OrthodoxChristianity.net
December 21, 2014, 11:14:16 AM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Reminder: No political discussions in the public fora.  If you do not have access to the private Politics Forum, please send a PM to Fr. George.
 
   Home   Help Calendar Contact Treasury Tags Login Register  
Pages: « 1 2  All   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Have you ever encountered the "Tridentine Creed"??  (Read 3854 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
theistgal
Byzantine (Ruthenian) Catholic gadfly
Site Supporter
Archon
*****
Offline Offline

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


don't even go there!


« Reply #45 on: September 10, 2011, 11:08:43 PM »

That makes sense. The only part of that creed that I didn't particularly care for was the part at the beginning that referred to the Church as the "Holy Roman Church." I mean, I get what it's saying by that since the headquarters of our Church is in Rome, but the Catholic Church as a whole is certainly not just Roman. That part seems to be kind of a slap in the face to the Eastern Catholic Churches. The rest of it though seemed doctrinally orthodox.

The word "Roman" does seem to push a lot of people's buttons.

Maybe it's time for the Pope to move the Vatican somewhere else, like Sheboygan.  Grin
Logged

"Sometimes, you just gotta say, 'OK, I still have nine live, two-headed animals' and move on.'' (owner of Coney Island freak show, upon learning he'd been outbid on a 5-legged puppy)
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Moderated
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 38,142



« Reply #46 on: September 10, 2011, 11:19:48 PM »

it's not used in any mass or liturgy.
I'm just curious, but what difference does that make? This sounds a bit like the Protestant thing of "it's not in the bible". Certainly Trent and Vat I are far more important when it comes to defining the beliefs of the Catholic Church than the liturgy is, aren't they?

What gives you that idea?  It is not a contest to see which elements are more important.  The Catholic Church teaches lex oradi lex credendi as well as Orthodoxy.
Where did I get what idea?

The idea that you're writing off this creed because it isn't in the Liturgy? Well I got that from the part where you and another said it isn't in the Liturgy so you feel you can ignore it.

There are many Creedal statements that I am perfectly able to ignore.  The one I cannot ignore is the one contained in the divine liturgy.
So you're saying that I was correct in the first place.

Why bother asking where I got the idea then?

No.  You are not correct in your comparison at all. 

There are many credal statements over the centuries.  Do you pay attention to those from the east that are not in the divine liturgy?  If not, does that make you like the Protestants and sola scriptura?
Any creed declared by a council is certainly something to pay attention to. A liturgical service is not the method by which we judge a creed.

I absolutely maintain that it is exactly like Protestants and Sola Scriptura to say "If it isn't in the service it isn't important."

 laugh  Careful.

I did not say that it was not important.

I said that I could safely ignore it.  That is a quite different statement. 

That text was never used in liturgy but was used as a loyalty oath during the time of the re-formation and periods of counter-reformation.  Since then it has fallen into disuse.
Oh, it lasted a bit longer than that:The book of the Roman-Catholic Church: in a series of letters addressed to Robert Southey. By Charles Butler, Robert Southey (1825)
Quote
The Creed of Pius IV.
This celebrated symbol of catholic faith was published by his holiness in 1564, in the form of a bull, addressed to all the faithful in Christ. It was immediately received throughout the universal church; and, since that time, has ever been considered, in every part of the world, as an accurate and explicit summary of the roman-catholic faith. Non-catholics, on their admission into the catholic church, publicly repeat and testify their assent to it, without restriction or qualification
http://books.google.com/books?id=YTg_AAAAYAAJ&pg=PA5&dq=Butler+Roman+Catholic+Church+Pius+IV+celebrated&hl=en#v=onepage&q&f=false

as was mentioned, it was updated in 1887:why bother if it had "fallen into disuse."  "An advanced catechism of Catholic faith and practice: based upon the third plenary council catechism, for use in the higher grades of catholic schools" 1901, states:
Quote
CREEDS OF THE CHURCH (C).

Besides the Apostles' Creed, there are three other creeds in use by the Church:

1. Nicene Creed (really the creed of Nice and Constantinople) was composed at the Council of Nice, 325, and was enlarged at the Council of Constantinople. The Nicene Creed is recited at mass immediately after the Gospel, on all Sundays, and on the feasts of our Lord, the Blessed Virgin, the Apostles, doctors of the Church, etc. At the words, '''And was made man,'' the celebrant and those present at mass genuflect out of reverence for our Lord's condescension in coming to earth for our sakes.

2. Athanasian Creed. This name is given to the confession of faith, which is recited in the Sunday office of the breviary. It is commonly attributed to St. Athanasius.

3. The Creed of Pope Pius IV. This is a profession of faith, consisting of the Nicene Creed with a summary of the articles of faith defined by the Council of Trent, and of the definitions of the Vatican Council. It has to be repeated by a convert when he is received into the Church.
http://books.google.com/books?id=JioPAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA237&dq=An+advanced+catechism+of+Catholic+faith+and+practice+PIUS+IV&hl=en#v=onepage&q&f=false
On January 6, 1870 all the assembled had to recite it, with an added clause that would be the Vatican I addition of obedience to its pope, in the opening session of Vatican I.  It would seem that didn't "fall into disuse" until Vatican II.

It would seem, like the Tridentine mass, it is making a come back.

That is all that I indicated, and because it is no longer used in ANY capacity

evidently, it is. And, as Fabio indicated and DOCUMENTED, it is "ex cathedra."

then it is of historical interest but not at all vital to my salvation: not my salvation as an eastern Catholic, nor is it necessary to the salvation of Roman rite Catholics.
does that go for the rest of Trent?
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 #47 on: September 11, 2011, 11:57:21 AM »

it's not used in any mass or liturgy.
I'm just curious, but what difference does that make? This sounds a bit like the Protestant thing of "it's not in the bible". Certainly Trent and Vat I are far more important when it comes to defining the beliefs of the Catholic Church than the liturgy is, aren't they?

What gives you that idea?  It is not a contest to see which elements are more important.  The Catholic Church teaches lex oradi lex credendi as well as Orthodoxy.
Where did I get what idea?

The idea that you're writing off this creed because it isn't in the Liturgy? Well I got that from the part where you and another said it isn't in the Liturgy so you feel you can ignore it.

There are many Creedal statements that I am perfectly able to ignore.  The one I cannot ignore is the one contained in the divine liturgy.
So you're saying that I was correct in the first place.

Why bother asking where I got the idea then?

No.  You are not correct in your comparison at all. 

There are many credal statements over the centuries.  Do you pay attention to those from the east that are not in the divine liturgy?  If not, does that make you like the Protestants and sola scriptura?
Any creed declared by a council is certainly something to pay attention to. A liturgical service is not the method by which we judge a creed.

I absolutely maintain that it is exactly like Protestants and Sola Scriptura to say "If it isn't in the service it isn't important."

 laugh  Careful.

I did not say that it was not important.

I said that I could safely ignore it.  That is a quite different statement. 

That text was never used in liturgy but was used as a loyalty oath during the time of the re-formation and periods of counter-reformation.  Since then it has fallen into disuse. 

That is all that I indicated, and because it is no longer used in ANY capacity then it is of historical interest but not at all vital to my salvation: not my salvation as an eastern Catholic, nor is it necessary to the salvation of Roman rite Catholics.

M.
I must admit to an academic interest in semiotics, so I enjoy seeing how far symantics can be stretched.

I was not quoting you, rather I was making a summation of your position. No, you did not use the word "unimportant", however if something can be "safely ignore[d]" (which you do say), then it stands to reason that it is unimportant. Something that is important is something that we must direct a certain level of attention to.

You seem willing to admit that it was of historical importance, and thereby get out of the claim that you believe it is unimportant, but that is something completely different. Your position is that it is not important in the here and now in spite of the fact that it was updated at the second most recent Ecumenical Council of the Catholic Church.

On top of all that there is nothing in the creed that is not established Catholic doctrine. I have to ask the same question as Wyatt, what particular issue in the creed do you disagree with? I disagree with a fair amount, but I'm not Catholic. Wink

Semiotics-Psychobabble-Presumption-Sin

It's a very short path.

The reason that I can safely ignore this credal statement is that there is a liturgical creed that I bind myself to each time I recite it...and the other teachings are available to me in a dozen or more DIFFERENT locations that are readily accessible and with which I am quite familiar.

Parse that... laugh laugh laugh
Logged

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

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #48 on: September 11, 2011, 12:25:03 PM »

Someone on another message board flung this at some Eastern Catholics in an attempt to find out once and for all if we were really Catholics:

http://www.traditionalcatholic.net/Tradition/Prayer/Tridentine_Creed.html

I'm a lifelong Catholic and was really taken aback by this - I've never heard of it, read it, heard it used in Church, etc. - yet apparently (at least according to Wiki) it's been around since the Council of Trent.

Info? Comments?

LOL...that's a cobbled together mess.

Tell the folks when they hear it recited during a liturgy then they can make their case.

Good grief!...Where do these people come from?

From Trent, an authoritative council (for Romans and all those under the Pope).

 laugh laugh laugh laugh laugh

Listen buddy...I got this ocean front propery in North Dakota that is just FABULOUS!!...price is right...easy access off a major interstate!!....

 Sad

Wonderful, I'll exchange it for this big Christ statue in my backyard, you've probably seen it in pics from Rio. Since my family has allowed visitations to the statue, it's worth a bit more than the property, for sure. But because I like you - my father would kill me if he heard this, I must be mad - I'll give the statue to you for the property and just 20,000 dollars cash. Perfect business for you...

Quote
The "Professio fidei Tridentina", also known as the "Creed of Pope Pius IV", is one of the four authoritative Creeds of the Catholic Church. It was issued on November 13, 1565 by Pope Pius IV in his bull "Iniunctum nobis" under the auspices of the Council of Trent (1545 - 1563). It was subsequently modified slightly after the First Vatican Council (1869 - 1870) to bring it inline with the dogmatic definitions of the Council. The major intent of the Creed was to clearly define the Catholic faith against Protestantism. At one time it was used by Theologians as an oath of loyalty to the Church and to reconcile converts to the Church, but it is rarely used these days.
http://www.preces-latinae.org/thesaurus/Symbola/Tridentinae.html

Yes.  A loyalty oath.

When you hear it recited in a liturgy...as I noted earlier...then you can be concerned.

It is not even used as an oath of loyalty any longer, for good reason.

M.

Quote
This formula was made binding, in a double bull of Nov. 13, 1564 ('Injunctum noblis'), and Dec. 9, 1564 ('In sacrosancta beati Petri, principis apostolorum, cathedra,' etc.), upon the whole ecclesia docens, i.e., upon all Roman Catholic priests and public teachers in Catholic seminaries, colleges, and universities.
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/creeds1.vi.iv.html

You're a catechist right?
Ah, and just noticed the name of the second bull "In sacrosancta beati Petri, principis apostolorum, cathedra"..."In Petri cathedra" should be an "ex cathedra" teaching, right?

Papal bulls tend NOT to be numbered among "ex cathedra" teachings...It is a tendency...you know like those grey areas in Orthodoxy that Father Ambrose mentions so often.
Logged

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

Faith: Catholic
Posts: 2,395


« Reply #49 on: September 11, 2011, 01:22:02 PM »

Someone on another message board flung this at some Eastern Catholics in an attempt to find out once and for all if we were really Catholics:

http://www.traditionalcatholic.net/Tradition/Prayer/Tridentine_Creed.html

I'm a lifelong Catholic and was really taken aback by this - I've never heard of it, read it, heard it used in Church, etc. - yet apparently (at least according to Wiki) it's been around since the Council of Trent.

Info? Comments?

LOL...that's a cobbled together mess.

Tell the folks when they hear it recited during a liturgy then they can make their case.

Good grief!...Where do these people come from?

From Trent, an authoritative council (for Romans and all those under the Pope).

 laugh laugh laugh laugh laugh

Listen buddy...I got this ocean front propery in North Dakota that is just FABULOUS!!...price is right...easy access off a major interstate!!....

 Sad

Wonderful, I'll exchange it for this big Christ statue in my backyard, you've probably seen it in pics from Rio. Since my family has allowed visitations to the statue, it's worth a bit more than the property, for sure. But because I like you - my father would kill me if he heard this, I must be mad - I'll give the statue to you for the property and just 20,000 dollars cash. Perfect business for you...

Quote
The "Professio fidei Tridentina", also known as the "Creed of Pope Pius IV", is one of the four authoritative Creeds of the Catholic Church. It was issued on November 13, 1565 by Pope Pius IV in his bull "Iniunctum nobis" under the auspices of the Council of Trent (1545 - 1563). It was subsequently modified slightly after the First Vatican Council (1869 - 1870) to bring it inline with the dogmatic definitions of the Council. The major intent of the Creed was to clearly define the Catholic faith against Protestantism. At one time it was used by Theologians as an oath of loyalty to the Church and to reconcile converts to the Church, but it is rarely used these days.
http://www.preces-latinae.org/thesaurus/Symbola/Tridentinae.html

Yes.  A loyalty oath.

When you hear it recited in a liturgy...as I noted earlier...then you can be concerned.

It is not even used as an oath of loyalty any longer, for good reason.

M.

Quote
This formula was made binding, in a double bull of Nov. 13, 1564 ('Injunctum noblis'), and Dec. 9, 1564 ('In sacrosancta beati Petri, principis apostolorum, cathedra,' etc.), upon the whole ecclesia docens, i.e., upon all Roman Catholic priests and public teachers in Catholic seminaries, colleges, and universities.
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/creeds1.vi.iv.html

You're a catechist right?
Ah, and just noticed the name of the second bull "In sacrosancta beati Petri, principis apostolorum, cathedra"..."In Petri cathedra" should be an "ex cathedra" teaching, right?

Papal bulls tend NOT to be numbered among "ex cathedra" teachings...It is a tendency...you know like those grey areas in Orthodoxy that Father Ambrose mentions so often.
Or how contraception or practically anything pertaining to sexuality is a "pastoral issue" in Eastern Orthodoxy. How convenient.  Roll Eyes
Logged
Justin Kissel
Formerly Asteriktos
Protospatharios
****************
Offline Offline

Posts: 30,519


« Reply #50 on: September 11, 2011, 01:27:37 PM »

Or how contraception or practically anything pertaining to sexuality is a "pastoral issue" in Eastern Orthodoxy. How convenient.  Roll Eyes

I know, right? It's like they think situations vary or something! As though general guidelines are good, but that you might want to handle the actual application on a case by case basis. It's anarchy! This is why Catholics don't have pastors, but lawyers. Thus a parishioner will go to the lawyer-priest and announce their sin, and then the priest will quote the appropriate law and penalty. You do the crime, you do the time. Easy, peasy, juridical-easy.

 Tongue  Grin  Wink  Cheesy  Smiley  police  angel (Extra emoticons added so that you know I'm not trying to be mean. I promise.)
Logged

Large Marge sent me...
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #51 on: September 11, 2011, 02:50:03 PM »

Or how contraception or practically anything pertaining to sexuality is a "pastoral issue" in Eastern Orthodoxy. How convenient.  Roll Eyes

I know, right? It's like they think situations vary or something! As though general guidelines are good, but that you might want to handle the actual application on a case by case basis. It's anarchy! This is why Catholics don't have pastors, but lawyers. Thus a parishioner will go to the lawyer-priest and announce their sin, and then the priest will quote the appropriate law and penalty. You do the crime, you do the time. Easy, peasy, juridical-easy.

 Tongue  Grin  Wink  Cheesy  Smiley  police  angel (Extra emoticons added so that you know I'm not trying to be mean. I promise.)

When you have Catholics who don't understand their Church and others from outside happy to play on that ignorance and "enhance" it by adding to it:  then it devolves into this sort of thing quite naturally.

The one thing that makes my BP go up is making fun of Confession/Penance.    I don't even get that worked up over Orthodox priests promising to stomp on consecrated "wafers" the next time they see some lying around on the street.  But play games with confession and I see "red"...

ah well...
Logged

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

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 38,142



« Reply #52 on: September 11, 2011, 04:32:36 PM »

Someone on another message board flung this at some Eastern Catholics in an attempt to find out once and for all if we were really Catholics:

http://www.traditionalcatholic.net/Tradition/Prayer/Tridentine_Creed.html

I'm a lifelong Catholic and was really taken aback by this - I've never heard of it, read it, heard it used in Church, etc. - yet apparently (at least according to Wiki) it's been around since the Council of Trent.

Info? Comments?

LOL...that's a cobbled together mess.

Tell the folks when they hear it recited during a liturgy then they can make their case.

Good grief!...Where do these people come from?

From Trent, an authoritative council (for Romans and all those under the Pope).

 laugh laugh laugh laugh laugh

Listen buddy...I got this ocean front propery in North Dakota that is just FABULOUS!!...price is right...easy access off a major interstate!!....

 Sad

Wonderful, I'll exchange it for this big Christ statue in my backyard, you've probably seen it in pics from Rio. Since my family has allowed visitations to the statue, it's worth a bit more than the property, for sure. But because I like you - my father would kill me if he heard this, I must be mad - I'll give the statue to you for the property and just 20,000 dollars cash. Perfect business for you...

Quote
The "Professio fidei Tridentina", also known as the "Creed of Pope Pius IV", is one of the four authoritative Creeds of the Catholic Church. It was issued on November 13, 1565 by Pope Pius IV in his bull "Iniunctum nobis" under the auspices of the Council of Trent (1545 - 1563). It was subsequently modified slightly after the First Vatican Council (1869 - 1870) to bring it inline with the dogmatic definitions of the Council. The major intent of the Creed was to clearly define the Catholic faith against Protestantism. At one time it was used by Theologians as an oath of loyalty to the Church and to reconcile converts to the Church, but it is rarely used these days.
http://www.preces-latinae.org/thesaurus/Symbola/Tridentinae.html

Yes.  A loyalty oath.

When you hear it recited in a liturgy...as I noted earlier...then you can be concerned.

It is not even used as an oath of loyalty any longer, for good reason.

M.

Quote
This formula was made binding, in a double bull of Nov. 13, 1564 ('Injunctum noblis'), and Dec. 9, 1564 ('In sacrosancta beati Petri, principis apostolorum, cathedra,' etc.), upon the whole ecclesia docens, i.e., upon all Roman Catholic priests and public teachers in Catholic seminaries, colleges, and universities.
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/creeds1.vi.iv.html

You're a catechist right?
Ah, and just noticed the name of the second bull "In sacrosancta beati Petri, principis apostolorum, cathedra"..."In Petri cathedra" should be an "ex cathedra" teaching, right?

Papal bulls tend NOT to be numbered among "ex cathedra" teachings...It is a tendency...you know like those grey areas in Orthodoxy that Father Ambrose mentions so often.
but that's the very superiority that your supreme pontiff vaunts over us, waving Pastor Aeternus, and your magisterium chorttles on how we are "lacking" the means to put things in black and white.  Are you telling us that the former Patriarch of the West, "Bishop of Rome, Vicar of Jesus Christ, Successor of the Prince of the Apostles, Supreme Pontiff of the Universal Church, Primate of Italy, Archbishop and Metropolitan of the Roman Province, Sovereign of the State of Vatican City, Servant of the Servants of God" can't tell us how it is, or is it that he refuses to do so?

Your supreme pontiff REQUIRED this creed his of followers. Pretty black and white. The union agreements are the only things shading it gray.
« Last Edit: September 11, 2011, 04:54:55 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
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Moderated
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 38,142



« Reply #53 on: September 11, 2011, 04:34:48 PM »

Someone on another message board flung this at some Eastern Catholics in an attempt to find out once and for all if we were really Catholics:

http://www.traditionalcatholic.net/Tradition/Prayer/Tridentine_Creed.html

I'm a lifelong Catholic and was really taken aback by this - I've never heard of it, read it, heard it used in Church, etc. - yet apparently (at least according to Wiki) it's been around since the Council of Trent.

Info? Comments?

LOL...that's a cobbled together mess.

Tell the folks when they hear it recited during a liturgy then they can make their case.

Good grief!...Where do these people come from?

From Trent, an authoritative council (for Romans and all those under the Pope).

 laugh laugh laugh laugh laugh

Listen buddy...I got this ocean front propery in North Dakota that is just FABULOUS!!...price is right...easy access off a major interstate!!....

 Sad

Wonderful, I'll exchange it for this big Christ statue in my backyard, you've probably seen it in pics from Rio. Since my family has allowed visitations to the statue, it's worth a bit more than the property, for sure. But because I like you - my father would kill me if he heard this, I must be mad - I'll give the statue to you for the property and just 20,000 dollars cash. Perfect business for you...

Quote
The "Professio fidei Tridentina", also known as the "Creed of Pope Pius IV", is one of the four authoritative Creeds of the Catholic Church. It was issued on November 13, 1565 by Pope Pius IV in his bull "Iniunctum nobis" under the auspices of the Council of Trent (1545 - 1563). It was subsequently modified slightly after the First Vatican Council (1869 - 1870) to bring it inline with the dogmatic definitions of the Council. The major intent of the Creed was to clearly define the Catholic faith against Protestantism. At one time it was used by Theologians as an oath of loyalty to the Church and to reconcile converts to the Church, but it is rarely used these days.
http://www.preces-latinae.org/thesaurus/Symbola/Tridentinae.html

Yes.  A loyalty oath.

When you hear it recited in a liturgy...as I noted earlier...then you can be concerned.

It is not even used as an oath of loyalty any longer, for good reason.

M.

Quote
This formula was made binding, in a double bull of Nov. 13, 1564 ('Injunctum noblis'), and Dec. 9, 1564 ('In sacrosancta beati Petri, principis apostolorum, cathedra,' etc.), upon the whole ecclesia docens, i.e., upon all Roman Catholic priests and public teachers in Catholic seminaries, colleges, and universities.
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/creeds1.vi.iv.html

You're a catechist right?
Ah, and just noticed the name of the second bull "In sacrosancta beati Petri, principis apostolorum, cathedra"..."In Petri cathedra" should be an "ex cathedra" teaching, right?

Papal bulls tend NOT to be numbered among "ex cathedra" teachings...It is a tendency...you know like those grey areas in Orthodoxy that Father Ambrose mentions so often.
Or how contraception or practically anything pertaining to sexuality is a "pastoral issue" in Eastern Orthodoxy. How convenient.  Roll Eyes
about as convenient as Humanae Vitae: or do you have access to the proof of it as an ex cathedra statement that EM's doesn't? Roll Eyes

Here we have a credal statement that one council which your "magisterium" counts as "ecumenical/general" produced (Trent), required by one of your supreme pontiffs in their bull of all of those in submission to him, which your assembled "magisterium" were required to recite (Vatican I), and yet we are told it doesn't matter.  What guidence then can we expect by a mere encycical which was opposed by the majority of the committee charged by your "magisterium" to study the issue, and opposed explicitely by your "magisterium" such as those who produced the Winnipeg statement, precluding any "universal acceptance" of the "ordinary magisterium?"

It is claimed this creed has fallen into disuse.  So had the mass Trent produced.  It is the right of anyone anywhere in submission to the Vatican to demand it: why is it denied that its creed also is being revived?
« Last Edit: September 11, 2011, 04:51:49 PM by ialmisry » Logged

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

Faith: Catholic
Posts: 2,395


« Reply #54 on: September 11, 2011, 04:53:34 PM »

Someone on another message board flung this at some Eastern Catholics in an attempt to find out once and for all if we were really Catholics:

http://www.traditionalcatholic.net/Tradition/Prayer/Tridentine_Creed.html

I'm a lifelong Catholic and was really taken aback by this - I've never heard of it, read it, heard it used in Church, etc. - yet apparently (at least according to Wiki) it's been around since the Council of Trent.

Info? Comments?

LOL...that's a cobbled together mess.

Tell the folks when they hear it recited during a liturgy then they can make their case.

Good grief!...Where do these people come from?

From Trent, an authoritative council (for Romans and all those under the Pope).

 laugh laugh laugh laugh laugh

Listen buddy...I got this ocean front propery in North Dakota that is just FABULOUS!!...price is right...easy access off a major interstate!!....

 Sad

Wonderful, I'll exchange it for this big Christ statue in my backyard, you've probably seen it in pics from Rio. Since my family has allowed visitations to the statue, it's worth a bit more than the property, for sure. But because I like you - my father would kill me if he heard this, I must be mad - I'll give the statue to you for the property and just 20,000 dollars cash. Perfect business for you...

Quote
The "Professio fidei Tridentina", also known as the "Creed of Pope Pius IV", is one of the four authoritative Creeds of the Catholic Church. It was issued on November 13, 1565 by Pope Pius IV in his bull "Iniunctum nobis" under the auspices of the Council of Trent (1545 - 1563). It was subsequently modified slightly after the First Vatican Council (1869 - 1870) to bring it inline with the dogmatic definitions of the Council. The major intent of the Creed was to clearly define the Catholic faith against Protestantism. At one time it was used by Theologians as an oath of loyalty to the Church and to reconcile converts to the Church, but it is rarely used these days.
http://www.preces-latinae.org/thesaurus/Symbola/Tridentinae.html

Yes.  A loyalty oath.

When you hear it recited in a liturgy...as I noted earlier...then you can be concerned.

It is not even used as an oath of loyalty any longer, for good reason.

M.

Quote
This formula was made binding, in a double bull of Nov. 13, 1564 ('Injunctum noblis'), and Dec. 9, 1564 ('In sacrosancta beati Petri, principis apostolorum, cathedra,' etc.), upon the whole ecclesia docens, i.e., upon all Roman Catholic priests and public teachers in Catholic seminaries, colleges, and universities.
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/creeds1.vi.iv.html

You're a catechist right?
Ah, and just noticed the name of the second bull "In sacrosancta beati Petri, principis apostolorum, cathedra"..."In Petri cathedra" should be an "ex cathedra" teaching, right?

Papal bulls tend NOT to be numbered among "ex cathedra" teachings...It is a tendency...you know like those grey areas in Orthodoxy that Father Ambrose mentions so often.
Or how contraception or practically anything pertaining to sexuality is a "pastoral issue" in Eastern Orthodoxy. How convenient.  Roll Eyes
about as convenient as Humanae Vitae: or do you have access to the proof of it as an ex cathedra statement that EM's doesn't? Roll Eyes
We are not free to dissent from it. It is just upholding the traditional Christian view of contraception...that it is wrong. Even natural family planning is sinful if it is used in a contraceptive way (to prevent ever having children, which is being closed to life).

Here we have a credal statement that one council which your "magisterium" counts as "ecumenical/general" produced (Trent), required by one of your supreme pontiffs in their bull of all of those in submission to him, which your assembled "magisterium" were required to recite (Vatican I), and yet we are told it doesn't matter.  What guidence then can we expect by a mere encycical which was opposed by the majority of the committee charged by your "magisterium" to study the issue, and opposed explicitely by your "magisterium" such as those who produced the Winnipeg statement, precluding any "universal acceptance" of the "ordinary magisterium."
You were told by Elijahmaria that this creed does not matter. I disagree. I think it is a perfectly orthodox expression of Catholic doctrine.
Logged
Kasatkin fan
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA - Archdiocese of Canada
Posts: 636



« Reply #55 on: September 11, 2011, 05:19:21 PM »

it's not used in any mass or liturgy.
I'm just curious, but what difference does that make? This sounds a bit like the Protestant thing of "it's not in the bible". Certainly Trent and Vat I are far more important when it comes to defining the beliefs of the Catholic Church than the liturgy is, aren't they?

What gives you that idea?  It is not a contest to see which elements are more important.  The Catholic Church teaches lex oradi lex credendi as well as Orthodoxy.
Where did I get what idea?

The idea that you're writing off this creed because it isn't in the Liturgy? Well I got that from the part where you and another said it isn't in the Liturgy so you feel you can ignore it.

There are many Creedal statements that I am perfectly able to ignore.  The one I cannot ignore is the one contained in the divine liturgy.
So you're saying that I was correct in the first place.

Why bother asking where I got the idea then?

No.  You are not correct in your comparison at all. 

There are many credal statements over the centuries.  Do you pay attention to those from the east that are not in the divine liturgy?  If not, does that make you like the Protestants and sola scriptura?
Any creed declared by a council is certainly something to pay attention to. A liturgical service is not the method by which we judge a creed.

I absolutely maintain that it is exactly like Protestants and Sola Scriptura to say "If it isn't in the service it isn't important."

 laugh  Careful.

I did not say that it was not important.

I said that I could safely ignore it.  That is a quite different statement. 

That text was never used in liturgy but was used as a loyalty oath during the time of the re-formation and periods of counter-reformation.  Since then it has fallen into disuse. 

That is all that I indicated, and because it is no longer used in ANY capacity then it is of historical interest but not at all vital to my salvation: not my salvation as an eastern Catholic, nor is it necessary to the salvation of Roman rite Catholics.

M.
I must admit to an academic interest in semiotics, so I enjoy seeing how far symantics can be stretched.

I was not quoting you, rather I was making a summation of your position. No, you did not use the word "unimportant", however if something can be "safely ignore[d]" (which you do say), then it stands to reason that it is unimportant. Something that is important is something that we must direct a certain level of attention to.

You seem willing to admit that it was of historical importance, and thereby get out of the claim that you believe it is unimportant, but that is something completely different. Your position is that it is not important in the here and now in spite of the fact that it was updated at the second most recent Ecumenical Council of the Catholic Church.

On top of all that there is nothing in the creed that is not established Catholic doctrine. I have to ask the same question as Wyatt, what particular issue in the creed do you disagree with? I disagree with a fair amount, but I'm not Catholic. Wink

Semiotics-Psychobabble-Presumption-Sin

It's a very short path.

The reason that I can safely ignore this credal statement is that there is a liturgical creed that I bind myself to each time I recite it...and the other teachings are available to me in a dozen or more DIFFERENT locations that are readily accessible and with which I am quite familiar.

Parse that... laugh laugh laugh
That syllogism doesn't quite work. Presumption certainly can lead to sin but I don't see the connection between psychobabble and presumption, nor semiotics and psychobabble.

At any rate with every single response you are denying the original contention and then going on to confirm it. This time you seem to be saying that if it isn't right in front of you, you get to pick and choose.
Logged
Kasatkin fan
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA - Archdiocese of Canada
Posts: 636



« Reply #56 on: September 11, 2011, 05:24:33 PM »

It would be nice if elijahmaria could answer what it is that she objects to in the creed. The direction this discussion has taken becomes moot if, like other Eastern Catholics, she only objects to the context of its use.
Logged
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Moderated
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 38,142



« Reply #57 on: September 11, 2011, 05:26:48 PM »

Someone on another message board flung this at some Eastern Catholics in an attempt to find out once and for all if we were really Catholics:

http://www.traditionalcatholic.net/Tradition/Prayer/Tridentine_Creed.html

I'm a lifelong Catholic and was really taken aback by this - I've never heard of it, read it, heard it used in Church, etc. - yet apparently (at least according to Wiki) it's been around since the Council of Trent.

Info? Comments?

LOL...that's a cobbled together mess.

Tell the folks when they hear it recited during a liturgy then they can make their case.

Good grief!...Where do these people come from?

From Trent, an authoritative council (for Romans and all those under the Pope).

 laugh laugh laugh laugh laugh

Listen buddy...I got this ocean front propery in North Dakota that is just FABULOUS!!...price is right...easy access off a major interstate!!....

 Sad

Wonderful, I'll exchange it for this big Christ statue in my backyard, you've probably seen it in pics from Rio. Since my family has allowed visitations to the statue, it's worth a bit more than the property, for sure. But because I like you - my father would kill me if he heard this, I must be mad - I'll give the statue to you for the property and just 20,000 dollars cash. Perfect business for you...

Quote
The "Professio fidei Tridentina", also known as the "Creed of Pope Pius IV", is one of the four authoritative Creeds of the Catholic Church. It was issued on November 13, 1565 by Pope Pius IV in his bull "Iniunctum nobis" under the auspices of the Council of Trent (1545 - 1563). It was subsequently modified slightly after the First Vatican Council (1869 - 1870) to bring it inline with the dogmatic definitions of the Council. The major intent of the Creed was to clearly define the Catholic faith against Protestantism. At one time it was used by Theologians as an oath of loyalty to the Church and to reconcile converts to the Church, but it is rarely used these days.
http://www.preces-latinae.org/thesaurus/Symbola/Tridentinae.html

Yes.  A loyalty oath.

When you hear it recited in a liturgy...as I noted earlier...then you can be concerned.

It is not even used as an oath of loyalty any longer, for good reason.

M.

Quote
This formula was made binding, in a double bull of Nov. 13, 1564 ('Injunctum noblis'), and Dec. 9, 1564 ('In sacrosancta beati Petri, principis apostolorum, cathedra,' etc.), upon the whole ecclesia docens, i.e., upon all Roman Catholic priests and public teachers in Catholic seminaries, colleges, and universities.
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/creeds1.vi.iv.html

You're a catechist right?
Ah, and just noticed the name of the second bull "In sacrosancta beati Petri, principis apostolorum, cathedra"..."In Petri cathedra" should be an "ex cathedra" teaching, right?

Papal bulls tend NOT to be numbered among "ex cathedra" teachings...It is a tendency...you know like those grey areas in Orthodoxy that Father Ambrose mentions so often.
Or how contraception or practically anything pertaining to sexuality is a "pastoral issue" in Eastern Orthodoxy. How convenient.  Roll Eyes
about as convenient as Humanae Vitae: or do you have access to the proof of it as an ex cathedra statement that EM's doesn't? Roll Eyes
We are not free to dissent from it. It is just upholding the traditional Christian view of contraception...that it is wrong. Even natural family planning is sinful if it is used in a contraceptive way (to prevent ever having children, which is being closed to life).
So you claim.  But according to the claims advanced here, you have no "proof": it is denied that your supreme poniff spoke ex cathedra, your bishops with your supreme pontiff did not produce it in general council (in fact, IIRC the committee for it were proposed to be part of Vatican II, but that was nixed), no bishops proposing definitively, dispersed, but in unison, in union with their "head."  Just a statement by your pope, "authoritative but not infallible."

IOW, once again, a distinction without a difference:you might as well say that anything your supreme pontiff says is infallible, because no one can dissent from it.

It contrast, this creed was issued, by its own words (as Fabio pointed out) ex cathedra, produced by your bishops and your supreme pontiff in general council, the bishops proposing definitely, dispersed but in unison with their "head," there being no bishop in submission to your Vatican opposed to the statements of this creed. Yet your supreme pontiff laid that aside to sign "union agreements" such as Brest which contradict the Tridentine Creed in a number of areas. So when is an infallible statement not infallible?

Here we have a credal statement that one council which your "magisterium" counts as "ecumenical/general" produced (Trent), required by one of your supreme pontiffs in their bull of all of those in submission to him, which your assembled "magisterium" were required to recite (Vatican I), and yet we are told it doesn't matter.  What guidence then can we expect by a mere encycical which was opposed by the majority of the committee charged by your "magisterium" to study the issue, and opposed explicitely by your "magisterium" such as those who produced the Winnipeg statement, precluding any "universal acceptance" of the "ordinary magisterium."
You were told by Elijahmaria that this creed does not matter. I disagree. I think it is a perfectly orthodox expression of Catholic doctrine.
Of course I disagree, as it disagrees with much of the Catholic doctrine that the signers of Brest etc. were demanding guarentees of preserving as the price of them leaving Orthodoxy.  But your supreme pontiff signed off on that.   EM is going to have to argue with you with her union of Uzhhorod (which, however, can only presume to resemble Brest, as its text does not survive IIRC), and you with your "degrees of theological certitude."  I agree that, according to the rules of the game the Vatican set up, the Tridentine Creed more than meets the criteria of infallible, but then that raises the question of how your supreme pontiff could lay it aside to sign the Union of Brest.
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 #58 on: September 11, 2011, 06:40:47 PM »

It would be nice if elijahmaria could answer what it is that she objects to in the creed. The direction this discussion has taken becomes moot if, like other Eastern Catholics, she only objects to the context of its use.

I don't object to any part of it.  I don't even remember the first time I ever read it: it was the last time as well.  What I have said all along: There's nothing in it that I can't find somewhere else if I need to:  and in that light I can safely say that it is not necessary for me to pay any attention to it at all.

Half of what you've done here is re-write my meaning if not my words, and put words in my mouth.  That's ok.  But it is presumption...not semiotics.

 Wink
Logged

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

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


don't even go there!


« Reply #59 on: September 11, 2011, 07:32:04 PM »

It would be nice if elijahmaria could answer what it is that she objects to in the creed. The direction this discussion has taken becomes moot if, like other Eastern Catholics, she only objects to the context of its use.

I know I'm not elijahmaria but once again - my thread.  Cool

I find I'm having a difficult time with this part:

I also affirm that the power of indulgences was left by Christ in the Church, and that the use of them is most wholesome to Christian people.

Lest you think that means I'm finally going Orthodox, I'm also having difficulty with some of the excessive (to me!) praises directed at the Theotokos, in both churches, which kinda bothers me - I'd really like to sing more hymns directed to Christ but for some reason we seem to direct everything to Mary.

I'll probably wind up being declared "heterodox" by both churches, and spend the rest of my days praying the Jesus Prayer over and over and over ...  Grin
Logged

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

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA - Archdiocese of Canada
Posts: 636



« Reply #60 on: September 11, 2011, 08:48:12 PM »

It would be nice if elijahmaria could answer what it is that she objects to in the creed. The direction this discussion has taken becomes moot if, like other Eastern Catholics, she only objects to the context of its use.

I don't object to any part of it.  I don't even remember the first time I ever read it: it was the last time as well.  What I have said all along: There's nothing in it that I can't find somewhere else if I need to:  and in that light I can safely say that it is not necessary for me to pay any attention to it at all.

Half of what you've done here is re-write my meaning if not my words, and put words in my mouth.  That's ok.  But it is presumption...not semiotics.

 Wink
I haven't put any words into your mouth, I've been trying to figure out what you're saying. I was simply stumped because you said you felt you could safetly ignore it and decried the accusation that you didn't believe it was important by saying it was historically important.

I can find everything in the Nicene Creed elsewhere as well, it doesn't change the importance of the creed, or make it ignorable.

I can't help but think you're just trying to start misunderstandings so you have something to argue.
Logged
Wyatt
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Posts: 2,395


« Reply #61 on: September 11, 2011, 09:18:35 PM »

I find I'm having a difficult time with this part:

I also affirm that the power of indulgences was left by Christ in the Church, and that the use of them is most wholesome to Christian people.
I believe this falls under the power of the Church to bind and loose, which was given to her by Christ.

Lest you think that means I'm finally going Orthodox, I'm also having difficulty with some of the excessive (to me!) praises directed at the Theotokos, in both churches, which kinda bothers me - I'd really like to sing more hymns directed to Christ but for some reason we seem to direct everything to Mary.

I'll probably wind up being declared "heterodox" by both churches, and spend the rest of my days praying the Jesus Prayer over and over and over ...  Grin
I don't think you're the only Catholic who feels that way. My Priest has mentioned that he doesn't really have a devotion to the Blessed Mother and a lot of the Marian devotions tend to rub him wrong.

As far as the actual liturgy of our Church (at least the Roman Rite), it is quite Christ centered. I can only think of one or two instances in the entire Mass where the Blessed Virgin Mary is mentioned. I'm not sure how it is for the Divine Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom though.
Logged
akimori makoto
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Non-heretical Christian
Jurisdiction: Fully-sik-hektic archdiocese of Australia, bro
Posts: 3,126

No-one bound by fleshly pleasures is worthy ...


« Reply #62 on: September 11, 2011, 09:48:39 PM »

As far as the actual liturgy of our Church (at least the Roman Rite), it is quite Christ centered. I can only think of one or two instances in the entire Mass where the Blessed Virgin Mary is mentioned. I'm not sure how it is for the Divine Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom though.

She is mentioned over and over again with many superlative adjectives attached to her. Indeed, I believe she is mentioned many more times than in the Roman Mass (at least in the "ordinary form", which is the only form I am familiar with).

The longer I work at this whole Christianity thing, the more and more I believe that St John's liturgy is the statement of Orthodox belief and worship par excellence. As usual, St John's liturgy gets it right on this particular issue.

In the liturgy, we often repeat:

"Commemorating our most holy, pure, most blessed and glorious lady, the Theotokos and ever-virgin Mary with all the saints, let us commend ourselves and one another and our whole life unto Christ our God."

To my mind, this one prayer sets everything in its proper order. It:

1. Appropriately praises the Mother of God and extols her pre-eminence as a model of Christian virtue and godliness;
2. Properly sets her in her place "among the saints", as the first of them; and
3. Having done these things, reminds us that we are to honour the Mother of God and the saints but commend ourselves and one another to Christ alone, who is the true God.

This is not the only mention of the Mother of God in St John's liturgy, but I think it is representative of the general attitude towards her which is to be found in the liturgy. I am sometimes uneasy about some of the akathists and other services which are prayed to or prayed in honour of the Theotokos, but I think there is nothing remotely objectionable or upsetting in St John's liturgy.

Hope this helps.
« Last Edit: September 11, 2011, 09:50:30 PM by akimori makoto » Logged

The Episcopallian road is easy and wide, for many go through it to find destruction. lol sorry channeling Isa.
Melodist
Archon
********
Offline Offline

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



« Reply #63 on: September 11, 2011, 09:55:47 PM »

As far as the actual liturgy of our Church (at least the Roman Rite), it is quite Christ centered. I can only think of one or two instances in the entire Mass where the Blessed Virgin Mary is mentioned. I'm not sure how it is for the Divine Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom though.

She is commemorated along with all the saints at the end of most litanies, but even that commemoration goes "Remembering our most holy, pure, blessed, and glorious Lady, the Theotokos and ever virgin Mary, with all the saints, let us commit ourselves and one another and our whole life to Christ our God."
Logged

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

Made Perfect in Weakness - Latest Post: The Son of God
akimori makoto
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Non-heretical Christian
Jurisdiction: Fully-sik-hektic archdiocese of Australia, bro
Posts: 3,126

No-one bound by fleshly pleasures is worthy ...


« Reply #64 on: September 11, 2011, 10:16:28 PM »

Wyatt, also, the one big hymn in St John's liturgy dedicated to the Mother of God is called the theotokion, which comes after the Precious Gifts have been consecrated and the celebrant offers them on behalf of our "forefathers, fathers, prophets, apostles, preachers, evangelists, martyrs, confessors, ascetics, every righteous spirit made perfect in faith and especially for our most holy, pure, most blessed and glorious lady, the Theotokos and ever-virgin Mary".

The theotokion for most weeks is as follows:

"It is truly right to bless thee, o Theotokos,
ever blessed and most pure and the Mother of our God.
More honorable than the cherubim,
and beyond compare more glorious than the seraphim.
Without corruption thou gavest birth to God the Word.
True Theotokos, we magnify thee."

The following is often substituted for the usual theotokion:

"All of Creation rejoices in thee, o full of grace:
the angels in heaven and the race of men,
o sanctified temple and noetic paradise,
the glory of virgins, of whom God was incarnate
and became a child, our God before the ages.
He made thy body into a throne,
and thy womb more spacious than the heavens.
All of creation rejoices in thee, o full of grace:
Glory be to thee."

Again, I feel both of these hymns give the proper "treatment" to the Mother of God (apologies for the crass turn of phrase), both extolling her holiness and supreme virtue and setting these qualities in the context of her being the birth-giver of the Incarnate Word of God, who is the only source of our life and of our salvation.
« Last Edit: September 11, 2011, 10:17:52 PM by akimori makoto » Logged

The Episcopallian road is easy and wide, for many go through it to find destruction. lol sorry channeling Isa.
theistgal
Byzantine (Ruthenian) Catholic gadfly
Site Supporter
Archon
*****
Offline Offline

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


don't even go there!


« Reply #65 on: September 11, 2011, 11:08:57 PM »

I don't want to derail my own thread (though I guess I could, if I wanted to!  Cheesy ).  But I guess I was a little put off by the hymns we sang this morning before the liturgy.

One goes "Mary Look Upon Us, and favor with your grace" - I would much rather sing about the grace that comes from Christ!

Also, we had a cantor who insisted on singing "Ave Maria" (though in Italian, not Latin!).  Then we sang yet another Marian hymn.

Finally the Liturgy started and we could get back to singing to God!

Believe me, I do understand the theology of the Theotokos and I know that "it is truly proper to glorify her", but sometimes it gets to be a little too much.  Shocked
Logged

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

Faith: Non-heretical Christian
Jurisdiction: Fully-sik-hektic archdiocese of Australia, bro
Posts: 3,126

No-one bound by fleshly pleasures is worthy ...


« Reply #66 on: September 11, 2011, 11:12:18 PM »

I don't want to derail my own thread (though I guess I could, if I wanted to!  Cheesy ).  But I guess I was a little put off by the hymns we sang this morning before the liturgy.

One goes "Mary Look Upon Us, and favor with your grace" - I would much rather sing about the grace that comes from Christ!

Also, we had a cantor who insisted on singing "Ave Maria" (though in Italian, not Latin!).  Then we sang yet another Marian hymn.

Finally the Liturgy started and we could get back to singing to God!

Believe me, I do understand the theology of the Theotokos and I know that "it is truly proper to glorify her", but sometimes it gets to be a little too much.  Shocked

Although I am contributing to the continuing derailment of your thread, theistgal, can I ask -- are you still worshipping in a parish of the (so-called) Byzantine rite?

I didn't know these sorts of things go on amongst Byzantine Catholics.

Glad we're on the same page, anyway.
« Last Edit: September 11, 2011, 11:13:53 PM by akimori makoto » Logged

The Episcopallian road is easy and wide, for many go through it to find destruction. lol sorry channeling Isa.
Coemgenus
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Roman
Posts: 5



« Reply #67 on: September 12, 2011, 12:04:42 AM »


Yet your supreme pontiff laid that aside to sign "union agreements" such as Brest which contradict the Tridentine Creed in a number of areas. So when is an infallible statement not infallible?


Hi,

I'm a new Catholic here (greatly attracted to the Eastern Churches, both Catholic and Orthodox).

I know I picked quite a heavy thread to chime in on, but to answer your question - I think context is vital to understanding this.  The teachings of Trent were specifically aimed in countering the Protestant Reformation - often called the "Counter-Reformation".  Therefore the purpose of this creed in question was to clearly define what was required belief for protestants coming back into the Roman Church and this would have had nothing at all to do with the East.  For the Catholic Church, protestants and Orthodox are apples and oranges. For authoritative documents regarding the East, check the documents of Vatican II.  Hope that helps and GOd bless. 
Logged
theistgal
Byzantine (Ruthenian) Catholic gadfly
Site Supporter
Archon
*****
Offline Offline

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


don't even go there!


« Reply #68 on: September 12, 2011, 12:30:45 AM »

Although I am contributing to the continuing derailment of your thread, theistgal, can I ask -- are you still worshipping in a parish of the (so-called) Byzantine rite?

Continuing to contribute to the derailment of my own thread, yes, and for reasons I have detailed elsewhere.  Grin
« Last Edit: September 12, 2011, 12:31:05 AM by theistgal » Logged

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

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek
Posts: 3,511


Future belongs to God only.


WWW
« Reply #69 on: September 12, 2011, 08:24:12 AM »

Papal bulls tend NOT to be numbered among "ex cathedra" teachings...It is a tendency...you know like those grey areas in Orthodoxy that Father Ambrose mentions so often.

We may discuss the "grey areas" in its proper thread. They are a tempting way to avoid the fact that *this* bull in particular is from "motu proprio", in its very name, proclaimed to be "ex cathedra". Or the cathedra of Peter is not the cathedra from where "ex cathedra" proclamations come?

Quote
In sacrosancta beati Petri, principis apostolorum, cathedra"..."In Petri cathedra"

As Isa said: the supreme pontiff makes an explicit ex cathedra proclamation over an ecumenical council that is supported even today by the Roman magisterium. How on Earth can that not be binding to all Romans who believe all these things? What is the point of infallibility, magisterium, ecumenical councils etc etc, when, having all these combined, it is still "ok" to not take it into consideration?
Logged

Multiple Energies, Three Persons, Two Natures, One God.
Coemgenus
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Roman
Posts: 5



« Reply #70 on: September 12, 2011, 09:53:20 AM »

Papal bulls tend NOT to be numbered among "ex cathedra" teachings...It is a tendency...you know like those grey areas in Orthodoxy that Father Ambrose mentions so often.

We may discuss the "grey areas" in its proper thread. They are a tempting way to avoid the fact that *this* bull in particular is from "motu proprio", in its very name, proclaimed to be "ex cathedra". Or the cathedra of Peter is not the cathedra from where "ex cathedra" proclamations come?

Quote
In sacrosancta beati Petri, principis apostolorum, cathedra"..."In Petri cathedra"

As Isa said: the supreme pontiff makes an explicit ex cathedra proclamation over an ecumenical council that is supported even today by the Roman magisterium. How on Earth can that not be binding to all Romans who believe all these things? What is the point of infallibility, magisterium, ecumenical councils etc etc, when, having all these combined, it is still "ok" to not take it into consideration?
Hello,

Peace be with you!  The key is in your statement "binding on all Romans".  As I said in my above post, trying to apply statements or documents which were addressing the protestant Reformation in Europe to Eastern Christendom is off the mark.  That would be like trying to apply a U.S. Supreme Court decision to the people of Canada.   laugh  The creed would be perfectly orthodox for Roman Catholics, but the Catholic Church has made it clear that the East has received the Apostolic faith differently and certain things in Roman Catholicism don't make sense theologically to the East.  East and West are apples and oranges, and those who are trying to apply Trent to the East are mistakenly mixing the bushels!  Grin
« Last Edit: September 12, 2011, 09:56:26 AM by Coemgenus » Logged
Fabio Leite
Warned
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek
Posts: 3,511


Future belongs to God only.


WWW
« Reply #71 on: September 12, 2011, 09:56:13 AM »


Papal bulls tend NOT to be numbered among "ex cathedra" teachings...It is a tendency...you know like those grey areas in Orthodoxy that Father Ambrose mentions so often.

We may discuss the "grey areas" in its proper thread. They are a tempting way to avoid the fact that *this* bull in particular is from "motu proprio", in its very name, proclaimed to be "ex cathedra". Or the cathedra of Peter is not the cathedra from where "ex cathedra" proclamations come?

Quote
In sacrosancta beati Petri, principis apostolorum, cathedra"..."In Petri cathedra"

As Isa said: the supreme pontiff makes an explicit ex cathedra proclamation over an ecumenical council that is supported even today by the Roman magisterium. How on Earth can that not be binding to all Romans who believe all these things? What is the point of infallibility, magisterium, ecumenical councils etc etc, when, having all these combined, it is still "ok" to not take it into consideration?
Hello,

Peace be with you!  As I said in my above post, trying to apply statements or documents which were addressing the protestant Reformation in Europe to Eastern Christendom is off the mark.  That would be like trying to apply a U.S. Supreme Court decision to the people of Canada.   laugh  The creed would be perfectly orthodox for Roman Catholics, but the Catholic Church has made it clear that the East has received the Apostolic faith differently and certain things in Roman Catholicism don't make sense theologically to the East.  East and West are apples and oranges, and those who are trying to apply Trent to the East are mistakenly mixing the bushels!  Grin


I believe in *one* God, and in the Church, which is *one*, holy, catholic and apostolic.
Logged

Multiple Energies, Three Persons, Two Natures, One God.
Coemgenus
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Roman
Posts: 5



« Reply #72 on: September 12, 2011, 10:03:38 AM »



Papal bulls tend NOT to be numbered among "ex cathedra" teachings...It is a tendency...you know like those grey areas in Orthodoxy that Father Ambrose mentions so often.

We may discuss the "grey areas" in its proper thread. They are a tempting way to avoid the fact that *this* bull in particular is from "motu proprio", in its very name, proclaimed to be "ex cathedra". Or the cathedra of Peter is not the cathedra from where "ex cathedra" proclamations come?

Quote
In sacrosancta beati Petri, principis apostolorum, cathedra"..."In Petri cathedra"

As Isa said: the supreme pontiff makes an explicit ex cathedra proclamation over an ecumenical council that is supported even today by the Roman magisterium. How on Earth can that not be binding to all Romans who believe all these things? What is the point of infallibility, magisterium, ecumenical councils etc etc, when, having all these combined, it is still "ok" to not take it into consideration?
Hello,

Peace be with you!  As I said in my above post, trying to apply statements or documents which were addressing the protestant Reformation in Europe to Eastern Christendom is off the mark.  That would be like trying to apply a U.S. Supreme Court decision to the people of Canada.   laugh  The creed would be perfectly orthodox for Roman Catholics, but the Catholic Church has made it clear that the East has received the Apostolic faith differently and certain things in Roman Catholicism don't make sense theologically to the East.  East and West are apples and oranges, and those who are trying to apply Trent to the East are mistakenly mixing the bushels!  Grin


I believe in *one* God, and in the Church, which is *one*, holy, catholic and apostolic.
Yes, it is one, but within that oneness there is diversity of tradition and expression.  That's what makes it "universal".  Same truths, different means of expression.  The universal Church is not "Roman".  It is the union of many churches together, just like the United States is a union of different places with different histories.  Texas and New York are as different as can be, but the are both part of the U.S.  Each state has its own government and applies the Constitution in different ways, but they are all still one.
« Last Edit: September 12, 2011, 10:04:26 AM by Coemgenus » Logged
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Moderated
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 38,142



« Reply #73 on: September 12, 2011, 12:59:32 PM »



Papal bulls tend NOT to be numbered among "ex cathedra" teachings...It is a tendency...you know like those grey areas in Orthodoxy that Father Ambrose mentions so often.

We may discuss the "grey areas" in its proper thread. They are a tempting way to avoid the fact that *this* bull in particular is from "motu proprio", in its very name, proclaimed to be "ex cathedra". Or the cathedra of Peter is not the cathedra from where "ex cathedra" proclamations come?

Quote
In sacrosancta beati Petri, principis apostolorum, cathedra"..."In Petri cathedra"

As Isa said: the supreme pontiff makes an explicit ex cathedra proclamation over an ecumenical council that is supported even today by the Roman magisterium. How on Earth can that not be binding to all Romans who believe all these things? What is the point of infallibility, magisterium, ecumenical councils etc etc, when, having all these combined, it is still "ok" to not take it into consideration?
Hello,

Peace be with you!  As I said in my above post, trying to apply statements or documents which were addressing the protestant Reformation in Europe to Eastern Christendom is off the mark.  That would be like trying to apply a U.S. Supreme Court decision to the people of Canada.   laugh  The creed would be perfectly orthodox for Roman Catholics, but the Catholic Church has made it clear that the East has received the Apostolic faith differently and certain things in Roman Catholicism don't make sense theologically to the East.  East and West are apples and oranges, and those who are trying to apply Trent to the East are mistakenly mixing the bushels!  Grin


I believe in *one* God, and in the Church, which is *one*, holy, catholic and apostolic.
Yes, it is one, but within that oneness there is diversity of tradition and expression.  That's what makes it "universal".  Same truths, different means of expression.  The universal Church is not "Roman".  It is the union of many churches together, just like the United States is a union of different places with different histories.  Texas and New York are as different as can be, but the are both part of the U.S.  Each state has its own government and applies the Constitution in different ways, but they are all still one.

And all alike are bound by the law that the US Congress passes (like Trent) and by decisions of the US Supreme Court (like SP Pius IV)
Logged

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

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,417


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #74 on: September 12, 2011, 01:10:08 PM »

Is there anything in this Creed that you specifically disagreed with?

Hi Wyatt - I know you addressed this to elijahmaria but since I'm the OP I hope you won't mind if I respond also.  Smiley

My objection to this Creed is less the content than the belligerent attitude.  I agree with others who said it sounds more like a loyalty oath.

I also object to RC's who are using it as a "test" to see if EC's are really C.  Wink
That makes sense. The only part of that creed that I didn't particularly care for was the part at the beginning that referred to the Church as the "Holy Roman Church." I mean, I get what it's saying by that since the headquarters of our Church is in Rome, but the Catholic Church as a whole is certainly not just Roman. That part seems to be kind of a slap in the face to the Eastern Catholic Churches. The rest of it though seemed doctrinally orthodox.
+1
Logged

You are right. I apologize for having sacked Constantinople. I really need to stop doing that.
Fabio Leite
Warned
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek
Posts: 3,511


Future belongs to God only.


WWW
« Reply #75 on: September 12, 2011, 01:18:16 PM »



Papal bulls tend NOT to be numbered among "ex cathedra" teachings...It is a tendency...you know like those grey areas in Orthodoxy that Father Ambrose mentions so often.

We may discuss the "grey areas" in its proper thread. They are a tempting way to avoid the fact that *this* bull in particular is from "motu proprio", in its very name, proclaimed to be "ex cathedra". Or the cathedra of Peter is not the cathedra from where "ex cathedra" proclamations come?

Quote
In sacrosancta beati Petri, principis apostolorum, cathedra"..."In Petri cathedra"

As Isa said: the supreme pontiff makes an explicit ex cathedra proclamation over an ecumenical council that is supported even today by the Roman magisterium. How on Earth can that not be binding to all Romans who believe all these things? What is the point of infallibility, magisterium, ecumenical councils etc etc, when, having all these combined, it is still "ok" to not take it into consideration?
Hello,

Peace be with you!  As I said in my above post, trying to apply statements or documents which were addressing the protestant Reformation in Europe to Eastern Christendom is off the mark.  That would be like trying to apply a U.S. Supreme Court decision to the people of Canada.   laugh  The creed would be perfectly orthodox for Roman Catholics, but the Catholic Church has made it clear that the East has received the Apostolic faith differently and certain things in Roman Catholicism don't make sense theologically to the East.  East and West are apples and oranges, and those who are trying to apply Trent to the East are mistakenly mixing the bushels!  Grin


I believe in *one* God, and in the Church, which is *one*, holy, catholic and apostolic.
Yes, it is one, but within that oneness there is diversity of tradition and expression.  That's what makes it "universal".  Same truths, different means of expression.  The universal Church is not "Roman".  It is the union of many churches together, just like the United States is a union of different places with different histories.  Texas and New York are as different as can be, but the are both part of the U.S.  Each state has its own government and applies the Constitution in different ways, but they are all still one.


The comparison is true for the "federation" of Orthodox churches. Each jurisdiction as a "state", the councils as  an ad hoc "congress" (the primate would be a prime-minister and not a king or president) and the Creed as the "Constitution".

But if the governor of Texas said that his office is, in all-times, by divine and inalliable right the president and prime-minister of the US, that all other states must submit to him, that his laws are binding not only to Texas but to all states, that in fact he is infallible, this is not a parallel tradition, but an imperialistic force. It would not be an "American tradition" but an anti-American façade by a degenarate state (I'm talking about this hypothetical state, not the actual Texas!)

That's how I see the political analogies:

Orthodoxy: A Federation;
Roman Catapapism: a Monarchy;
Pre-Chalcedonians: Independent City-States;
Protestantism: Anarcho-capitalism (no government, society based on contracts only, the "contract" being the particular understanding each group has of the Bible).

And, being honest, in a Federation you can have a monarchical state, an anarcho-capitalist state and even an independent city state, but the same is not true for any of the other three, that force its own form over its constituent parts.

And indeed, in Orthodoxy we have "anarcho-capitalist" groups which are monasteries, we have monarchical institutions which are the patriarchates and dioceses, we have independent city-states like the Church of Sinai  or Athos. This kind of diversity is simply not possible elsewhere, which is evidence that the Orthodox Church is the true Church.
« Last Edit: September 12, 2011, 01:23:13 PM by Fabio Leite » Logged

Multiple Energies, Three Persons, Two Natures, One God.
Wyatt
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Posts: 2,395


« Reply #76 on: September 12, 2011, 01:52:25 PM »

But if the governor of Texas said that his office is, in all-times, by divine and inalliable right the president and prime-minister of the US, that all other states must submit to him, that his laws are binding not only to Texas but to all states, that in fact he is infallible, this is not a parallel tradition, but an imperialistic force. It would not be an "American tradition" but an anti-American façade by a degenarate state (I'm talking about this hypothetical state, not the actual Texas!)
This seems to sidestep the fact that we have a President of the United States. The Confederacy didn't win.

And indeed, in Orthodoxy we have "anarcho-capitalist" groups which are monasteries, we have monarchical institutions which are the patriarchates and dioceses, we have independent city-states like the Church of Sinai  or Athos. This kind of diversity is simply not possible elsewhere, which is evidence that the Orthodox Church is the true Church.
It's evidence that God has not abandoned Eastern Orthodoxy. I'll agree with that, but that is not surprising to me. The Spirit blows where it will. While I believe the Holy Spirit operates within the Church, I would not go so far as to say that He is absent everywhere else. Obviously He isn't because I grew in my relationship with Jesus Christ for the first 18 years of my life as a Protestant, and I think we can all agree that the True Church cannot be found within Protestantism.
Logged
Melodist
Archon
********
Offline Offline

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



« Reply #77 on: September 12, 2011, 02:03:04 PM »

But if the governor of Texas said that his office is, in all-times, by divine and inalliable right the president and prime-minister of the US, that all other states must submit to him, that his laws are binding not only to Texas but to all states, that in fact he is infallible, this is not a parallel tradition, but an imperialistic force. It would not be an "American tradition" but an anti-American façade by a degenarate state (I'm talking about this hypothetical state, not the actual Texas!)
This seems to sidestep the fact that we have a President of the United States. The Confederacy didn't win.
we can all agree that the True Church cannot be found within Protestantism.

More like the Speaker of the House than the President, if we were to use the US government for an anology.
Logged

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

Made Perfect in Weakness - Latest Post: The Son of God
Fabio Leite
Warned
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek
Posts: 3,511


Future belongs to God only.


WWW
« Reply #78 on: September 12, 2011, 02:29:13 PM »

But if the governor of Texas said that his office is, in all-times, by divine and inalliable right the president and prime-minister of the US, that all other states must submit to him, that his laws are binding not only to Texas but to all states, that in fact he is infallible, this is not a parallel tradition, but an imperialistic force. It would not be an "American tradition" but an anti-American façade by a degenarate state (I'm talking about this hypothetical state, not the actual Texas!)
This seems to sidestep the fact that we have a President of the United States. The Confederacy didn't win.

Romans sometimes discuss with Orthodox with the same arguments they use for Protestants. Smiley

That's why I said the analogy for Orthodoxy is a Federation and not a Confederation. There is a leader, a primate. Only that it is not a presidential federation - the president is not the governor of any particular state.

The pope in current Roman administrative model is the "governor" of a "state" in, this case, the see of Rome itself. Only that he has direct authority over the other states as well.

If the Church were a secular country, it would be ruled by a congress only. This congress has a "president of the congress" role that is one of the congressmen. But the "president of the congress" is not the "president of the country". The "Chief of Government" and "Chief of State" is the congress itself.

My main reference for this is the Justinian Institutions, I quoted elsewhere in another thread. I think it is a "decisive" reference for the following reasons:

1 - It is a source from the middle of the 1st millenium. They are witnesses of how things were organized back then;

2 - It is a non-ecclesiastical source, so it is not concerned with internal church politics (although certainly in dialogue with it);

3 - It is a legal formulation to it is concerned both with clarity and with the current norms of the time;

4 - It was written as part of a larger effort to compile in concise terms the rules and laws governing the Empire back then, getting away with a lot of "trash" laws that were no longer used or useful; So, there was an effort to understand how things worked and to restate then in clear legal terms;

In these Institutions, the Justinian laws define the Pope as "Head of the Bishops". Interestingly enough, it's not "Head of the Church" as the "visible"/"invisible" head analogy portrays.  The "Head of the Bishops" is the president of a council and it is this council that governs, not its president.

A country governed by a council of governors, one of which presides the council (he does not rule over it). That's the Apostolic tradition, not a country governed by a president.

« Last Edit: September 12, 2011, 02:32:22 PM by Fabio Leite » Logged

Multiple Energies, Three Persons, Two Natures, One God.
Fabio Leite
Warned
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek
Posts: 3,511


Future belongs to God only.


WWW
« Reply #79 on: September 12, 2011, 02:34:27 PM »

But if the governor of Texas said that his office is, in all-times, by divine and inalliable right the president and prime-minister of the US, that all other states must submit to him, that his laws are binding not only to Texas but to all states, that in fact he is infallible, this is not a parallel tradition, but an imperialistic force. It would not be an "American tradition" but an anti-American façade by a degenarate state (I'm talking about this hypothetical state, not the actual Texas!)
This seems to sidestep the fact that we have a President of the United States. The Confederacy didn't win.
we can all agree that the True Church cannot be found within Protestantism.

More like the Speaker of the House than the President, if we were to use the US government for an anology.

Exactly. And notice that the Speaker of the House *does* have some actual power, so it is not the "merely honorific" title some claim.
Logged

Multiple Energies, Three Persons, Two Natures, One God.
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,417


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #80 on: September 12, 2011, 03:33:00 PM »



Papal bulls tend NOT to be numbered among "ex cathedra" teachings...It is a tendency...you know like those grey areas in Orthodoxy that Father Ambrose mentions so often.

We may discuss the "grey areas" in its proper thread. They are a tempting way to avoid the fact that *this* bull in particular is from "motu proprio", in its very name, proclaimed to be "ex cathedra". Or the cathedra of Peter is not the cathedra from where "ex cathedra" proclamations come?

Quote
In sacrosancta beati Petri, principis apostolorum, cathedra"..."In Petri cathedra"

As Isa said: the supreme pontiff makes an explicit ex cathedra proclamation over an ecumenical council that is supported even today by the Roman magisterium. How on Earth can that not be binding to all Romans who believe all these things? What is the point of infallibility, magisterium, ecumenical councils etc etc, when, having all these combined, it is still "ok" to not take it into consideration?
Hello,

Peace be with you!  As I said in my above post, trying to apply statements or documents which were addressing the protestant Reformation in Europe to Eastern Christendom is off the mark.  That would be like trying to apply a U.S. Supreme Court decision to the people of Canada.   laugh  The creed would be perfectly orthodox for Roman Catholics, but the Catholic Church has made it clear that the East has received the Apostolic faith differently and certain things in Roman Catholicism don't make sense theologically to the East.  East and West are apples and oranges, and those who are trying to apply Trent to the East are mistakenly mixing the bushels!  Grin


I believe in *one* God, and in the Church, which is *one*, holy, catholic and apostolic.
Yes, it is one, but within that oneness there is diversity of tradition and expression.  That's what makes it "universal".  Same truths, different means of expression.  The universal Church is not "Roman".  It is the union of many churches together, just like the United States is a union of different places with different histories.  Texas and New York are as different as can be, but the are both part of the U.S.  Each state has its own government and applies the Constitution in different ways, but they are all still one.


The comparison is true for the "federation" of Orthodox churches. Each jurisdiction as a "state", the councils as  an ad hoc "congress" (the primate would be a prime-minister and not a king or president) and the Creed as the "Constitution".

But if the governor of Texas said that his office is, in all-times, by divine and inalliable right the president and prime-minister of the US, that all other states must submit to him, that his laws are binding not only to Texas but to all states, that in fact he is infallible, this is not a parallel tradition, but an imperialistic force. It would not be an "American tradition" but an anti-American façade by a degenarate state (I'm talking about this hypothetical state, not the actual Texas!)

That's how I see the political analogies:

Orthodoxy: A Federation;
Roman CatapapismThe Catholic Church established by Jesus Christ: a Monarchy;
Pre-Chalcedonians: Independent City-States;
Protestantism: Anarcho-capitalism (no government, society based on contracts only, the "contract" being the particular understanding each group has of the Bible).

And, being honest, in a Federation you can have a monarchical state, an anarcho-capitalist state and even an independent city state, but the same is not true for any of the other three, that force its own form over its constituent parts.

And indeed, in Orthodoxy we have "anarcho-capitalist" groups which are monasteries, we have monarchical institutions which are the patriarchates and dioceses, we have independent city-states like the Church of Sinai  or Athos. This kind of diversity is simply not possible elsewhere, which is evidence that the Orthodox Church is the true Church.
Fixed it for ya.
Logged

You are right. I apologize for having sacked Constantinople. I really need to stop doing that.
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Moderated
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 38,142



« Reply #81 on: September 12, 2011, 04:00:30 PM »



Papal bulls tend NOT to be numbered among "ex cathedra" teachings...It is a tendency...you know like those grey areas in Orthodoxy that Father Ambrose mentions so often.

We may discuss the "grey areas" in its proper thread. They are a tempting way to avoid the fact that *this* bull in particular is from "motu proprio", in its very name, proclaimed to be "ex cathedra". Or the cathedra of Peter is not the cathedra from where "ex cathedra" proclamations come?

Quote
In sacrosancta beati Petri, principis apostolorum, cathedra"..."In Petri cathedra"

As Isa said: the supreme pontiff makes an explicit ex cathedra proclamation over an ecumenical council that is supported even today by the Roman magisterium. How on Earth can that not be binding to all Romans who believe all these things? What is the point of infallibility, magisterium, ecumenical councils etc etc, when, having all these combined, it is still "ok" to not take it into consideration?
Hello,

Peace be with you!  As I said in my above post, trying to apply statements or documents which were addressing the protestant Reformation in Europe to Eastern Christendom is off the mark.  That would be like trying to apply a U.S. Supreme Court decision to the people of Canada.   laugh  The creed would be perfectly orthodox for Roman Catholics, but the Catholic Church has made it clear that the East has received the Apostolic faith differently and certain things in Roman Catholicism don't make sense theologically to the East.  East and West are apples and oranges, and those who are trying to apply Trent to the East are mistakenly mixing the bushels!  Grin


I believe in *one* God, and in the Church, which is *one*, holy, catholic and apostolic.
Yes, it is one, but within that oneness there is diversity of tradition and expression.  That's what makes it "universal".  Same truths, different means of expression.  The universal Church is not "Roman".  It is the union of many churches together, just like the United States is a union of different places with different histories.  Texas and New York are as different as can be, but the are both part of the U.S.  Each state has its own government and applies the Constitution in different ways, but they are all still one.


The comparison is true for the "federation" of Orthodox churches. Each jurisdiction as a "state", the councils as  an ad hoc "congress" (the primate would be a prime-minister and not a king or president) and the Creed as the "Constitution".

But if the governor of Texas said that his office is, in all-times, by divine and inalliable right the president and prime-minister of the US, that all other states must submit to him, that his laws are binding not only to Texas but to all states, that in fact he is infallible, this is not a parallel tradition, but an imperialistic force. It would not be an "American tradition" but an anti-American façade by a degenarate state (I'm talking about this hypothetical state, not the actual Texas!)

That's how I see the political analogies:

Orthodoxy: A Federation;
Roman CatapapismThe Catholic Church established by Jesus Christ: a Monarchy;
Pre-Chalcedonians: Independent City-States;
Protestantism: Anarcho-capitalism (no government, society based on contracts only, the "contract" being the particular understanding each group has of the Bible).

And, being honest, in a Federation you can have a monarchical state, an anarcho-capitalist state and even an independent city state, but the same is not true for any of the other three, that force its own form over its constituent parts.

And indeed, in Orthodoxy we have "anarcho-capitalist" groups which are monasteries, we have monarchical institutions which are the patriarchates and dioceses, we have independent city-states like the Church of Sinai  or Athos. This kind of diversity is simply not possible elsewhere, which is evidence that the Orthodox Church is the true Church.
Fixed it for ya.
now if you could only fix your ecclesial community. I notice how you left monarchy, evidently not disputed that: it should say "absolute monarchy."  To further the analogy, your supreme pontiff has the same relationship to the "sui juris" churches like Canada had before patriation.  Which again raises issues about the preemption of such Latin acts over the union promises, much like the British Constitution preempted French law, the latter only allowed (tolerated?) by the pleasure of the Quebec Act, an Act of the British Parliament, or does it resemble the retention of French Law in Louisiana, which is by treaty and the guarentee of state sovereignty when entering the US union?
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
Fabio Leite
Warned
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek
Posts: 3,511


Future belongs to God only.


WWW
« Reply #82 on: September 13, 2011, 07:15:18 PM »



Papal bulls tend NOT to be numbered among "ex cathedra" teachings...It is a tendency...you know like those grey areas in Orthodoxy that Father Ambrose mentions so often.

We may discuss the "grey areas" in its proper thread. They are a tempting way to avoid the fact that *this* bull in particular is from "motu proprio", in its very name, proclaimed to be "ex cathedra". Or the cathedra of Peter is not the cathedra from where "ex cathedra" proclamations come?

Quote
In sacrosancta beati Petri, principis apostolorum, cathedra"..."In Petri cathedra"

As Isa said: the supreme pontiff makes an explicit ex cathedra proclamation over an ecumenical council that is supported even today by the Roman magisterium. How on Earth can that not be binding to all Romans who believe all these things? What is the point of infallibility, magisterium, ecumenical councils etc etc, when, having all these combined, it is still "ok" to not take it into consideration?
Hello,

Peace be with you!  As I said in my above post, trying to apply statements or documents which were addressing the protestant Reformation in Europe to Eastern Christendom is off the mark.  That would be like trying to apply a U.S. Supreme Court decision to the people of Canada.   laugh  The creed would be perfectly orthodox for Roman Catholics, but the Catholic Church has made it clear that the East has received the Apostolic faith differently and certain things in Roman Catholicism don't make sense theologically to the East.  East and West are apples and oranges, and those who are trying to apply Trent to the East are mistakenly mixing the bushels!  Grin


I believe in *one* God, and in the Church, which is *one*, holy, catholic and apostolic.
Yes, it is one, but within that oneness there is diversity of tradition and expression.  That's what makes it "universal".  Same truths, different means of expression.  The universal Church is not "Roman".  It is the union of many churches together, just like the United States is a union of different places with different histories.  Texas and New York are as different as can be, but the are both part of the U.S.  Each state has its own government and applies the Constitution in different ways, but they are all still one.


The comparison is true for the "federation" of Orthodox churches. Each jurisdiction as a "state", the councils as  an ad hoc "congress" (the primate would be a prime-minister and not a king or president) and the Creed as the "Constitution".

But if the governor of Texas said that his office is, in all-times, by divine and inalliable right the president and prime-minister of the US, that all other states must submit to him, that his laws are binding not only to Texas but to all states, that in fact he is infallible, this is not a parallel tradition, but an imperialistic force. It would not be an "American tradition" but an anti-American façade by a degenarate state (I'm talking about this hypothetical state, not the actual Texas!)

That's how I see the political analogies:

Orthodoxy: A Federation;
Roman CatapapismThe Catholic Church established by Jesus Christ: a Monarchy;
Pre-Chalcedonians: Independent City-States;
Protestantism: Anarcho-capitalism (no government, society based on contracts only, the "contract" being the particular understanding each group has of the Bible).

And, being honest, in a Federation you can have a monarchical state, an anarcho-capitalist state and even an independent city state, but the same is not true for any of the other three, that force its own form over its constituent parts.

And indeed, in Orthodoxy we have "anarcho-capitalist" groups which are monasteries, we have monarchical institutions which are the patriarchates and dioceses, we have independent city-states like the Church of Sinai  or Athos. This kind of diversity is simply not possible elsewhere, which is evidence that the Orthodox Church is the true Church.
Fixed it for ya.
now if you could only fix your ecclesial community. I notice how you left monarchy, evidently not disputed that: it should say "absolute monarchy."  To further the analogy, your supreme pontiff has the same relationship to the "sui juris" churches like Canada had before patriation.  Which again raises issues about the preemption of such Latin acts over the union promises, much like the British Constitution preempted French law, the latter only allowed (tolerated?) by the pleasure of the Quebec Act, an Act of the British Parliament, or does it resemble the retention of French Law in Louisiana, which is by treaty and the guarentee of state sovereignty when entering the US union?



Great Papist! So you have finally stopped believing that the infallible teaching of the Holy Spirit over matters of faith come according to the Pope in some particular statements and accepted the Traditional view that it comes according to the whole?
« Last Edit: September 13, 2011, 07:18:13 PM by Fabio Leite » Logged

Multiple Energies, Three Persons, Two Natures, One God.
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,417


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #83 on: September 14, 2011, 12:38:49 PM »



Papal bulls tend NOT to be numbered among "ex cathedra" teachings...It is a tendency...you know like those grey areas in Orthodoxy that Father Ambrose mentions so often.

We may discuss the "grey areas" in its proper thread. They are a tempting way to avoid the fact that *this* bull in particular is from "motu proprio", in its very name, proclaimed to be "ex cathedra". Or the cathedra of Peter is not the cathedra from where "ex cathedra" proclamations come?

Quote
In sacrosancta beati Petri, principis apostolorum, cathedra"..."In Petri cathedra"

As Isa said: the supreme pontiff makes an explicit ex cathedra proclamation over an ecumenical council that is supported even today by the Roman magisterium. How on Earth can that not be binding to all Romans who believe all these things? What is the point of infallibility, magisterium, ecumenical councils etc etc, when, having all these combined, it is still "ok" to not take it into consideration?
Hello,

Peace be with you!  As I said in my above post, trying to apply statements or documents which were addressing the protestant Reformation in Europe to Eastern Christendom is off the mark.  That would be like trying to apply a U.S. Supreme Court decision to the people of Canada.   laugh  The creed would be perfectly orthodox for Roman Catholics, but the Catholic Church has made it clear that the East has received the Apostolic faith differently and certain things in Roman Catholicism don't make sense theologically to the East.  East and West are apples and oranges, and those who are trying to apply Trent to the East are mistakenly mixing the bushels!  Grin


I believe in *one* God, and in the Church, which is *one*, holy, catholic and apostolic.
Yes, it is one, but within that oneness there is diversity of tradition and expression.  That's what makes it "universal".  Same truths, different means of expression.  The universal Church is not "Roman".  It is the union of many churches together, just like the United States is a union of different places with different histories.  Texas and New York are as different as can be, but the are both part of the U.S.  Each state has its own government and applies the Constitution in different ways, but they are all still one.


The comparison is true for the "federation" of Orthodox churches. Each jurisdiction as a "state", the councils as  an ad hoc "congress" (the primate would be a prime-minister and not a king or president) and the Creed as the "Constitution".

But if the governor of Texas said that his office is, in all-times, by divine and inalliable right the president and prime-minister of the US, that all other states must submit to him, that his laws are binding not only to Texas but to all states, that in fact he is infallible, this is not a parallel tradition, but an imperialistic force. It would not be an "American tradition" but an anti-American façade by a degenarate state (I'm talking about this hypothetical state, not the actual Texas!)

That's how I see the political analogies:

Orthodoxy: A Federation;
Roman CatapapismThe Catholic Church established by Jesus Christ: a Monarchy;
Pre-Chalcedonians: Independent City-States;
Protestantism: Anarcho-capitalism (no government, society based on contracts only, the "contract" being the particular understanding each group has of the Bible).

And, being honest, in a Federation you can have a monarchical state, an anarcho-capitalist state and even an independent city state, but the same is not true for any of the other three, that force its own form over its constituent parts.

And indeed, in Orthodoxy we have "anarcho-capitalist" groups which are monasteries, we have monarchical institutions which are the patriarchates and dioceses, we have independent city-states like the Church of Sinai  or Athos. This kind of diversity is simply not possible elsewhere, which is evidence that the Orthodox Church is the true Church.
Fixed it for ya.
now if you could only fix your ecclesial community. I notice how you left monarchy, evidently not disputed that: it should say "absolute monarchy."  To further the analogy, your supreme pontiff has the same relationship to the "sui juris" churches like Canada had before patriation.  Which again raises issues about the preemption of such Latin acts over the union promises, much like the British Constitution preempted French law, the latter only allowed (tolerated?) by the pleasure of the Quebec Act, an Act of the British Parliament, or does it resemble the retention of French Law in Louisiana, which is by treaty and the guarentee of state sovereignty when entering the US union?



Great Papist! So you have finally stopped believing that the infallible teaching of the Holy Spirit over matters of faith come according to the Pope in some particular statements and accepted the Traditional view that it comes according to the whole?

You question is invalid, as it assumes that the two are mutually exlcusive, when they most certainly are not.
Logged

You are right. I apologize for having sacked Constantinople. I really need to stop doing that.
Tags:
Pages: « 1 2  All   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.18 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.251 seconds with 67 queries.