop who is considreed 'Vicar of Christ on earth' and infallible in matters of faith Mary.

So it's immaterial what other RC bishops think when it comes to what the RC faithful are required to believe.
Orthodoc

This is absolute ignorance of what The Catholic Church [my Church] actually teaches concerning both bishops and the pope.

It's sad that you and many other Orthodox think in this way.  It perpetuates a myth that really pleases only those who think and act as Isa does toward my Church.  He is the archetype of the soul that is cramped and wizened in Orthodoxy.  And in my mind, he is personally guilty, for he has the resources to know better and purposefully refuses.  I suspect that you simply do not know and are following what you presume must be correct.

M.

So tell us Mary what your version of the Catholic Church teaches regarding papal infallibility regarding faith and morals.  And how and when does a synod of bishops in your version of the Catholic Church have the authority to over ride a papal proclaimation?  What does 'Vicar of Christ on earth' really mean Mary?  Can you give us just one example of where a Synod of your bishops succeeded in over riding a papal proclaimation?

Orthodoc

You don't want MY version.  You want my Church's version.

M.

Mary, Mary, Mary!  OK.  How about giving me both versions so I can compare.
Your version and your churches version should be one in the same.  Otherwise why belong to your church in the first place if you don't agree with its version of dogma or official proclaimations and have your own version of things?
Orthodoc

I never offer my own version here.  I offer what I learn from my Church.

 Huh Huh Huh Huh Huh Huh

Anyone ever tell you that you talk in circles.  Especially when you don't have an answer.  That's why no one takes you seriously.  Both here and elsewhere.

Orthodoc

You are simply confused by your own misconceptions.

You buy into Isa and also, sadly, Father Ambrose's insistence that I do not offer the teaching of my Church but rather offer my own version of the Church's formal teaching.

I do not do that and am not guilty as charged.

So it only seems to you that I talk in circles when I refuse to accept your accusations or characterizations of what I say.

And my dear, you would be quite disturbed if you know how seriously I am taken in fact.

M.

Logged

Orthodoc
Supporter & Defender Of Orthodoxy
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 2,526

Those who ignore history tend to repeat it.


« Reply #152 on: August 18, 2011, 12:27:08 PM »


But the pope is the only Roman Catholic bishop who is considreed 'Vicar of Christ on earth' and infallible in matters of faith Mary.

So it's immaterial what other RC bishops think when it comes to what the RC faithful are required to believe.
Orthodoc

This is absolute ignorance of what The Catholic Church [my Church] actually teaches concerning both bishops and the pope.

It's sad that you and many other Orthodox think in this way.  It perpetuates a myth that really pleases only those who think and act as Isa does toward my Church.  He is the archetype of the soul that is cramped and wizened in Orthodoxy.  And in my mind, he is personally guilty, for he has the resources to know better and purposefully refuses.  I suspect that you simply do not know and are following what you presume must be correct.

M.

So tell us Mary what your version of the Catholic Church teaches regarding papal infallibility regarding faith and morals.  And how and when does a synod of bishops in your version of the Catholic Church have the authority to over ride a papal proclaimation?  What does 'Vicar of Christ on earth' really mean Mary?  Can you give us just one example of where a Synod of your bishops succeeded in over riding a papal proclaimation?

Orthodoc

You don't want MY version.  You want my Church's version.

M.
In reality, we want neither. We want the Church's POV.

Most of you don't have an accurate understanding of The Catholic Church [papal Catholic] at all.  So to cling to your own mis-understandings so violently is not destructive of us but of yourselves with regard to being able to discern truth and reality.



If this is true then why do you refuse to teach us or correct us by being more specific instead of reverting to talking in circles or around an issue under discussion?

Orthodoc
Logged

Oh Lord, Save thy people and bless thine inheritance.
Grant victory to the Orthodox Christians over their adversaries.
And by virtue of thy Cross preserve thy habitation.
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #153 on: August 18, 2011, 12:34:44 PM »


But the pope is the only Roman Catholic bishop who is considreed 'Vicar of Christ on earth' and infallible in matters of faith Mary.

So it's immaterial what other RC bishops think when it comes to what the RC faithful are required to believe.
Orthodoc

This is absolute ignorance of what The Catholic Church [my Church] actually teaches concerning both bishops and the pope.

It's sad that you and many other Orthodox think in this way.  It perpetuates a myth that really pleases only those who think and act as Isa does toward my Church.  He is the archetype of the soul that is cramped and wizened in Orthodoxy.  And in my mind, he is personally guilty, for he has the resources to know better and purposefully refuses.  I suspect that you simply do not know and are following what you presume must be correct.

M.

So tell us Mary what your version of the Catholic Church teaches regarding papal infallibility regarding faith and morals.  And how and when does a synod of bishops in your version of the Catholic Church have the authority to over ride a papal proclaimation?  What does 'Vicar of Christ on earth' really mean Mary?  Can you give us just one example of where a Synod of your bishops succeeded in over riding a papal proclaimation?

Orthodoc

You don't want MY version.  You want my Church's version.

M.
In reality, we want neither. We want the Church's POV.

Most of you don't have an accurate understanding of The Catholic Church [papal Catholic] at all.  So to cling to your own mis-understandings so violently is not destructive of us but of yourselves with regard to being able to discern truth and reality.



If this is true then why do you refuse to teach us or correct us by being more specific instead of reverting to talking in circles or around an issue under discussion?

Orthodoc

I try to get good words in edgewise sometimes.  But all possible positive impacts are generally wiped out in an instant by pages of wiki cut and past-text and map-sans-commentary or analysis.  It is a good tactic by one who understands this medium and how people read and how their minds work...or don't.

I only have so much energy in a day and time is now my enemy in terms of doing some of this kind of work, and I only push the rock up-hill so many times in a week.  Then I wait for another opening and wait to see what happens.

I explained to you above why I cannot answer your question as asked here.

The teaching of my Church is that every bishop is a vicar of Christ.  The catholicity of the Church is found in every see of every Bishop in the Body of Christ.

Now you have to reconcile that with the papal teaching...because that is what my Church does.
« Last Edit: August 18, 2011, 12:35:57 PM by elijahmaria » Logged

Orthodoc
Supporter & Defender Of Orthodoxy
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 2,526

Those who ignore history tend to repeat it.


« Reply #154 on: August 18, 2011, 02:00:53 PM »

You write:

 

"The teaching of my Church is that every bishop is a vicar of Christ.  The catholicity of the Church is found in every see of every Bishop in the Body of Christ."

"Now you have to reconcile that with the papal teaching...because that is what my Church does.'


Response:  Finally we get off the merry-go-round if only for a second.  But, at least it's a start.  By stating  'MY CHURCH',  I ASSUME YOU MEAN WHAT IS CALLED  'the Byzantine or Greek Catholic Church' by some.  

Herein lies the problem Mary.  Because your church fails terribly in its attempt to do so.  The whole statement is a contradiction.  
Because if every bishop is a vicar of Christ then every bishop is co equal to the other.  This includes the pope. If  the catholicity of the Church is found in every see of every Bishop of the Body of Christ then why does the papal catholic church teach only one has supreme authority over all the others. Complete contradiction.  

Orthodoc
« Last Edit: August 18, 2011, 02:03:01 PM by Orthodoc » Logged

Oh Lord, Save thy people and bless thine inheritance.
Grant victory to the Orthodox Christians over their adversaries.
And by virtue of thy Cross preserve thy habitation.
stanley123
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Roman Catholic
Posts: 3,809


« Reply #155 on: August 18, 2011, 04:48:41 PM »

You write:

 

"The teaching of my Church is that every bishop is a vicar of Christ.  The catholicity of the Church is found in every see of every Bishop in the Body of Christ."

"Now you have to reconcile that with the papal teaching...because that is what my Church does.'


Response:  Finally we get off the merry-go-round if only for a second.  But, at least it's a start.  By stating  'MY CHURCH',  I ASSUME YOU MEAN WHAT IS CALLED  'the Byzantine or Greek Catholic Church' by some.  

Herein lies the problem Mary.  Because your church fails terribly in its attempt to do so.  The whole statement is a contradiction.  
Because if every bishop is a vicar of Christ then every bishop is co equal to the other.  This includes the pope. If  the catholicity of the Church is found in every see of every Bishop of the Body of Christ then why does the papal catholic church teach only one has supreme authority over all the others. Complete contradiction.  

Orthodoc
In some sense, every bishop is coequal to the other. But in another sense, no. For example, the Patriarch of Constantinople is a bishop, but he has certain prerogatives in the Orthodox Church.
Logged
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #156 on: August 18, 2011, 06:47:19 PM »

You write:

 

"The teaching of my Church is that every bishop is a vicar of Christ.  The catholicity of the Church is found in every see of every Bishop in the Body of Christ."

"Now you have to reconcile that with the papal teaching...because that is what my Church does.'


Response:  Finally we get off the merry-go-round if only for a second.  But, at least it's a start.  By stating  'MY CHURCH',  I ASSUME YOU MEAN WHAT IS CALLED  'the Byzantine or Greek Catholic Church' by some.  

Herein lies the problem Mary.  Because your church fails terribly in its attempt to do so.  The whole statement is a contradiction.  
Because if every bishop is a vicar of Christ then every bishop is co equal to the other.  This includes the pope. If  the catholicity of the Church is found in every see of every Bishop of the Body of Christ then why does the papal catholic church teach only one has supreme authority over all the others. Complete contradiction.  

Orthodoc

Because Isa inserts his commentary on most of the posts referencing The Catholic Church, you can assume that when I speak of the Catholic Church [my Church],  I am referring to the whole Catholic Church, and not my particular Church.  When I reference my particular Church, it will be more clear for I will refer to its particular name.

The contradiction that you see is paradox because both things are true and do not contradict.

You asked for an example of when the conciliar Church ever spoke and acted over the words and actions and understandings of popes:  One of the most recent examples is the clarifications of the Second Vatican Council with respect to the understanding of the phrase "Ex ecclesia nulla salus"...It is not a complete and total negation of the phrase as it has been understood historically, but it does point to other self-understandings of the Church and the Body of Christ that mitigate against a strict and literal understanding of the original declaration and advances an understanding that accepts that the Church is absolutely necessary for salvation: but not perhaps in such an exclusionary sense that is preferable to many: and encouraged by historical papal announcements.

M.
Logged

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

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,808



« Reply #157 on: August 18, 2011, 07:18:09 PM »

You write:

 

"The teaching of my Church is that every bishop is a vicar of Christ.  The catholicity of the Church is found in every see of every Bishop in the Body of Christ."

"Now you have to reconcile that with the papal teaching...because that is what my Church does.'


Response:  Finally we get off the merry-go-round if only for a second.  But, at least it's a start.  By stating  'MY CHURCH',  I ASSUME YOU MEAN WHAT IS CALLED  'the Byzantine or Greek Catholic Church' by some.  

Herein lies the problem Mary.  Because your church fails terribly in its attempt to do so.  The whole statement is a contradiction.  
Because if every bishop is a vicar of Christ then every bishop is co equal to the other.  This includes the pope. If  the catholicity of the Church is found in every see of every Bishop of the Body of Christ then why does the papal catholic church teach only one has supreme authority over all the others. Complete contradiction.  

Orthodoc
In some sense, every bishop is coequal to the other. But in another sense, no. For example, the Patriarch of Constantinople is a bishop, but he has certain prerogatives in the Orthodox Church.
perrogatives the rest of the Orthodox episcopate gave him, and which they can change, modify or abolish.  Not so your "supreme pontiff, the vicar of Christ."
Logged

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

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,808



« Reply #158 on: August 18, 2011, 07:24:16 PM »

You write:

 

"The teaching of my Church is that every bishop is a vicar of Christ.  The catholicity of the Church is found in every see of every Bishop in the Body of Christ."

"Now you have to reconcile that with the papal teaching...because that is what my Church does.'


Response:  Finally we get off the merry-go-round if only for a second.  But, at least it's a start.  By stating  'MY CHURCH',  I ASSUME YOU MEAN WHAT IS CALLED  'the Byzantine or Greek Catholic Church' by some.  

Herein lies the problem Mary.  Because your church fails terribly in its attempt to do so.  The whole statement is a contradiction.  
Because if every bishop is a vicar of Christ then every bishop is co equal to the other.  This includes the pope. If  the catholicity of the Church is found in every see of every Bishop of the Body of Christ then why does the papal catholic church teach only one has supreme authority over all the others. Complete contradiction.  

Orthodoc

Because Isa inserts his commentary on most of the posts referencing The Catholic Church, you can assume that when I speak of the Catholic Church [my Church],  I am referring to the whole Catholic Church, and not my particular Church.  When I reference my particular Church, it will be more clear for I will refer to its particular name.
nothing you post is ever clear, EM: it's your modus operandi.

The contradiction that you see is paradox because both things are true and do not contradict.
No, it's a contradiction between the deposit of Faith the Apostles left and what your "magisterium" wants that deposit to say.  No paradox involved at all.

You asked for an example of when the conciliar Church ever spoke and acted over the words and actions and understandings of popes:  One of the most recent examples is the clarifications of the Second Vatican Council with respect to the understanding of the phrase "Ex ecclesia nulla salus"...It is not a complete and total negation of the phrase as it has been understood historically, but it does point to other self-understandings of the Church and the Body of Christ that mitigate against a strict and literal understanding of the original declaration and advances an understanding that accepts that the Church is absolutely necessary for salvation: but not perhaps in such an exclusionary sense that is preferable to many: and encouraged by historical papal announcements.
none of which we can get a straight answer on their "ex cathedra" and "infallible" status and hence authority.

Btw, instead of giving your spin, why don't you quote a) your Second Vatican Council and b) those supreme pontiffs whose words it supposedly spoke and acted over.
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
Severian
God save Egypt, Syria, Lebanon & Iraq
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Coptic/Egyptian Orthodoxy
Posts: 5,039


In solidarity with Iraqi and Syrian Christians

Partisangirl
WWW
« Reply #159 on: August 18, 2011, 07:26:32 PM »

I'm just amazed that this hasn't been kicked over to the private fora.  Tongue
Logged

"These things I have spoken unto you, that in me ye might have peace. In the world ye shall have tribulation: but be of good cheer; I have overcome the world." -Jesus Christ (Cf. St. John 16:33)
stanley123
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Roman Catholic
Posts: 3,809


« Reply #160 on: August 18, 2011, 07:27:43 PM »

You write:

 

"The teaching of my Church is that every bishop is a vicar of Christ.  The catholicity of the Church is found in every see of every Bishop in the Body of Christ."

"Now you have to reconcile that with the papal teaching...because that is what my Church does.'


Response:  Finally we get off the merry-go-round if only for a second.  But, at least it's a start.  By stating  'MY CHURCH',  I ASSUME YOU MEAN WHAT IS CALLED  'the Byzantine or Greek Catholic Church' by some.  

Herein lies the problem Mary.  Because your church fails terribly in its attempt to do so.  The whole statement is a contradiction.  
Because if every bishop is a vicar of Christ then every bishop is co equal to the other.  This includes the pope. If  the catholicity of the Church is found in every see of every Bishop of the Body of Christ then why does the papal catholic church teach only one has supreme authority over all the others. Complete contradiction.  

Orthodoc
In some sense, every bishop is coequal to the other. But in another sense, no. For example, the Patriarch of Constantinople is a bishop, but he has certain prerogatives in the Orthodox Church.
perrogatives the rest of the Orthodox episcopate gave him, and which they can change, modify or abolish.  Not so your "supreme pontiff, the vicar of Christ."
R Catholics have development of doctrine, and joint study is going on concerning the position of the Roman Bishop in the pre-schism  era (before 1054), presumably so that an acceptable compromise or solution can be reached on this question.
Logged
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,808



« Reply #161 on: August 18, 2011, 07:30:20 PM »


But the pope is the only Roman Catholic bishop who is considreed 'Vicar of Christ on earth' and infallible in matters of faith Mary.

So it's immaterial what other RC bishops think when it comes to what the RC faithful are required to believe.
Orthodoc

This is absolute ignorance of what The Catholic Church [my Church] actually teaches concerning both bishops and the pope.

It's sad that you and many other Orthodox think in this way.  It perpetuates a myth that really pleases only those who think and act as Isa does toward my Church.  He is the archetype of the soul that is cramped and wizened in Orthodoxy.  And in my mind, he is personally guilty, for he has the resources to know better and purposefully refuses.  I suspect that you simply do not know and are following what you presume must be correct.

M.

So tell us Mary what your version of the Catholic Church teaches regarding papal infallibility regarding faith and morals.  And how and when does a synod of bishops in your version of the Catholic Church have the authority to over ride a papal proclaimation?  What does 'Vicar of Christ on earth' really mean Mary?  Can you give us just one example of where a Synod of your bishops succeeded in over riding a papal proclaimation?

Orthodoc

You don't want MY version.  You want my Church's version.

M.
In reality, we want neither. We want the Church's POV.

Most of you don't have an accurate understanding of The Catholic Church [papal Catholic] at all.  So to cling to your own mis-understandings so violently is not destructive of us but of yourselves with regard to being able to discern truth and reality.



If this is true then why do you refuse to teach us or correct us by being more specific instead of reverting to talking in circles or around an issue under discussion?

Orthodoc

I try to get good words in edgewise sometimes.  But all possible positive impacts are generally wiped out in an instant by pages of wiki cut and past-text and map-sans-commentary or analysis.  It is a good tactic by one who understands this medium and how people read and how their minds work...or don't.

I only have so much energy in a day and time is now my enemy in terms of doing some of this kind of work, and I only push the rock up-hill so many times in a week.  Then I wait for another opening and wait to see what happens.

I explained to you above why I cannot answer your question as asked here.

The teaching of my Church is that every bishop is a vicar of Christ.  The catholicity of the Church is found in every see of every Bishop in the Body of Christ.
no, that is not your "magisterium's" teaching: every bishop must be joined to the supreme head.
I have just a moment, but I thought I would get this ball rolling.

I'm going to go through the Codex Canonum Ecclesiarum Orientalium, i.e. the Vatican's "Code of Canons of the Eastern Church," because of the confussion of the bishop in the Vatican as supreme pontiff and patriarch of the West, a confusion seen in some of the cherry picked patristics on the jurisdiction of the bisop of Rome. In the CCEO, the Vatican's position vis-a-vis the local bishop comes out loud and clear.

Quote
TITLE 7

Eparchies and Bishops

Canon 177
1. An eparchy is a portion of the people of God which is entrusted for pastoral care to a bishop with the cooperation of the presbyterate so that, adhering to its pastor and gathered by him in the Holy Spirit through the Gospel and the Eucharist, it constitutes a particular Church in which the one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church of Christ is truly present and operative.
2. In the erection, modification, and suppression of eparchies within the territorial boundaries of a patriarchal Church, can. 85,
1 is to be observed; in other cases the erection, modification and suppression of eparchies is solely within the competence of the Apostolic See. [i.e. the Vatican]

Canon 85
1. For a serious reason, with the consent of the synod of bishops of the patriarchal Church and having consulted the Apostolic See [i.e. the Vatican], the patriarch can establish provinces and eparchies, modify their boundaries, unite, divide, suppress, and modify their hierarchical status and transfer the eparchial see.
http://www.intratext.com/X/ENG1199.HTM

So the eparchy is entrusted to the bishop, but who does the entrusting?  Why, who else? "the Supreme Authority in the Church," i.e. the Vatican.  It is "the Supreme Authority in the Church" who erects, modifies, suppresses, unites, divides, modify their hiearchal status and transfer their see. The involvement of the patriarch is the exception-and then only for a serious reason and (unlike the patriarch of the West, i.e. "the Suprem Authority in the Church") contingent on the consent of the synod of bishops of the patriarchal Church, and only after consulting (i.e. securing approval) of "the Supreme Authority in the Church"-the rule that it is "solely within the competence of "the Supreme Authority in the Church."
Now you have to reconcile that with the papal teaching...because that is what my Church does.
No, he does not have to. What he has to do is dismiss it for the heresy it is, and your ecclesial community for teaching 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
WetCatechumen
Roman Catholic
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic Christianity
Jurisdiction: Latin Rite - Archdiocese of Santa Fe; Ruthenian Byzantine Catholic Eparchy of Phoenix
Posts: 297



« Reply #162 on: August 19, 2011, 02:57:08 AM »

those cramped, wizened philetic Latin lungs are nowhere as healthy as the lungs of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church connected to a myriad of tongues..
You don't get to claim the miaphysites as your own.
They say otherwise, and that's between us and them.  When we want the your opinion of that matter, we'll give it to you.

Sorry. Orthodoxy is a Greek Rite only club (yeah, WRO exists, but come on. It's about as big as Anglican Use Catholicism. They're converting by the DOZENS!).

And I have been to Mass in Syriac, Slavonic, Latin, English, and Spanish. Greek Rite (Slavonic, English, and Spanish), Maronite Syriac Rite (Syriac and English), and Roman Rite (Latin, English, and Spanish). And there are tons more.
That's nice.  I've been to divine liturgy in English, Slavonic, Slovak, Polish, Bulgarian, Greek, Arabic, Coptic, Syriac, Armenian, Spanish, Latin, Romanian, Serbian, Finnish, Ukrainian, and I haven't exhausted them by far.

When your hierarchs and theirs concelebrate, or there is a synod in which you acknowledge each other to be orthodox, give me a call.
why would we call you?
Otherwise don't spout things that aren't true but you wish are true.
I have taken communion from the Syriac Patriarch's own hand, he knowing that I am EO. I could go on, but then it's none of your business and doesn't concern you.
You saying that the EO churches are diverse because of the OO
I said no such thing.

is as silly as the Catholic Church saying that it is diverse because of the Assyrian Church of the East.
and yet I have seen that argument made, over and over, although none of what you now call sui juris churches have only been around for about 500 years-most far less-i.e. only less than half the history of the Vatican, only only its latter (not its beginning) half.

Just because many of you intercommune with the permission or blind eye of hierarchs doesn't mean that you guys are all the same group.
don't confuse your Vatican's bad habits with our practice: we don't turn a blind eye.

The Eastern Orthodox are the Eastern Orthodox.
LOL.  We define ourselves.  We don't need pontificating from the Vatican to tell us who we are.

They only use the Greek Rite with the caveat that there are a few Roman Rite derivative parishes, but not many.
Your Vatican categories are showing:you are refering, I assUme, to the rite of Constantinople.  Yes it's originally Greek, just as was the rite of Alexandria which the Copts still use (and still use much of it in Greek) and the Greek EO used from the earliest times to c. 1200; and the rite of Antioch, which was used just as earlier until the same date by the Greek (and Arab) EO until around the same date, and still used by the Syriac Orthodox;and the rite of Jerusalem, still in limited use.  In fact, the rite of Rome was originally in Greek as well, Latin being introduced by the provincial Pope St. Victor c. 190 and not fully Latinized until Pope St. Damasus two centuries later.

The Oriental Orthodox are not the Eastern Orthodox, and you trying to claim them as to how diverse orthodoxy is is silly.

And that's great about the Syriac Orthodox. I happen to know a few myself. We have a quickly growing Syriac community in Albuquerque (thank you George W. Bush and U.S. Congress and American warhawks). They all go to the local Ruthenian Catholic parish, whether they're Orthodox or Catholic.

Orthodox=Catholic.  If they go commune at a Ruthenian parish in submission to the Vatican, then they belong to the Vatican.

They intercommune all the time back home in Iraq.

You sure you're not confusing them with their ethnic cousins, the Chaldeans and Nestorians, who are far more numerious in Iraq? In which case if heretics commune with heretics, that doesn't involve the Orthodox.

They commune at the Byzantine church. Furthermore, the Syriac Orthodox and Syriac Catholics have formal agreements concerning sharing of sacraments (and how it's okay).
The Syriac Orthodox, like the rest of the Orthodox, exercise economia regarding those in schism from the Mother Church.  It is, for instance, why the wayward flocks that St. Alexis brought back to Orthodoxy are refered to "coming back," although they had been mired in the heresies of the Vatican for generations, and strictly speaking should have been looked on the same way as any Ultramontanist from Italy, Spain, Poland, France, Austria, Hungary or Croatia.

ialmisry, I understand that you love the OO. I understand how you feel about them, but your communion of churches is not in communion with them.
The status of our communion concerns you how? as it doesn't include you.

Your faiths are very similar, but the differences are there. There are reasons that the EO and the OO are not in communion with each other. Those issues have not been resolved, otherwise your hierarchs would concelebrate.
Again, you worry about our business.  We are more than competent and able to manage our own affairs.

It is a little pregnant: both Popes (unlike your bishops in submission there, ours, both, can hold the see' ancient title) of Alexandria and Patriarchs of Antioch recognize each others baptism (something we don't do for others), marriages (something we do not do for any other), ordinations (something we do not do for others) and consecrations (something we don't do for others).

You can try to make your own Zhoghby initiative concerning them,

no the agreements that the Popes and Patriarchs have signed more than suffice.

but the Antiochian Greek Orthodox and the Melkite Greek Catholics are not the same, despite how similar they are (and that intercommunion and concelebration happens all the time in the home countries).
not quite sure how the Melkites, who are by definition not OO, got brought up.

We say a pox on both your houses to the squabbles of Old and New Rome, something that vexes the Vatican, but is why EO Antioch does not look at the Melkites the same way as the Ultramontanists.

I have a few points:

1. There are Chaldean Catholics, Assyrians, Syriac Catholics, and Syriac Orthodox who attend my Ruthenian parish. I know the difference. There are more Syriacs here simply because of social ties.

2. "Greek Rite" is a perfectly valid term meaning "The Rite of Constantinople", which, incidentally, the non-Apostolic* See of Constantinople tried to enforce upon pretty much everyone in the Eastern Mediterranean. And now it is the only Rite practiced by the Eastern Orthodox churches (with the caveat of a very small Western Rite usage - heavily Hellenized).

3. It depends on who you talk to, concerning the recognizing of each other's mysteries. Some Eastern Orthodox don't acknowledge the mysteries of the Oriental Orthodox churches, and some do recognize the mysteries of the Catholic Church.

4. You are not a nice person. "A pox on both your houses"? You are leveling a curse at the protos of bishops in your own communion and the protos of bishops in mine. Dearest bearer of the name of Christ our God, you have not put me in a good mood. I am a prideful person. I am not as prayerful as I should be. If I said I corrected you out of love, I'd be only a few percent true. That is my flaw and my sin. Have mercy on me, for I have sinned without number. But, please, recant your statement. A curse upon the Sees of Old and New Rome? What pride! You, a layman, curse the ancient Sees which have led the church for 2,000 and 1,700 years respectively? I'm offended, and I think other Christians should be too.

I have had nothing but good experiences with Eastern Orthodox in real life. A priest once told me that the Catholics and the Orthodox were like two sides of a coin - an Orthodox priest, mind you, and one of the holiest you'll meet. Whereas, the distaste that you show for my religion and its adherents is unseen in real life orthodoxy. I, Paul, ask thee, Isa, why do you persecute me? I understand you believe we have perverted the faith. That is ok - it is between you and God, and my bishops and your bishops. But how you speak of us, how you talk of your fellow religionists, and the strength of negative emotion that you reveal with your words on the internet is another matter. It's a complete disconnect from my actual experience with the Eastern Orthodox churches. Does it make me love the Orthodox faith more? No, it only grieves me and makes me rant on the internet because I lose my temper.

* Non-Apostolic as in, not Rome (lost to you in AD 1054), Antioch (lost to you in AD 451), or Alexandria (lost to you in AD 451), or the See of Seleucia-Ctesiphon (lost to you in AD 431), or one of the Sees founded by one of the Holy Apostles. The St. Andrew legend is a myth. Of course, I am aware that there are many Apostolic Sees still held by the Eastern Orthodox churches, but not one of the three that hold primacy. Yes, there are Greek Patriarchs of those regions who came after the schisms (which were primarily due to ethnic, linguistic, and political conflicts rather than doctrinal), but the patrimony of those churches was displaced in favor of Greek patrimony much as the Latin church tried to impose their own Patriarchs upon the ancient Eastern Sees, although they did not have the power and might of the Eastern Roman Empire.
« Last Edit: August 19, 2011, 03:09:15 AM by WetCatechumen » Logged

"And because they have nothing better to do, they take cushion and chairs to Rome. And while the Pope is saying liturgy, they go, 'Oh, oh, oh, filioque!' And the Pope say, 'Filioque? That-uh sound nice! I think I divide-uh the Church over it!'" - Comrade Real Presence
Cavaradossi
法網恢恢,疏而不漏
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Chalcedonian Automaton Serial No. 5Aj4bx9
Jurisdiction: Chalcedonian Automaton Factory 5
Posts: 1,591



« Reply #163 on: August 19, 2011, 03:17:09 AM »

* Non-Apostolic as in, not Rome (lost to you in AD 1054), Antioch (lost to you in AD 451), or Alexandria (lost to you in AD 451), or the See of Seleucia-Ctesiphon (lost to you in AD 431), or one of the Sees founded by one of the Holy Apostles. The St. Andrew legend is a myth. Of course, I am aware that there are many Apostolic Sees still held by the Eastern Orthodox churches, but not one of the three that hold primacy. Yes, there are Greek Patriarchs of those regions who came after the schisms (which were primarily due to ethnic, linguistic, and political conflicts rather than doctrinal), but the patrimony of those churches was displaced in favor of Greek patrimony much as the Latin church tried to impose their own Patriarchs upon the ancient Eastern Sees, although they did not have the power and might of the Eastern Roman Empire.

What is this concept of the "Apostolicity" of a See? May I find it within the Bible? What about the Tradition of the Church? May I find it referenced within the writings of the Church Fathers? Where in the Canons and the Councils of the Church may I read about the importance of a See's "Apostolicity"? Since the Church of Alexandria was founded by St. Mark the Evangelist, who was not one of the original twelve, how many generations does it take for "Apostolicity" to wear off and new Sees founded after this cut-off generation cease to be Apostolic? Also, because it stems from Second Generation "Apostolicity," does Alexandria therefore have second-class authority, under Rome and Antioch?

Please answer these questions for me, so that I might better understand this concept of "Apostolicity" which I have heretofore not encountered.
« Last Edit: August 19, 2011, 03:18:57 AM by Cavaradossi » Logged

Be comforted, and have faith, O Israel, for your God is infinitely simple and one, composed of no parts.
WetCatechumen
Roman Catholic
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic Christianity
Jurisdiction: Latin Rite - Archdiocese of Santa Fe; Ruthenian Byzantine Catholic Eparchy of Phoenix
Posts: 297



« Reply #164 on: August 19, 2011, 03:25:23 AM »

* Non-Apostolic as in, not Rome (lost to you in AD 1054), Antioch (lost to you in AD 451), or Alexandria (lost to you in AD 451), or the See of Seleucia-Ctesiphon (lost to you in AD 431), or one of the Sees founded by one of the Holy Apostles. The St. Andrew legend is a myth. Of course, I am aware that there are many Apostolic Sees still held by the Eastern Orthodox churches, but not one of the three that hold primacy. Yes, there are Greek Patriarchs of those regions who came after the schisms (which were primarily due to ethnic, linguistic, and political conflicts rather than doctrinal), but the patrimony of those churches was displaced in favor of Greek patrimony much as the Latin church tried to impose their own Patriarchs upon the ancient Eastern Sees, although they did not have the power and might of the Eastern Roman Empire.

What is this concept of the "Apostolicity" of a See? May I find it within the Bible? What about the Tradition of the Church? May I find it referenced within the writings of the Church Fathers? Where in the Canons and the Councils of the Church may I read about the importance of a See's "Apostolicity"? Since the Church of Alexandria was founded by St. Mark the Evangelist, who was not one of the original twelve, how many generations does it take for "Apostolicity" to wear off and new Sees founded after this cut-off generation cease to be Apostolic? Also, because it stems from Second Generation "Apostolicity," does Alexandria therefore have second-class authority, under Rome and Antioch?

Please answer these questions for me, so that I might better understand this concept of "Apostolicity" which I have heretofore not encountered.
Sadly, I don't have any references with which to provide you. That being said, you can dismiss that entire part of my post as invalid if you so desire, and I will not complain. It's something I've picked up somewhere.

Apostolic Sees are bishopricks that trace their founding directly to the Apostles and were ruled by them for a time. St. Mark was one of the Seventy Apostles, but I know that it is often called a Petrine See because of St. Mark's relationship with St. Peter. The See of Byzantium was not founded by St. Andrew, but centuries later as a suffragan of another See. Hence, the See of Byzantium is not Apostolic.

It's a messy thing, but the concept does exist. Wikipedia has its own views on the matter but I promise I didn't read Wikipedia and then start parading their concept of an Apostolic See all over the place. It's something I've seen elsewhere.
Logged

"And because they have nothing better to do, they take cushion and chairs to Rome. And while the Pope is saying liturgy, they go, 'Oh, oh, oh, filioque!' And the Pope say, 'Filioque? That-uh sound nice! I think I divide-uh the Church over it!'" - Comrade Real Presence
Cavaradossi
法網恢恢,疏而不漏
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Chalcedonian Automaton Serial No. 5Aj4bx9
Jurisdiction: Chalcedonian Automaton Factory 5
Posts: 1,591



« Reply #165 on: August 19, 2011, 03:46:17 AM »

* Non-Apostolic as in, not Rome (lost to you in AD 1054), Antioch (lost to you in AD 451), or Alexandria (lost to you in AD 451), or the See of Seleucia-Ctesiphon (lost to you in AD 431), or one of the Sees founded by one of the Holy Apostles. The St. Andrew legend is a myth. Of course, I am aware that there are many Apostolic Sees still held by the Eastern Orthodox churches, but not one of the three that hold primacy. Yes, there are Greek Patriarchs of those regions who came after the schisms (which were primarily due to ethnic, linguistic, and political conflicts rather than doctrinal), but the patrimony of those churches was displaced in favor of Greek patrimony much as the Latin church tried to impose their own Patriarchs upon the ancient Eastern Sees, although they did not have the power and might of the Eastern Roman Empire.

What is this concept of the "Apostolicity" of a See? May I find it within the Bible? What about the Tradition of the Church? May I find it referenced within the writings of the Church Fathers? Where in the Canons and the Councils of the Church may I read about the importance of a See's "Apostolicity"? Since the Church of Alexandria was founded by St. Mark the Evangelist, who was not one of the original twelve, how many generations does it take for "Apostolicity" to wear off and new Sees founded after this cut-off generation cease to be Apostolic? Also, because it stems from Second Generation "Apostolicity," does Alexandria therefore have second-class authority, under Rome and Antioch?

Please answer these questions for me, so that I might better understand this concept of "Apostolicity" which I have heretofore not encountered.
Sadly, I don't have any references with which to provide you. That being said, you can dismiss that entire part of my post as invalid if you so desire, and I will not complain. It's something I've picked up somewhere.

Apostolic Sees are bishopricks that trace their founding directly to the Apostles and were ruled by them for a time. St. Mark was one of the Seventy Apostles, but I know that it is often called a Petrine See because of St. Mark's relationship with St. Peter. The See of Byzantium was not founded by St. Andrew, but centuries later as a suffragan of another See. Hence, the See of Byzantium is not Apostolic.

It's a messy thing, but the concept does exist. Wikipedia has its own views on the matter but I promise I didn't read Wikipedia and then start parading their concept of an Apostolic See all over the place. It's something I've seen elsewhere.

Yes, but where in the canons may I find sees being elevated to having special authority because of their Apostolicity? If Apostolicity were so important to the structure of the Church, then why have I not seen canons referencing this concept? Also, whence do metropolitans and archbishops draw their authority over their metropolises and archdioceses, since they do not possess Apostolicity? Is the special authority of Apostolicity passed down to other hierarchs, by virtue of their subordination to a bishop who does possess Apostolicity? How is Apostolicity itself passed along between a patriarch and his successor? Is it like the Ordination of clergymen, which is accomplished by passing on the Holy Spirit with the laying on of hands? Furthermore, because only one bishop may be seated within a see at any given time, how does Apostolicity pass down to the new patriarch should the old one die? Do the other bishops within the patriarchate confer Apostolicity upon the new patriarch? How does that work, since none of the other bishops possess Apostolicity themselves?

I do not doubt that some people believe in such a concept, but I cannot bring myself to believe that the Church ever had this form of governance unless these questions are answered.
Logged

Be comforted, and have faith, O Israel, for your God is infinitely simple and one, composed of no parts.
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,808



« Reply #166 on: August 19, 2011, 04:18:54 AM »

I have a few points:

1. There are Chaldean Catholics, Assyrians, Syriac Catholics, and Syriac Orthodox who attend my Ruthenian parish. I know the difference.
Do they?

There are more Syriacs here simply because of social ties.
And they are not attending an Orthodox Church why?

2. "Greek Rite" is a perfectly valid term meaning "The Rite of Constantinople",

No, it is not, as it has meaning only in the Vatican scheme of things, where it lumps together all those who entered schism and submitted to it, and then calls them "Greek Catholic" (the distinction between EO, OO, Monothelite and Nestorian being blurred when they all adopt Ultramontanism: hence the one size fits all Codex Canonum Ecclesiarum Orientalium (CCEO), issued, of course, in Latin).

If one were to insist on calling it Greek because of its original language, then there would be no distinction between it and the rites of Alexandria (still largely in Greek even among the Copts), Antioch (minimal Greek among the Syriac, comparable to the use of Greek in the Latin mass), Jerusalem (where St. James DL survives), and Rome itself: Latin not being the original language of the Church there.  Sort of like "Latin Rite" for the Roman rite, as a) the Roman rite wasn't orginally in Latin, and b) that ignores the Mozarabic, Gallican and Ambrosian rites, which were formed in Latin.

which, incidentally, the non-Apostolic*
we'll deal with this gratuitous, and incorrect, swipe below.

See of Constantinople tried to enforce upon pretty much everyone in the Eastern Mediterranean.
True enough. It however, unlike the Vatican, didn't use the sword for that: it couldn't, Alexandria, Antioch and Jerusalem were long lost to the Empire when that happened.  Given that the Vatican tried to impose its newly minted Latin rite (which dates from around the time New Rome became the second see) not only around the whole Mediterranean, but the world, odd that you should bring that up.

And now it is the only Rite practiced by the Eastern Orthodox churches (with the caveat of a very small Western Rite usage - heavily Hellenized).
Its not a usage, its a rite.  And it would be odd that it would be heavily Hellenized, as no branch of the Greek Church has WRO.  And no, it's not even heavily influenced by the rite of Constantinople ("Byzantinized" is something the Vatican does, having invented the concept).

3. It depends on who you talk to, concerning the recognizing of each other's mysteries. Some Eastern Orthodox don't acknowledge the mysteries of the Oriental Orthodox churches, and some do recognize the mysteries of the Catholic Church.
The Holy Mysteries of the Catholic Church are what bind the Orthodox, so of course they are recognized.

As for the Vatican, there is no Orthodox, EO at least (I'll let the OO speak for themselves), who recognize what it calls sacraments.

4. You are not a nice person. "A pox on both your houses"? You are leveling a curse at the protos of bishops in your own communion
We don't have a protos of bishops.  It seems New Rome has caught Ultramontanist fever from Old Rome, perhaps with members of the Phanar going to the Vatican since the closing of Haliki.  And when they act as foolish as the Vatican has, putting forth silly claims...

and the protos of bishops in mine. Dearest bearer of the name of Christ our God, you have not put me in a good mood. I am a prideful person. I am not as prayerful as I should be. If I said I corrected you out of love, I'd be only a few percent true. That is my flaw and my sin. Have mercy on me, for I have sinned without number. But, please, recant your statement. A curse upon the Sees of Old and New Rome? What pride! You, a layman, curse the ancient Sees which have led the church for 2,000 and 1,700 years respectively? I'm offended, and I think other Christians should be too.
You math is off.  Rome at the earliest could not have led the Church until after the destruction of Jerusalem, 1959 years ago, and it is questionable even then.  New Rome didn't lead the Church until Old Rome fell definitively into apostasy, about a thousand years ago. And my home sees of Alexandria and Antioch are just as old (indeed, Antioch is older than either Rome) in leading the Church.

Maximus the Confessor was a layman. It is your Vatican who is deceived into thinking that bishops can sign over the Church to heresy.

* Non-Apostolic as in, not Rome (lost to you in AD 1054), Antioch (lost to you in AD 451), or Alexandria (lost to you in AD 451), or the See of Seleucia-Ctesiphon (lost to you in AD 431), or one of the Sees founded by one of the Holy Apostles. The St. Andrew legend is a myth. Of course, I am aware that there are many Apostolic Sees still held by the Eastern Orthodox churches, but not one of the three that hold primacy. Yes, there are Greek Patriarchs of those regions who came after the schisms (which were primarily due to ethnic, linguistic, and political conflicts rather than doctrinal), but the patrimony of those churches was displaced in favor of Greek patrimony much as the Latin church tried to impose their own Patriarchs upon the ancient Eastern Sees, although they did not have the power and might of the Eastern Roman Empire.
I'm tired, so I'll have to pick this up later.
« Last Edit: August 19, 2011, 04:22:00 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
podkarpatska
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: ACROD
Posts: 8,472


Pokrov


WWW
« Reply #167 on: August 19, 2011, 09:00:12 AM »

I'm just amazed that this hasn't been kicked over to the private fora.  Tongue

isn't there a special thread for Ialmisry and Elijahmaria's back and forth?
Logged
Severian
God save Egypt, Syria, Lebanon & Iraq
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Coptic/Egyptian Orthodoxy
Posts: 5,039


In solidarity with Iraqi and Syrian Christians

Partisangirl
WWW
« Reply #168 on: August 19, 2011, 09:03:52 AM »

I'm just amazed that this hasn't been kicked over to the private fora.  Tongue

isn't there a special thread for Ialmisry and Elijahmaria's back and forth?
Yes. LOL.  laugh
Logged

"These things I have spoken unto you, that in me ye might have peace. In the world ye shall have tribulation: but be of good cheer; I have overcome the world." -Jesus Christ (Cf. St. John 16:33)
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,192


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #169 on: August 19, 2011, 04:28:11 PM »

Everytime I read the title to this tread, I see Napolean Dynamite in my head saying, "Your face is more oppressive than the Stalinist Regime." Perhaps I have been teaching high school for far too long.

Logged

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

Faith: Catholic
Posts: 2,395


« Reply #170 on: August 20, 2011, 01:51:39 AM »

I love that movie. Lol.
Logged
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,808



« Reply #171 on: August 20, 2011, 02:53:57 PM »

* Non-Apostolic as in, not Rome (lost to you in AD 1054), Antioch (lost to you in AD 451), or Alexandria (lost to you in AD 451), or the See of Seleucia-Ctesiphon (lost to you in AD 431), or one of the Sees founded by one of the Holy Apostles. The St. Andrew legend is a myth. Of course, I am aware that there are many Apostolic Sees still held by the Eastern Orthodox churches, but not one of the three that hold primacy. Yes, there are Greek Patriarchs of those regions who came after the schisms (which were primarily due to ethnic, linguistic, and political conflicts rather than doctrinal), but the patrimony of those churches was displaced in favor of Greek patrimony much as the Latin church tried to impose their own Patriarchs upon the ancient Eastern Sees, although they did not have the power and might of the Eastern Roman Empire.

What is this concept of the "Apostolicity" of a See? May I find it within the Bible? What about the Tradition of the Church? May I find it referenced within the writings of the Church Fathers? Where in the Canons and the Councils of the Church may I read about the importance of a See's "Apostolicity"? Since the Church of Alexandria was founded by St. Mark the Evangelist, who was not one of the original twelve, how many generations does it take for "Apostolicity" to wear off and new Sees founded after this cut-off generation cease to be Apostolic? Also, because it stems from Second Generation "Apostolicity," does Alexandria therefore have second-class authority, under Rome and Antioch?

Please answer these questions for me, so that I might better understand this concept of "Apostolicity" which I have heretofore not encountered.
Sadly, I don't have any references with which to provide you. That being said, you can dismiss that entire part of my post as invalid if you so desire, and I will not complain. It's something I've picked up somewhere.

Apostolic Sees are bishopricks that trace their founding directly to the Apostles and were ruled by them for a time. St. Mark was one of the Seventy Apostles, but I know that it is often called a Petrine See because of St. Mark's relationship with St. Peter. The See of Byzantium was not founded by St. Andrew, but centuries later as a suffragan of another See. Hence, the See of Byzantium is not Apostolic.

It's a messy thing, but the concept does exist. Wikipedia has its own views on the matter but I promise I didn't read Wikipedia and then start parading their concept of an Apostolic See all over the place. It's something I've seen elsewhere.

Yes, but where in the canons may I find sees being elevated to having special authority because of their Apostolicity? If Apostolicity were so important to the structure of the Church, then why have I not seen canons referencing this concept? Also, whence do metropolitans and archbishops draw their authority over their metropolises and archdioceses, since they do not possess Apostolicity? Is the special authority of Apostolicity passed down to other hierarchs, by virtue of their subordination to a bishop who does possess Apostolicity? How is Apostolicity itself passed along between a patriarch and his successor? Is it like the Ordination of clergymen, which is accomplished by passing on the Holy Spirit with the laying on of hands? Furthermore, because only one bishop may be seated within a see at any given time, how does Apostolicity pass down to the new patriarch should the old one die? Do the other bishops within the patriarchate confer Apostolicity upon the new patriarch? How does that work, since none of the other bishops possess Apostolicity themselves?

I do not doubt that some people believe in such a concept, but I cannot bring myself to believe that the Church ever had this form of governance unless these questions are answered.
I'm going to just piggy back here, as Cavaradossi has hit the nail on the head.

* Non-Apostolic as in, not Rome (lost to you in AD 1054), Antioch (lost to you in AD 451), or Alexandria (lost to you in AD 451), or the See of Seleucia-Ctesiphon (lost to you in AD 431), or one of the Sees founded by one of the Holy Apostles. The St. Andrew legend is a myth. Of course, I am aware that there are many Apostolic Sees still held by the Eastern Orthodox churches, but not one of the three that hold primacy. Yes, there are Greek Patriarchs of those regions who came after the schisms (which were primarily due to ethnic, linguistic, and political conflicts rather than doctrinal), but the patrimony of those churches was displaced in favor of Greek patrimony much as the Latin church tried to impose their own Patriarchs upon the ancient Eastern Sees, although they did not have the power and might of the Eastern Roman Empire.
first, interesting how we lost sees before, according to your Vatican, we existed.

Besides that, your dates are off: Selecuia-Ctesiphon didn't adopt Nestorianism as its creed until 485, and even then, its autocephaly from its Mother Church in Antioch is questionable. Antioch (both EO and OO, once Chalcedon became a dividing point) continued to exercise its jurisdiction as the Sassanid Empire sustained a substantial Orthodox population (there are many martyrs and other saints on the calendar after 431) and well into caliphate.  The Orthodox presence continued until today, in fact becoming the majority in the Indian dependency.

In Alexandria the Chalcedonians and non-Chalcedonians had Popes in common until 536, and the two hierarchies only became solidified as seperate, after such periods of fluctuation as the Henotikon, when the Chalcedonians accepted Constantinople II and the non-Chalcedonians did not participate (the non-Chalcedonian Pope whose recognition the Chalcedonians deposed, Pope Theodosius II, was still recognized by the non-Chalcedonians in 553).  Although the minority, the EO Patriarchate survived:Pope Eutychius Sa'id ibn Batriq (933-40) was born in Fustat/Old Cairo in 877 and did not speak Greek, only Arabic and Syriac, but wrote a chronicle that became well known even in Latin as Eutychii Annales.  A generation later, after the Fatimids conquered Egypt under the caliph al-'Aziz, the caliph took a EO bride, who saw to the election of one of her brothers as Patriarch Orestes of Jerusalem in 983.  Another brother acted as vicar during Pat. Orestes' years of absence from Jerusalem, and after the death of al-'Aziz himself became Pope Arsenios of Alexandria in 1000.  Their nephew, al-Hakim, murdered them and destroyed the Church of the Resurrection, and in the following persecution many EO fled to the Empire of the Romans, including Pope Arsenius' successor, Pope Theophilos II, who fled to Constantinople (his successor Pope George II presided again in Egypt) and Yahya b. Sa'id, a relative of Pope Eutychius, fled to Antioch (then held again by the Empire), who continued the Pope's chronicle, in which form it became well known outside the Arab world.  During the Crusades, and especially after they invaded Egypt, the situation became precarious for the Church, such that Pope Mark III, under pressure from "Patriarch" Balsamon "of Antioch" he abolished the use of his own rite in favor of Constantinople's (c. 1200, right before the sack of Constantinople). Still, it survived long enough for a mission in 1740 to the horn, and from then on, until the present when it has bishops throughout the continent of "All Africa."

Your date for Antioch makes less sense, for, unlike in Seleucia-Ctesiphon and Alexandria, the majority of the Patriarchate of Antioch remained in communion with us.  The break there from the rest of Orthodoxy didn't occur until Jacob Baradeus consecrated Sergius of Tella and then Paul II, which led to schisms amongst the non-Chalcedonians and especially from Coptic Alexandria.  The Chalcedonian Patriarch remained in Antioch until his 'brother' Chalcedonians, the Crusaders, expelled him in 1098, and he lived in exile in Constantinople until 1269, when he returned to Antioch, a dying city from wars, invasions and earthquakes, the change in trade routes and the Mamluk massacre of its Christian population, and thence to Damascus around 1349 (though the region around Antioch still was populated by Christians, and, with the change of fortunes, Antioch received its cathedral parish with its flock again).

As for the founding of the Church of Constantinople, the record of the traditions of its foundation by St. Andrew at Byzantium predate the founding of Constantinople by a century or so, and originates in the second century.  It would have been rather odd if St. Andrew had not gone to Byzantium, as he evangelized around the Black Sea (then the Euxeinos Sea), and Byzantium sitting on its only entrance.

to clean up the rest of these misconceptions
Yes, there are Greek Patriarchs of those regions who came after the schisms (which were primarily due to ethnic, linguistic, and political conflicts rather than doctrinal), but the patrimony of those churches was displaced in favor of Greek patrimony much as the Latin church tried to impose their own Patriarchs upon the ancient Eastern Sees, although they did not have the power and might of the Eastern Roman Empire.
They had the Crusaders, which did exactly that, expelling the true Patriarchs (except for Alexandria:they never took Egypt, and their Latin Patriarch for it only got as close as Accre) and Archbishop (i.e. of Cyprus), and setting up a Latin in their place.

As for the "Greek Patriarchs of those regions....the patrimony of those Churches was displaced in favor of Greek [sic] patrimony," I don't know what you are talking about, as it seems you don't either: Alexandria and Antioch were both Greek cities, founded and settled by Greeks, and Jerusalem had been refounded and settled as a gentile (i.e. Greek) city in 130 after its destruction in 70.  Egyptians, long into Roman rule and past the Apostolic age, were denied citizenship of Alexandria, whereas the Jews had been granted it, a similar situation prevailed in Antioch,

The formation of Christianity in Antioch: a social-scientific approach to the seperation between Judaism and Christianity By Magnus Zetterholm
http://books.google.com/books?id=5wTJX17WH_0C&pg=PA49&dq=antioch+citizenship+jews&hl=en#v=onepage&q=antioch%20citizenship%20jews&f=false

and in Jerusalem the Hebrews and Jews were long banned from even entering the city.  As I said, the patrimony of Alexandria, Antioch and Jerusalem was as Greek as that of Constantinople.
now having cleared that all up
* Non-Apostolic as in, not Rome (lost to you in AD 1054), Antioch (lost to you in AD 451), or Alexandria (lost to you in AD 451), or the See of Seleucia-Ctesiphon (lost to you in AD 431), or one of the Sees founded by one of the Holy Apostles. The St. Andrew legend is a myth. Of course, I am aware that there are many Apostolic Sees still held by the Eastern Orthodox churches, but not one of the three that hold primacy.
I dealt with this a lot here:
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,19811.0.html
and if you can follow the minutiae of American history, an analogy at
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,19095.msg423958.html#msg423958

What primacy are you talking about?  Pope St. Gregory's misconceptions about it?  He was correct in seeing Rome, Alexandria and Antioch as one Petrine See, as all the bishops are successors of St. Peter as St. Cyprian taught.  
Cyprian the Bishop By J. Patout Burns
http://books.google.com/books?id=egbXJlUgAW8C&pg=PA158&dq=cyprian+all+bishops+successors+peter&hl=en#v=onepage&q=cyprian%20all%20bishops%20successors%20peter&f=false
As he put it
Quote
The doctrine of St. Cyprian upon the point before us is extremely full and clear from many passages of his treatises and epistles. A remarkable passage from the treatise "de Unitate Ecclesiae," has been quoted above, in which he says plainly, that "Christ gave to all the Apostles equal authority," and that "all the other Apostles were what Peter was, endowed with an equal participation of honour and power."

In other places he says, "There is one God, and one Christ, and one Church, and one Chair founded by the voice of the Lord on Peter." This doctrine is thus repeated in the Epistle of Cornelius to St. Cyprian: "Nor are we ignorant that there is one God, one Christ, the Lord whom we have confessed, one Holy Ghost, that there ought to be one Bishop in the Catholic Church." This assertion, which at the first sight might seem to favour the modern claims of the Roman see, is thus interpreted in the treatise "de Unitate:" "The Episcopate is one; of which every individual (Bishop) participates possessing it entire. And again, elsewhere: "From Christ there is one Church, divided throughout the whole world into many members; and one Episcopate, diffused by the 'concordant numerosity' of many Bishops'." Thus the Episcopate is "single and indivisible," but held in equal truth and fulness by many. All alike hold under the promise made to St. Peter'. That promise was addressed to him personally, "to manifest unity;" but in him, was addressed alike to all. There are many shepherds, but the flock is one; in order that if any member of our college (Bishops) endeavour to make heresy, and tear the flock of Christ, the rest may assist, and like good shepherds, collect the Lord's sheep into the flock. All shepherds hold by no other right than that of legitimate and successive ordination. Yet St. Peter himself, whom the Lord chose first and on whom He built His Church, when afterwards Paul disputed with him about circumcision, did not claim any thing to himself so insolently or arrogantly as to say that he held a primacy, or that he ought rather to be obeyed by the present and future generation.
The sayings of the great forty days, between the resurrection and ascension ... By George Moberly
http://books.google.com/books?pg=PA181&lpg=PA181&dq=the+episcopate+is+one+episcopatum+unum&id=XIQrAAAAYAAJ&ots=8gPpU-mje5#v=onepage&q=the%20episcopate%20is%20one%20episcopatum%20unum&f=false

Pope St. Gregory, however, left out Jerusalem, doubtless the possessor of primacy in the Book of Acts until its destruction in 70, and by Pope St. Gregory again recognized as an autocephalous Patriarchate.  All the sees of the Jerusalem patriarchate were doubtless Apostolic, but he doesn't explain how Jerusalem has primacy over them.  Nor does he explain Corinth, Athens, Phillippi, Crete etc., Apostolic sees without a doubt (as they are shown as such in scripture) over which he, Pope St. Gregory, claimed jurisdiction.  No, apostolicity has been a factor of primacy, but never the dispositive one, except in Cyprus being autocephalous from Antioch, an example both Pope St. Gregory and yourself ignore. Otherwise Antioch would have had primacy before Alexandria, rather than the reverse.  

Apostolicity followed the secular order, as the Apostles, naturally spread the Gospel through the established order, going to the Metropolitan cities, out of which the patriarchates would radiate.  Which is why the order was Rome, Alexandria, Antioch, Jerusalem, rather than Jerusalem, Antioch, Rome, Alexandria.  The idea of apostolicity creating a inequality of the episcopate was created by Rome, jealous at the rise of New Rome in its place.  Or is the Avignon Papacy just a period of sede vacans?
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
Severian
God save Egypt, Syria, Lebanon & Iraq
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Coptic/Egyptian Orthodoxy
Posts: 5,039


In solidarity with Iraqi and Syrian Christians

Partisangirl
WWW
« Reply #172 on: August 20, 2011, 02:59:40 PM »

Everytime I read the title to this tread, I see Napolean Dynamite in my head saying, "Your face is more oppressive than the Stalinist Regime." Perhaps I have been teaching high school for far too long.


ROFL!  laugh
Logged

"These things I have spoken unto you, that in me ye might have peace. In the world ye shall have tribulation: but be of good cheer; I have overcome the world." -Jesus Christ (Cf. St. John 16:33)
Shiny
Site Supporter
Moderated
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Groucho Marxist
Jurisdiction: Dahntahn Stoop Haus
Posts: 13,267


Paint It Red


« Reply #173 on: August 20, 2011, 03:58:40 PM »

Uncle Rico FTW
Logged

“There is your brother, naked, crying, and you stand there confused over the choice of an attractive floor covering.”

– St. Ambrose of Milan
WetCatechumen
Roman Catholic
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic Christianity
Jurisdiction: Latin Rite - Archdiocese of Santa Fe; Ruthenian Byzantine Catholic Eparchy of Phoenix
Posts: 297



« Reply #174 on: August 20, 2011, 04:54:46 PM »

I have a few points:

1. There are Chaldean Catholics, Assyrians, Syriac Catholics, and Syriac Orthodox who attend my Ruthenian parish. I know the difference.
Do they?

There are more Syriacs here simply because of social ties.
And they are not attending an Orthodox Church why?
Yay for insulting my friends, who have been through hell, and who are not known to you.

You have valid historical points. I will study your other post more in depth later. But in the future, please try to stop insulting the intelligence of my friends, or acting as if you know what their spiritual fathers have told them about where to go to church in the absence of a Syriac church.
Logged

"And because they have nothing better to do, they take cushion and chairs to Rome. And while the Pope is saying liturgy, they go, 'Oh, oh, oh, filioque!' And the Pope say, 'Filioque? That-uh sound nice! I think I divide-uh the Church over it!'" - Comrade Real Presence
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,808



« Reply #175 on: August 20, 2011, 05:11:47 PM »

I have a few points:

1. There are Chaldean Catholics, Assyrians, Syriac Catholics, and Syriac Orthodox who attend my Ruthenian parish. I know the difference.
Do they?

There are more Syriacs here simply because of social ties.
And they are not attending an Orthodox Church why?
Yay for insulting my friends, who have been through hell, and who are not known to you.
interesting that you see association with the Vatican as an insult.

The Orthodox Church isn't a social club.  They are free to associate with the Vatican and its communion, but not to call themselves Orthodox thereafter.  I don't need to know them to state that.

You have valid historical points. I will study your other post more in depth later. But in the future, please try to stop insulting the intelligence of my friends, or acting as if you know what their spiritual fathers have told them about where to go to church in the absence of a Syriac church.
If they are telling to commune with the Vatican over the Orthodox, they are leading them astray.

There is an Antiochian parish an hour's drive away, and a Greek Church an hour and a half's walk (37 minutes public transit, 10 minutes by car) away from your Ruthenian parish.  And if that isn't enough, there is a Coptic community in Albaqureque (St. Bishoy).
« Last Edit: August 20, 2011, 05:31:25 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
Heorhij
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: GOA, for now, but my heart belongs to the Ukrainian Orthodox Church
Posts: 8,576



WWW
« Reply #176 on: August 20, 2011, 05:36:38 PM »

He knows nothing about both things. They cannot be compared. Union was a great spiritual catastrophe but materially it changed nothing. On the other hand Stalinist terror harmed people but stimulated the faith.

I totally agree that he knows nothing about both things. Moreover, even an attempt to compare these two things is a sign of a hopeless moral relativism. It's almost like I would say, "yes, Stalin murdered millions of people, but in the USA, there are these telemarketers that can drive you crazy."

I don't think, though, that the "Unia" was a great spiritual catastrophe. It was, and is, a success of our brothers and sisters Roman Catholics. That they and us Orthodox aren't together anymore is a lot bigger spiritual catastrophe, and for that we bear as much guilt, if not more, than them.
Logged

Love never fails.
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,808



« Reply #177 on: August 20, 2011, 06:13:31 PM »

He knows nothing about both things. They cannot be compared. Union was a great spiritual catastrophe but materially it changed nothing. On the other hand Stalinist terror harmed people but stimulated the faith.

I totally agree that he knows nothing about both things. Moreover, even an attempt to compare these two things is a sign of a hopeless moral relativism. It's almost like I would say, "yes, Stalin murdered millions of people, but in the USA, there are these telemarketers that can drive you crazy."
Hardly.
Quote
The Uniate and Papist propaganda that is being promulgated in these countries today is ruthless and inexorable to the point that the Orthodox view the behavior of the Stalinist régime as more benevolent than that of the Vatican and the Unia towards them. There is no validity at all in the argument that the Unia “was attacked by the red violence of Communism and spent time in the catacombs,” something which rests on the assumption that the Uniates of Eastern Europe are characterized by an attitude of “resistance.” But can we forget the treacherous and unpatriotic rôle of the Unia in these countries? Because of the Vatican’s “concordat” with the Nazi régime, not only did the Uniates collaborate with the Nazi invaders, but they carried out horrible and bloody persecutions against the Orthodox—and these persecutions, unfortunately, are continued even today.
or didn't the Nazis kill people?
I don't think, though, that the "Unia" was a great spiritual catastrophe. It was, and is, a success of our brothers and sisters Roman Catholics.
It wasn't even that, as it demonstrated to those foolish enough to take the Vatican at its word, what "union" meant, and alerted the rest of the Orthodox to look beyond the glossy brouchures for "reunion."

That they and us Orthodox aren't together anymore is a lot bigger spiritual catastrophe, and for that we bear as much guilt, if not more, than them.
because we won't embrace their heresies?  May we be forever guilty!
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
WetCatechumen
Roman Catholic
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic Christianity
Jurisdiction: Latin Rite - Archdiocese of Santa Fe; Ruthenian Byzantine Catholic Eparchy of Phoenix
Posts: 297



« Reply #178 on: August 20, 2011, 06:57:38 PM »

I have a few points:

1. There are Chaldean Catholics, Assyrians, Syriac Catholics, and Syriac Orthodox who attend my Ruthenian parish. I know the difference.
Do they?

There are more Syriacs here simply because of social ties.
And they are not attending an Orthodox Church why?
Yay for insulting my friends, who have been through hell, and who are not known to you.
interesting that you see association with the Vatican as an insult.

The Orthodox Church isn't a social club.  They are free to associate with the Vatican and its communion, but not to call themselves Orthodox thereafter.  I don't need to know them to state that.

You have valid historical points. I will study your other post more in depth later. But in the future, please try to stop insulting the intelligence of my friends, or acting as if you know what their spiritual fathers have told them about where to go to church in the absence of a Syriac church.
If they are telling to commune with the Vatican over the Orthodox, they are leading them astray.

There is an Antiochian parish an hour's drive away, and a Greek Church an hour and a half's walk (37 minutes public transit, 10 minutes by car) away from your Ruthenian parish.  And if that isn't enough, there is a Coptic community in Albaqureque (St. Bishoy).
No, you insulted their intelligence by saying they didn't know the difference.

It's spelled Albuquerque, by the way. There is also an OCA church here, and a Russian church in Santa Fe, near the Antiochian church. I am friends with the priest of the Russian church, and I knew well the priest of the Greek church that was reassigned (I have met the new pastor but do not know him well). The former priest of the OCA church's brother was a Greek Catholic deacon at the Ruthenian parish (I believe he was Melkite before he jumped ship to OCA a year ago).

My very good Maronite friend was married at the Ruthenian church but had his wedding reception at the Greek church - many of the Greek church's Arabic speaking parishioners were in attendance to his wedding.

I have no idea what your ethnicity is, but all of the Eastern Catholics and Eastern and Oriental Orthodox here are very tight knit. Everyone is aware of exactly where and what the local parishes are. I even knew about the Coptic community (we have an agnostic who attended a Coptic church for many years without converting who attends our Ruthenian church weekly).

The point is, stop judging. Stop being rude. Stop assuming you know things about these people you don't. The Syriac Orthodox and the Syriac Catholics have a very different relationship than the Roman Catholics and the Eastern Orthodox.

And why would I take communing in a Catholic Church as an insult to them? Clearly, it was you saying they don't know the difference between their communions was an insult to their integrity and intelligence. I assure you, they do. They know it better than you.

Also, according to my Syriac Orthodox friends, if you are baptized in a Syriac Orthodox parish, you are Orthodox until you die, and if you are baptized in a Syriac Catholic parish, you are Catholic until the day you die. Do I understand this? No. But that is how the members of their communion view it. You're not them. You're not Oriental Orthodox. So stop trying to speak for them or pretend that they are the same as you.
Logged

"And because they have nothing better to do, they take cushion and chairs to Rome. And while the Pope is saying liturgy, they go, 'Oh, oh, oh, filioque!' And the Pope say, 'Filioque? That-uh sound nice! I think I divide-uh the Church over it!'" - Comrade Real Presence
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,808



« Reply #179 on: August 20, 2011, 07:20:18 PM »

I have a few points:

1. There are Chaldean Catholics, Assyrians, Syriac Catholics, and Syriac Orthodox who attend my Ruthenian parish. I know the difference.
Do they?

There are more Syriacs here simply because of social ties.
And they are not attending an Orthodox Church why?
Yay for insulting my friends, who have been through hell, and who are not known to you.
interesting that you see association with the Vatican as an insult.

The Orthodox Church isn't a social club.  They are free to associate with the Vatican and its communion, but not to call themselves Orthodox thereafter.  I don't need to know them to state that.

You have valid historical points. I will study your other post more in depth later. But in the future, please try to stop insulting the intelligence of my friends, or acting as if you know what their spiritual fathers have told them about where to go to church in the absence of a Syriac church.
If they are telling to commune with the Vatican over the Orthodox, they are leading them astray.

There is an Antiochian parish an hour's drive away, and a Greek Church an hour and a half's walk (37 minutes public transit, 10 minutes by car) away from your Ruthenian parish.  And if that isn't enough, there is a Coptic community in Albaqureque (St. Bishoy).
No, you insulted their intelligence by saying they didn't know the difference.

It's spelled Albuquerque, by the way. There is also an OCA church here, and a Russian church in Santa Fe, near the Antiochian church. I am friends with the priest of the Russian church, and I knew well the priest of the Greek church that was reassigned (I have met the new pastor but do not know him well). The former priest of the OCA church's brother was a Greek Catholic deacon at the Ruthenian parish (I believe he was Melkite before he jumped ship to OCA a year ago).

My very good Maronite friend was married at the Ruthenian church but had his wedding reception at the Greek church - many of the Greek church's Arabic speaking parishioners were in attendance to his wedding.

I have no idea what your ethnicity is, but all of the Eastern Catholics and Eastern and Oriental Orthodox here are very tight knit. Everyone is aware of exactly where and what the local parishes are. I even knew about the Coptic community (we have an agnostic who attended a Coptic church for many years without converting who attends our Ruthenian church weekly).

The point is, stop judging. Stop being rude. Stop assuming you know things about these people you don't. The Syriac Orthodox and the Syriac Catholics have a very different relationship than the Roman Catholics and the Eastern Orthodox.

And why would I take communing in a Catholic Church as an insult to them? Clearly, it was you saying they don't know the difference between their communions was an insult to their integrity and intelligence. I assure you, they do. They know it better than you.

Also, according to my Syriac Orthodox friends, if you are baptized in a Syriac Orthodox parish, you are Orthodox until you die, and if you are baptized in a Syriac Catholic parish, you are Catholic until the day you die. Do I understand this? No. But that is how the members of their communion view it. You're not them. You're not Oriental Orthodox. So stop trying to speak for them or pretend that they are the same as you.
neither of us are Oriental Orthodox, so I don't know who deputized you to speak for them or pretend that they are the same as you.

"until you die" huh?  What happens afterwards?

Since the Syriac Orthodox Church, like all the Orthodox Churches, recognize apostasy and conversion, such a statement makes little sense, except that a Syriac apostate who returns is not rebaptized.

I know the relationship of the Syriacs, Orthodox or in submission, as it is parrallel to that we have with the Melkites in submission to the Vatican.  It has nothing to do with Ruthenians.

Attending weddings and other events, or even attending with spouses who are in submission isn't what we were talking about.  We were (at least I was) talking about Orthodox taking communion from someone whose bishop is in no Orthodox dyptich or synod.
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
Tags: Fail thread is fail ialmisry's b.s. 
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 »  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 0.275 seconds with 73 queries.