OrthodoxChristianity.net
August 27, 2014, 08:58:19 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: Nihil obstats, imprimaturs, and such  (Read 2918 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Wyatt
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Posts: 2,395


« on: November 30, 2011, 09:13:13 PM »

Since it seems that a great many on this forum (including even myself) do not have a proper understanding of the nihil obstat and the imprimatur, I thought it would be useful to have a thread to clear everything up. Fr. Ambrose pointed out to me, for instance, that the nihil obstat is not actually issued by the bishop...only the imprimatur is. I found an interesting article on the subject. The bolded part is added by me for emphasis.

__________________________

The Church, given teaching authority by Christ and as the conduit for fullness of Truth on this earth, has the obligation to preserve Her sheep from deviations from the Truth and to to guarantee them the "objective possibility of professing the true faith without error" (Catechism, No. 890). Because of this, the Bishops will look at books published by Catholics on Catholic matters in their dioceses, giving them their "okay" if nothing therein is found to be contrary to the Faith (relevant Canon Law: "Title IV: The Means of Social Communication," ¶ 822-832)

The procedure works like this: when a Catholic writes a book on faith, morals, theology, liturgy, books on prayer, editions of Sacred Scripture, etc., he will submit his manuscript to his diocese's Censor. If the Censor finds no problem with it, he will give it his stamp, which reads "Nihil Obstat," or "nothing stands in the way." He then sends it to the Bishop for his review. If the Bishop finds nothing objectionable, he gives the book his "Imprimatur" which means, "let it be printed."

If the Catholic writing the book is a member of a religious order, the manuscript is first sent to his religious superior before it is sent to the Censor and Bishop. If the religious superior finds no impediment to publication, he will give the book his stamp of "Imprimi Potest," which means "it can be printed."

Nowadays, after the Imprimatur, you might see these words:

    The "Nihil Obstat" and "Imprimatur" are official declarations that a book or pamphlet is free of doctrinal or moral error. No implication is contained therein that those who have granted the Nihil Obstat and the Imprimatur agree with the content, opinions or statements expressed.

Please know that the presence of an Imprimatur does not mean that a book is an official text of the Church. It doesn't make the book the equivalent of an encyclical, say. It's not the approval of the work by the Pope or a dogmatic Council, and it's not a stamp of infallibility. It doesn't even mean that everything in the book is accurate, only that there is nothing in it that contradicts Catholic dogma. But, while occasionally a book sneaks through and its Imprimatur later recalled, this procedure is an important way for Catholics to increase their chances of staying error-free with regard to doctrine. Sadly, because of the triumph of modernsists and liberals in the human aspect of the Church since the Second Vatican Council, books which could well contain a watered-down theology, a warped view of History, etc. now do receive the "Imprimatur."

Bottom line: When buying books on religious and spiritual matters, seek out those books written before Vatican II and which have the "Imprimatur," or those books which are known to be written by solidly orthodox traditional Catholics. Otherwise, be wary and take the book with a grain of salt. And, always, if you come across a book that says horrific things about the Church, Her teachings, or Her history, read the traditional Catholic point of view and dig up objective resources. There's a lot of lying going on out there, folks.

http://www.fisheaters.com/imprimatur.html


__________________________

So, unfortunately, anytime someone tries to tell us Catholics what we believe by citing a text carrying a nihil obstat and imprimatur, as if that proves that something is an official teaching of our Church, it does no such thing. It is good to read theological books, but if something doesn't seem right it is best to stick with the Church's magisterium for definite answers.
Logged
Jetavan
Most Humble Servant of Pan-Vespuccian and Holocenic Hominids
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Christic
Jurisdiction: Dixie
Posts: 6,404


Barlaam and Josaphat


WWW
« Reply #1 on: November 30, 2011, 09:29:26 PM »

Sadly, because of the triumph of modernsists and liberals in the human aspect of the Church since the Second Vatican Council, books which could well contain a watered-down theology, a warped view of History, etc. now do receive the "Imprimatur."[/b]
Could you give an example of such a watered-down book that has an imprimatur?
Logged

If you will, you can become all flame.
Extra caritatem nulla salus.
In order to become whole, take the "I" out of "holiness".
सर्वभूतहित
Ἄνω σχῶμεν τὰς καρδίας
"Those who say religion has nothing to do with politics do not know what religion is." -- Mohandas Gandhi
Y dduw bo'r diolch.
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,444



« Reply #2 on: November 30, 2011, 09:52:38 PM »

Since it seems that a great many on this forum (including even myself) do not have a proper understanding of the nihil obstat and the imprimatur, I thought it would be useful to have a thread to clear everything up. Fr. Ambrose pointed out to me, for instance, that the nihil obstat is not actually issued by the bishop...only the imprimatur is. I found an interesting article on the subject. The bolded part is added by me for emphasis.

__________________________

The Church, given teaching authority by Christ and as the conduit for fullness of Truth on this earth, has the obligation to preserve Her sheep from deviations from the Truth and to to guarantee them the "objective possibility of professing the true faith without error" (Catechism, No. 890). Because of this, the Bishops will look at books published by Catholics on Catholic matters in their dioceses, giving them their "okay" if nothing therein is found to be contrary to the Faith (relevant Canon Law: "Title IV: The Means of Social Communication," ¶ 822-832)

The procedure works like this: when a Catholic writes a book on faith, morals, theology, liturgy, books on prayer, editions of Sacred Scripture, etc., he will submit his manuscript to his diocese's Censor. If the Censor finds no problem with it, he will give it his stamp, which reads "Nihil Obstat," or "nothing stands in the way." He then sends it to the Bishop for his review. If the Bishop finds nothing objectionable, he gives the book his "Imprimatur" which means, "let it be printed."

If the Catholic writing the book is a member of a religious order, the manuscript is first sent to his religious superior before it is sent to the Censor and Bishop. If the religious superior finds no impediment to publication, he will give the book his stamp of "Imprimi Potest," which means "it can be printed."

Nowadays, after the Imprimatur, you might see these words:

    The "Nihil Obstat" and "Imprimatur" are official declarations that a book or pamphlet is free of doctrinal or moral error. No implication is contained therein that those who have granted the Nihil Obstat and the Imprimatur agree with the content, opinions or statements expressed.

Please know that the presence of an Imprimatur does not mean that a book is an official text of the Church. It doesn't make the book the equivalent of an encyclical, say. It's not the approval of the work by the Pope or a dogmatic Council, and it's not a stamp of infallibility. It doesn't even mean that everything in the book is accurate, only that there is nothing in it that contradicts Catholic dogma. But, while occasionally a book sneaks through and its Imprimatur later recalled, this procedure is an important way for Catholics to increase their chances of staying error-free with regard to doctrine. Sadly, because of the triumph of modernsists and liberals in the human aspect of the Church since the Second Vatican Council, books which could well contain a watered-down theology, a warped view of History, etc. now do receive the "Imprimatur."
Sorry, if you let you name brand be used, you have to accept the consequences.

An encyclical is not an infallible statement (so it seems:we never can get a straight answer on "ex cathedra"), so saying it is not the equivalent of an encyclical isn't saying anything (except that the demand of Lumen Gentium that the Vatican's followers act as if their supreme pontiff is speaking infallibly even when he is not).

Since we are told that not everything in Infeffibilis Deus, Pastor Aeternus and Muncentissimus Deus is "infallible" (what is and is not "infallible" seems to be a carefully guarded secret). that not everything in the book is accurate doesn't say much either.

Its usefulness for us is only that your "magisterium" has owned the work.  The question of the usefulness of your "magisterium" remains.

Bottom line: When buying books on religious and spiritual matters, seek out those books written before Vatican II and which have the "Imprimatur," or those books which are known to be written by solidly orthodox traditional Catholics. Otherwise, be wary and take the book with a grain of salt. And, always, if you come across a book that says horrific things about the Church, Her teachings, or Her history, read the traditional Catholic point of view and dig up objective resources. There's a lot of lying going on out there, folks.

http://www.fisheaters.com/imprimatur.html


__________________________

So, unfortunately, anytime someone tries to tell us Catholics what we believe by citing a text carrying a nihil obstat and imprimatur, as if that proves that something is an official teaching of our Church, it does no such thing. It is good to read theological books, but if something doesn't seem right it is best to stick with the Church's magisterium for definite answers.
That's great, if you are good at reading tea leaves.
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 #3 on: November 30, 2011, 10:21:49 PM »

Sorry, if you let you name brand be used, you have to accept the consequences.
Meaning what exactly?

An encyclical is not an infallible statement (so it seems:we never can get a straight answer on "ex cathedra"), so saying it is not the equivalent of an encyclical isn't saying anything (except that the demand of Lumen Gentium that the Vatican's followers act as if their supreme pontiff is speaking infallibly even when he is not).
Encyclicals do not have to be ex cathedra when they uphold the Tradition of the Church. Humanae Vitae reiterated the sinfullness of artificial birth control, which even your Church was against before the 20th century.

Since we are told that not everything in Infeffibilis Deus, Pastor Aeternus and Muncentissimus Deus is "infallible" (what is and is not "infallible" seems to be a carefully guarded secret). that not everything in the book is accurate doesn't say much either.
They may not be ex cathedra, but we are not free to just discard everything that is not ex cathedra. Ex cathedra pronouncements are the exception, not the rule. The most common way the Church teaches is through its magisterium and councils.

Its usefulness for us is only that your "magisterium" has owned the work.  The question of the usefulness of your "magisterium" remains.
How can you claim that the magisterium "owns" a work whenever the nihil obstat and imprimatur are not issued by the magisterium?

That's great, if you are good at reading tea leaves.
I am as good at reading tea leaves as you are in discerning the call and guidance of the Holy Spirit.
« Last Edit: November 30, 2011, 10:22:09 PM by Wyatt » Logged
Aindriú
Faster! Funnier!
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

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



WWW
« Reply #4 on: November 30, 2011, 11:47:55 PM »

Since we are told that not everything in Infeffibilis Deus, Pastor Aeternus and Muncentissimus Deus is "infallible" (what is and is not "infallible" seems to be a carefully guarded secret). that not everything in the book is accurate doesn't say much either.

http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,33045.0.html

Its usefulness for us is only that your "magisterium" has owned the work.  The question of the usefulness of your "magisterium" remains.

What is a magisterium? What do the Catholics call a magisterium? Is there only one, or are their others?
Logged


I'm going to need this.
Wyatt
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Posts: 2,395


« Reply #5 on: December 01, 2011, 01:39:18 AM »

What is a magisterium? What do the Catholics call a magisterium? Is there only one, or are their others?
When Catholics refer to the magisterium, it just means "the teaching authority of the Church." So, when the Pope and all the Bishops in communion with him gather together in an Ecumenical Council and define dogma, that is binding because it is magisterial teaching. The Catechism of the Catholic Church is filled with magisterial teachings.
Logged
Aindriú
Faster! Funnier!
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

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



WWW
« Reply #6 on: December 01, 2011, 02:25:24 AM »

What is a magisterium? What do the Catholics call a magisterium? Is there only one, or are their others?
When Catholics refer to the magisterium, it just means "the teaching authority of the Church." So, when the Pope and all the Bishops in communion with him gather together in an Ecumenical Council and define dogma, that is binding because it is magisterial teaching. The Catechism of the Catholic Church is filled with magisterial teachings.

I'm aware of this. However, the way Isa has been using 'magisterium' makes me wonder how familiar he is with the word.

I threw the number of magisteria out there to see if he was familiar with the understanding of extraordinary and ordinary magesterium (or even other discussions that break it down further).
Logged


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

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #7 on: December 01, 2011, 01:24:19 PM »

Since we are told that not everything in Infeffibilis Deus, Pastor Aeternus and Muncentissimus Deus is "infallible" (what is and is not "infallible" seems to be a carefully guarded secret). that not everything in the book is accurate doesn't say much either.

http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,33045.0.html

Its usefulness for us is only that your "magisterium" has owned the work.  The question of the usefulness of your "magisterium" remains.

What is a magisterium? What do the Catholics call a magisterium? Is there only one, or are their others?


Magisterium is not a who; it is a what.  It is teaching authority.  There are those who possess that authority but they are not the authority itself.  The originating authority for all Christians is Jesus, Lord and Master of my life.

« Last Edit: December 01, 2011, 01:25:22 PM by elijahmaria » Logged

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

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #8 on: December 01, 2011, 01:26:17 PM »

What is a magisterium? What do the Catholics call a magisterium? Is there only one, or are their others?
When Catholics refer to the magisterium, it just means "the teaching authority of the Church." So, when the Pope and all the Bishops in communion with him gather together in an Ecumenical Council and define dogma, that is binding because it is magisterial teaching. The Catechism of the Catholic Church is filled with magisterial teachings.

I'm aware of this. However, the way Isa has been using 'magisterium' makes me wonder how familiar he is with the word.

I threw the number of magisteria out there to see if he was familiar with the understanding of extraordinary and ordinary magesterium (or even other discussions that break it down further).

Anything that interferes with the message is discarded.
Logged

biro
Excelsior
Site Supporter
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox
Posts: 13,020


Και κλήρονομον δείξον με, ζωής της αιωνίου

fleem
WWW
« Reply #9 on: December 01, 2011, 03:24:05 PM »

Or, he'll make it mean what he wants it to mean.
« Last Edit: December 01, 2011, 03:24:19 PM by biro » Logged

Charlie Rose: If you could change one thing about the world, what would it be?

Fran Lebowitz: Everything. There is not one thing with which I am satisfied.

http://spcasuncoast.org/
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #10 on: December 01, 2011, 04:21:46 PM »

What is a magisterium? What do the Catholics call a magisterium? Is there only one, or are their others?
When Catholics refer to the magisterium, it just means "the teaching authority of the Church." So, when the Pope and all the Bishops in communion with him gather together in an Ecumenical Council and define dogma, that is binding because it is magisterial teaching. The Catechism of the Catholic Church is filled with magisterial teachings.

I'm aware of this. However, the way Isa has been using 'magisterium' makes me wonder how familiar he is with the word.


Mary is probably the most erudite Catholic on the forum.  Here is her understanding of “magisterium”  and its operation as she interprets it in Lumen Gentium

Lumen Gentium:

"This religious submission of mind and will must be shown in a special way to the authentic magisterium of the Roman Pontiff, even when he is not speaking ex cathedra; that is, it must be shown in such a way that his supreme magisterium is acknowledged with reverence, the judgments made by him are sincerely adhered to, according to his manifest mind and will.”  
~Dogmatic Constitution on the Church #25

Mary's explanation of the text:

"Actually the assent that is requested of the faithful is clearly stated as a religious assent which is not at all an assent of faith. It is the obedience one offers to a religious superior even when the novice, or brother, or monk knows that the superior is in error. It is an assent of respect for the office and an exercise of humility and obedience in all things but sin."

I myself would be hesitant to say that one must be obedient to the magisterium when it is in error.
« Last Edit: December 01, 2011, 04:24:26 PM by Irish Hermit » Logged
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 31,892


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #11 on: December 01, 2011, 04:36:07 PM »

What is a magisterium? What do the Catholics call a magisterium? Is there only one, or are their others?
When Catholics refer to the magisterium, it just means "the teaching authority of the Church." So, when the Pope and all the Bishops in communion with him gather together in an Ecumenical Council and define dogma, that is binding because it is magisterial teaching. The Catechism of the Catholic Church is filled with magisterial teachings.

I'm aware of this. However, the way Isa has been using 'magisterium' makes me wonder how familiar he is with the word.


Mary is probably the most erudite Catholic on the forum.  Here is her understanding of “magisterium”  and its operation as she interprets it in Lumen Gentium

Lumen Gentium:

"This religious submission of mind and will must be shown in a special way to the authentic magisterium of the Roman Pontiff, even when he is not speaking ex cathedra; that is, it must be shown in such a way that his supreme magisterium is acknowledged with reverence, the judgments made by him are sincerely adhered to, according to his manifest mind and will.”  
~Dogmatic Constitution on the Church #25

Mary's explanation of the text:

"Actually the assent that is requested of the faithful is clearly stated as a religious assent which is not at all an assent of faith. It is the obedience one offers to a religious superior even when the novice, or brother, or monk knows that the superior is in error. It is an assent of respect for the office and an exercise of humility and obedience in all things but sin."

I myself would be hesitant to say that one must be obedient to the magisterium when it is in error.
I'm curious to know where Mary--I assume you mean elijahmaria--said this. A link to the pertinent post will suffice.
« Last Edit: December 01, 2011, 04:36:24 PM by PeterTheAleut » Logged
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #12 on: December 01, 2011, 04:44:59 PM »

I'm curious to know where Mary--I assume you mean elijahmaria--said this. A link to the pertinent post will suffice.

Please see message 162
at
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,41224.msg675331.html#msg675331
Logged
William
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: None
Posts: 4,306


« Reply #13 on: December 01, 2011, 07:14:42 PM »

I am as good at reading tea leaves as you are in discerning the call and guidance of the Holy Spirit.

That's reprehensible.
Logged

Apart from moral conduct, all that man thinks himself able to do in order to become acceptable to God is mere superstition and religious folly. - Immanuel Kant

Leave there thy gift before the altar, and go thy way; first be reconciled to thy brother, and then come and offer thy gift. - Matt. 5:24
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,444



« Reply #14 on: December 01, 2011, 11:34:08 PM »

What is a magisterium? What do the Catholics call a magisterium? Is there only one, or are their others?
When Catholics refer to the magisterium, it just means "the teaching authority of the Church." So, when the Pope and all the Bishops in communion with him gather together in an Ecumenical Council and define dogma, that is binding because it is magisterial teaching. The Catechism of the Catholic Church is filled with magisterial teachings.

I'm aware of this. However, the way Isa has been using 'magisterium' makes me wonder how familiar he is with the word.

I threw the number of magisteria out there to see if he was familiar with the understanding of extraordinary and ordinary magesterium (or even other discussions that break it down further).
yes, I'm very familiar with the term and the degrees of theological certitude etc., and have refered to, cited, etc. the dogmatic schema many a time.
Logged

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

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #15 on: December 02, 2011, 12:11:25 AM »

What is a magisterium? What do the Catholics call a magisterium? Is there only one, or are their others?
When Catholics refer to the magisterium, it just means "the teaching authority of the Church." So, when the Pope and all the Bishops in communion with him gather together in an Ecumenical Council and define dogma, that is binding because it is magisterial teaching. The Catechism of the Catholic Church is filled with magisterial teachings.

I'm aware of this. However, the way Isa has been using 'magisterium' makes me wonder how familiar he is with the word.

I threw the number of magisteria out there to see if he was familiar with the understanding of extraordinary and ordinary magesterium (or even other discussions that break it down further).

I find the concept of the Ordinary Universal Magisterium quite fascinating.  It is competent to produce infallible teachings *without* a magisterial definition.
Logged
Aindriú
Faster! Funnier!
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

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



WWW
« Reply #16 on: December 02, 2011, 01:27:40 AM »

What is a magisterium? What do the Catholics call a magisterium? Is there only one, or are their others?
When Catholics refer to the magisterium, it just means "the teaching authority of the Church." So, when the Pope and all the Bishops in communion with him gather together in an Ecumenical Council and define dogma, that is binding because it is magisterial teaching. The Catechism of the Catholic Church is filled with magisterial teachings.

I'm aware of this. However, the way Isa has been using 'magisterium' makes me wonder how familiar he is with the word.

I threw the number of magisteria out there to see if he was familiar with the understanding of extraordinary and ordinary magesterium (or even other discussions that break it down further).

I find the concept of the Ordinary Universal Magisterium quite fascinating.  It is competent to produce infallible teachings *without* a magisterial definition.

If I'm not mistaken, an example would be an ecumenical council.
Logged


I'm going to need this.
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #17 on: December 02, 2011, 02:01:28 AM »

I find the concept of the Ordinary Universal Magisterium quite fascinating.  It is competent to produce infallible teachings *without* a magisterial definition.

If I'm not mistaken, an example would be an ecumenical council.

I am not sure.   What an Ecumenical Council teaches, even if there are a 1000 bishops attending and agreeing, may be nullified by the Pope.  Until the Pope has ratified each article of a Council the teachings have no authority.  So this does not appear to be an exercise of the Ordinary Universal Magisterium producing infallible teaching.
Logged
ZealousZeal
Gainsaying Helpmeet
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: ✔
Posts: 2,675


Never cease to intercede for us, your children.


« Reply #18 on: December 02, 2011, 02:15:45 AM »

I am as good at reading tea leaves as you are in discerning the call and guidance of the Holy Spirit.

That's reprehensible.

I agree. Pretty uncharitable and needlessly personal.
Logged

"For this God is our God forever and ever; He will be our guide, even to the end." Psalm 48:14
primuspilus
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian Orthodox Archdiocese of North America - Western Rite Orthodox
Posts: 6,313


Inserting personal quote here.


WWW
« Reply #19 on: December 02, 2011, 11:31:35 AM »

I am as good at reading tea leaves as you are in discerning the call and guidance of the Holy Spirit.

That's reprehensible.

I agree. Pretty uncharitable and needlessly personal.
Totally bad. Shame.


PP
Logged

"I confidently affirm that whoever calls himself Universal Bishop is the precursor of Antichrist"
Gregory the Great

"Never, never, never let anyone tell you that, in order to be Orthodox, you must also be eastern." St. John Maximovitch, The Wonderworker
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #20 on: December 03, 2011, 04:51:07 PM »

What is a magisterium? What do the Catholics call a magisterium? Is there only one, or are their others?
When Catholics refer to the magisterium, it just means "the teaching authority of the Church." So, when the Pope and all the Bishops in communion with him gather together in an Ecumenical Council and define dogma, that is binding because it is magisterial teaching. The Catechism of the Catholic Church is filled with magisterial teachings.

I'm aware of this. However, the way Isa has been using 'magisterium' makes me wonder how familiar he is with the word.

I threw the number of magisteria out there to see if he was familiar with the understanding of extraordinary and ordinary magesterium (or even other discussions that break it down further).

I find the concept of the Ordinary Universal Magisterium quite fascinating.  It is competent to produce infallible teachings *without* a magisterial definition.


Message 121 at http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,41387.msg676149.html#msg676149  is relevant to this question.  Could somebody please look at it and see if they can provide us with an answer, in this thread.   Interesting that teachings such as Limbo and the fire of purgatory were seen as infallible teachings of the Universal Ordinary Magisterium.
Logged
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #21 on: December 03, 2011, 05:02:38 PM »

Both the Imprimatur and Nihil Obstat, the first issued by the local ordinary and the latter issued by the diocesan censor who is delegated by the bishop and can be ANYONE of that bishop's choosing, carry no real weight beyond the see of the local ordinary issuing the declaration and the release.

So no matter what you say or anyone else says, the release to publish is predicated on the question of whether or not the text EXPLICITLY and PURPOSEFULLY does harm to the faith: which are the formal elements of heresy by the way: and it is a release that only bears any real weight within that bishops sphere of influence which is his local see.

It was NEVER meant, and is not meant to be a blanket statement that everything in the text is formally true and formally the teaching of the Church.
Logged

Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #22 on: December 03, 2011, 06:28:10 PM »

Both the Imprimatur and Nihil Obstat, the first issued by the local ordinary and the latter issued by the diocesan censor who is delegated by the bishop and can be ANYONE of that bishop's choosing, carry no real weight beyond the see of the local ordinary issuing the declaration and the release.

So no matter what you say or anyone else says, the release to publish is predicated on the question of whether or not the text EXPLICITLY and PURPOSEFULLY does harm to the faith: which are the formal elements of heresy by the way: and it is a release that only bears any real weight within that bishops sphere of influence which is his local see.

It was NEVER meant, and is not meant to be a blanket statement that everything in the text is formally true and formally the teaching of the Church.


Well, at least you do have accurate knowledge about this.  As you'll have seen a couple of our Catholic posters did not.
Logged
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #23 on: December 03, 2011, 06:36:18 PM »

Both the Imprimatur and Nihil Obstat, the first issued by the local ordinary and the latter issued by the diocesan censor who is delegated by the bishop and can be ANYONE of that bishop's choosing, carry no real weight beyond the see of the local ordinary issuing the declaration and the release.

So no matter what you say or anyone else says, the release to publish is predicated on the question of whether or not the text EXPLICITLY and PURPOSEFULLY does harm to the faith: which are the formal elements of heresy by the way: and it is a release that only bears any real weight within that bishops sphere of influence which is his local see.

It was NEVER meant, and is not meant to be a blanket statement that everything in the text is formally true and formally the teaching of the Church.


Well, at least you do have accurate knowledge about this.  As you'll have seen a couple of our Catholic posters did not.

I have also been doing this longer than most of them and have the direct guidance of a spiritual father who has been doing this at a local level for a whole lot longer than either you or I have been doing it.

But I appreciate your release of my understanding here for publication:  Smiley
Logged

Shiny
Site Supporter
Moderated
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

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


Paint It Red


« Reply #24 on: December 03, 2011, 07:21:12 PM »

I am as good at reading tea leaves as you are in discerning the call and guidance of the Holy Spirit.

That's reprehensible.
Agreed.
Logged

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

– St. Ambrose of Milan
Wyatt
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Posts: 2,395


« Reply #25 on: December 04, 2011, 12:55:53 PM »

Both the Imprimatur and Nihil Obstat, the first issued by the local ordinary and the latter issued by the diocesan censor who is delegated by the bishop and can be ANYONE of that bishop's choosing, carry no real weight beyond the see of the local ordinary issuing the declaration and the release.

So no matter what you say or anyone else says, the release to publish is predicated on the question of whether or not the text EXPLICITLY and PURPOSEFULLY does harm to the faith: which are the formal elements of heresy by the way: and it is a release that only bears any real weight within that bishops sphere of influence which is his local see.

It was NEVER meant, and is not meant to be a blanket statement that everything in the text is formally true and formally the teaching of the Church.


Well, at least you do have accurate knowledge about this.  As you'll have seen a couple of our Catholic posters did not.
Yes...because getting the nihil obstat and imprimatur mixed up is totally shameful. Father, you still haven't answered my question. Why didn't you correct ialmisry when he was equating nihil obstats and imprimaturs with magisterial teaching? Such a beacon of truth as yourself would surely find such a gross misrepresentation appalling, no?
Logged
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #26 on: December 04, 2011, 06:18:41 PM »

Both the Imprimatur and Nihil Obstat, the first issued by the local ordinary and the latter issued by the diocesan censor who is delegated by the bishop and can be ANYONE of that bishop's choosing, carry no real weight beyond the see of the local ordinary issuing the declaration and the release.

So no matter what you say or anyone else says, the release to publish is predicated on the question of whether or not the text EXPLICITLY and PURPOSEFULLY does harm to the faith: which are the formal elements of heresy by the way: and it is a release that only bears any real weight within that bishops sphere of influence which is his local see.

It was NEVER meant, and is not meant to be a blanket statement that everything in the text is formally true and formally the teaching of the Church.


Well, at least you do have accurate knowledge about this.  As you'll have seen a couple of our Catholic posters did not.

I have also been doing this longer than most of them and have the direct guidance of a spiritual father who has been doing this at a local level for a whole lot longer than either you or I have been doing it.


My days of tertiary study are way back in the dark ages.  But I am knocking 66 and presume your spiritual director is a decade or two older.
Logged
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,182


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #27 on: December 04, 2011, 07:49:49 PM »

Both the Imprimatur and Nihil Obstat, the first issued by the local ordinary and the latter issued by the diocesan censor who is delegated by the bishop and can be ANYONE of that bishop's choosing, carry no real weight beyond the see of the local ordinary issuing the declaration and the release.

So no matter what you say or anyone else says, the release to publish is predicated on the question of whether or not the text EXPLICITLY and PURPOSEFULLY does harm to the faith: which are the formal elements of heresy by the way: and it is a release that only bears any real weight within that bishops sphere of influence which is his local see.

It was NEVER meant, and is not meant to be a blanket statement that everything in the text is formally true and formally the teaching of the Church.


Well, at least you do have accurate knowledge about this.  As you'll have seen a couple of our Catholic posters did not.
Yes...because getting the nihil obstat and imprimatur mixed up is totally shameful. Father, you still haven't answered my question. Why didn't you correct ialmisry when he was equating nihil obstats and imprimaturs with magisterial teaching? Such a beacon of truth as yourself would surely find such a gross misrepresentation appalling, no?
This is an excellent question!!!!
Logged

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

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #28 on: December 04, 2011, 08:14:24 PM »

Both the Imprimatur and Nihil Obstat, the first issued by the local ordinary and the latter issued by the diocesan censor who is delegated by the bishop and can be ANYONE of that bishop's choosing, carry no real weight beyond the see of the local ordinary issuing the declaration and the release.

So no matter what you say or anyone else says, the release to publish is predicated on the question of whether or not the text EXPLICITLY and PURPOSEFULLY does harm to the faith: which are the formal elements of heresy by the way: and it is a release that only bears any real weight within that bishops sphere of influence which is his local see.

It was NEVER meant, and is not meant to be a blanket statement that everything in the text is formally true and formally the teaching of the Church.


Well, at least you do have accurate knowledge about this.  As you'll have seen a couple of our Catholic posters did not.

I have also been doing this longer than most of them and have the direct guidance of a spiritual father who has been doing this at a local level for a whole lot longer than either you or I have been doing it.


My days of tertiary study are way back in the dark ages.  But I am knocking 66 and presume your spiritual director is a decade or two older.

A decade.  But he began his vocation in his early teens, so it's been his life for a good long time.
Logged

Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #29 on: December 04, 2011, 09:03:29 PM »

Both the Imprimatur and Nihil Obstat, the first issued by the local ordinary and the latter issued by the diocesan censor who is delegated by the bishop and can be ANYONE of that bishop's choosing, carry no real weight beyond the see of the local ordinary issuing the declaration and the release.

So no matter what you say or anyone else says, the release to publish is predicated on the question of whether or not the text EXPLICITLY and PURPOSEFULLY does harm to the faith: which are the formal elements of heresy by the way: and it is a release that only bears any real weight within that bishops sphere of influence which is his local see.

It was NEVER meant, and is not meant to be a blanket statement that everything in the text is formally true and formally the teaching of the Church.


Well, at least you do have accurate knowledge about this.  As you'll have seen a couple of our Catholic posters did not.
Yes...because getting the nihil obstat and imprimatur mixed up is totally shameful. Father, you still haven't answered my question. Why didn't you correct ialmisry when he was equating nihil obstats and imprimaturs with magisterial teaching? Such a beacon of truth as yourself would surely find such a gross misrepresentation appalling, no?

I did not notice Isa's message - and I only made a comment on the Catholic confusion because the Orthodox have been sharply criticised of late.
Logged
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #30 on: December 04, 2011, 09:06:33 PM »

Both the Imprimatur and Nihil Obstat, the first issued by the local ordinary and the latter issued by the diocesan censor who is delegated by the bishop and can be ANYONE of that bishop's choosing, carry no real weight beyond the see of the local ordinary issuing the declaration and the release.

So no matter what you say or anyone else says, the release to publish is predicated on the question of whether or not the text EXPLICITLY and PURPOSEFULLY does harm to the faith: which are the formal elements of heresy by the way: and it is a release that only bears any real weight within that bishops sphere of influence which is his local see.

It was NEVER meant, and is not meant to be a blanket statement that everything in the text is formally true and formally the teaching of the Church.


Well, at least you do have accurate knowledge about this.  As you'll have seen a couple of our Catholic posters did not.

I have also been doing this longer than most of them and have the direct guidance of a spiritual father who has been doing this at a local level for a whole lot longer than either you or I have been doing it.


My days of tertiary study are way back in the dark ages.  But I am knocking 66 and presume your spiritual director is a decade or two older.

A decade.  But he began his vocation in his early teens, so it's been his life for a good long time.

He must be quite remarkable, to commence a vocation as a spiritual director in his early teens.
Logged
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,444



« Reply #31 on: December 04, 2011, 09:07:29 PM »

Both the Imprimatur and Nihil Obstat, the first issued by the local ordinary and the latter issued by the diocesan censor who is delegated by the bishop and can be ANYONE of that bishop's choosing, carry no real weight beyond the see of the local ordinary issuing the declaration and the release.

So no matter what you say or anyone else says, the release to publish is predicated on the question of whether or not the text EXPLICITLY and PURPOSEFULLY does harm to the faith: which are the formal elements of heresy by the way: and it is a release that only bears any real weight within that bishops sphere of influence which is his local see.

It was NEVER meant, and is not meant to be a blanket statement that everything in the text is formally true and formally the teaching of the Church.

So, like I asked before, Anton LaVey's "Satanic Bible" can get an imprimatur and nihil obstat?
Logged

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

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,444



« Reply #32 on: December 04, 2011, 09:09:47 PM »

Both the Imprimatur and Nihil Obstat, the first issued by the local ordinary and the latter issued by the diocesan censor who is delegated by the bishop and can be ANYONE of that bishop's choosing, carry no real weight beyond the see of the local ordinary issuing the declaration and the release.

So no matter what you say or anyone else says, the release to publish is predicated on the question of whether or not the text EXPLICITLY and PURPOSEFULLY does harm to the faith: which are the formal elements of heresy by the way: and it is a release that only bears any real weight within that bishops sphere of influence which is his local see.

It was NEVER meant, and is not meant to be a blanket statement that everything in the text is formally true and formally the teaching of the Church.


Well, at least you do have accurate knowledge about this.  As you'll have seen a couple of our Catholic posters did not.
Yes...because getting the nihil obstat and imprimatur mixed up is totally shameful. Father, you still haven't answered my question. Why didn't you correct ialmisry when he was equating nihil obstats and imprimaturs with magisterial teaching? Such a beacon of truth as yourself would surely find such a gross misrepresentation appalling, no?
I never equated nihil obstat and imprimaturs with magisterial teachings, as I have repeatedly pointed out nailing down what is the Vatican's "magisterial teaching" is like nailing jello to the floor.
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 #33 on: December 04, 2011, 09:11:09 PM »

Both the Imprimatur and Nihil Obstat, the first issued by the local ordinary and the latter issued by the diocesan censor who is delegated by the bishop and can be ANYONE of that bishop's choosing, carry no real weight beyond the see of the local ordinary issuing the declaration and the release.

So no matter what you say or anyone else says, the release to publish is predicated on the question of whether or not the text EXPLICITLY and PURPOSEFULLY does harm to the faith: which are the formal elements of heresy by the way: and it is a release that only bears any real weight within that bishops sphere of influence which is his local see.

It was NEVER meant, and is not meant to be a blanket statement that everything in the text is formally true and formally the teaching of the Church.


Well, at least you do have accurate knowledge about this.  As you'll have seen a couple of our Catholic posters did not.

I have also been doing this longer than most of them and have the direct guidance of a spiritual father who has been doing this at a local level for a whole lot longer than either you or I have been doing it.


My days of tertiary study are way back in the dark ages.  But I am knocking 66 and presume your spiritual director is a decade or two older.

A decade.  But he began his vocation in his early teens, so it's been his life for a good long time.

He must be quite remarkable, to commence a vocation as a spiritual director in his early teens.

Is this supposed to be funny?
Logged

Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #34 on: December 04, 2011, 09:14:48 PM »

Both the Imprimatur and Nihil Obstat, the first issued by the local ordinary and the latter issued by the diocesan censor who is delegated by the bishop and can be ANYONE of that bishop's choosing, carry no real weight beyond the see of the local ordinary issuing the declaration and the release.

So no matter what you say or anyone else says, the release to publish is predicated on the question of whether or not the text EXPLICITLY and PURPOSEFULLY does harm to the faith: which are the formal elements of heresy by the way: and it is a release that only bears any real weight within that bishops sphere of influence which is his local see.

It was NEVER meant, and is not meant to be a blanket statement that everything in the text is formally true and formally the teaching of the Church.


Well, at least you do have accurate knowledge about this.  As you'll have seen a couple of our Catholic posters did not.

I have also been doing this longer than most of them and have the direct guidance of a spiritual father who has been doing this at a local level for a whole lot longer than either you or I have been doing it.


My days of tertiary study are way back in the dark ages.  But I am knocking 66 and presume your spiritual director is a decade or two older.

A decade.  But he began his vocation in his early teens, so it's been his life for a good long time.

He must be quite remarkable, to commence a vocation as a spiritual director in his early teens.

Is this supposed to be funny?
The only vocation you have mentioned is that of spiritual father.  Is that not what you really meant?  Are you speaking about his entering a minor seminary at 12 or 13?  It was not uncommon in those days.
Logged
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,182


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #35 on: December 04, 2011, 09:16:13 PM »

Both the Imprimatur and Nihil Obstat, the first issued by the local ordinary and the latter issued by the diocesan censor who is delegated by the bishop and can be ANYONE of that bishop's choosing, carry no real weight beyond the see of the local ordinary issuing the declaration and the release.

So no matter what you say or anyone else says, the release to publish is predicated on the question of whether or not the text EXPLICITLY and PURPOSEFULLY does harm to the faith: which are the formal elements of heresy by the way: and it is a release that only bears any real weight within that bishops sphere of influence which is his local see.

It was NEVER meant, and is not meant to be a blanket statement that everything in the text is formally true and formally the teaching of the Church.


Well, at least you do have accurate knowledge about this.  As you'll have seen a couple of our Catholic posters did not.
Yes...because getting the nihil obstat and imprimatur mixed up is totally shameful. Father, you still haven't answered my question. Why didn't you correct ialmisry when he was equating nihil obstats and imprimaturs with magisterial teaching? Such a beacon of truth as yourself would surely find such a gross misrepresentation appalling, no?
I never equated nihil obstat and imprimaturs with magisterial teachings, as I have repeatedly pointed out nailing down what is the Vatican's "magisterial teaching" is like nailing jello to the floor.
Nope. The reason you are so frustrated is that you are looking for a magesterial teaching when there is not one on the particular issue that spawned this discussion.
Logged

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

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #36 on: December 04, 2011, 09:20:48 PM »

Both the Imprimatur and Nihil Obstat, the first issued by the local ordinary and the latter issued by the diocesan censor who is delegated by the bishop and can be ANYONE of that bishop's choosing, carry no real weight beyond the see of the local ordinary issuing the declaration and the release.

So no matter what you say or anyone else says, the release to publish is predicated on the question of whether or not the text EXPLICITLY and PURPOSEFULLY does harm to the faith: which are the formal elements of heresy by the way: and it is a release that only bears any real weight within that bishops sphere of influence which is his local see.

It was NEVER meant, and is not meant to be a blanket statement that everything in the text is formally true and formally the teaching of the Church.


Well, at least you do have accurate knowledge about this.  As you'll have seen a couple of our Catholic posters did not.

I have also been doing this longer than most of them and have the direct guidance of a spiritual father who has been doing this at a local level for a whole lot longer than either you or I have been doing it.


My days of tertiary study are way back in the dark ages.  But I am knocking 66 and presume your spiritual director is a decade or two older.

A decade.  But he began his vocation in his early teens, so it's been his life for a good long time.

He must be quite remarkable, to commence a vocation as a spiritual director in his early teens.

Is this supposed to be funny?
The only vocation you have mentioned is that of spiritual father.  Is that not what you really meant?  Are you speaking about his entering a minor seminary at 12 or 13?  It was not uncommon in those days.

I have referred to him on occasion as Father...and you know him to be a priest, so I was a bit taken aback by your comments. 

There were other options besides minor seminary for young men who were trying to discern a call.
« Last Edit: December 04, 2011, 09:25:59 PM by elijahmaria » Logged

Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #37 on: December 04, 2011, 09:21:30 PM »

Both the Imprimatur and Nihil Obstat, the first issued by the local ordinary and the latter issued by the diocesan censor who is delegated by the bishop and can be ANYONE of that bishop's choosing, carry no real weight beyond the see of the local ordinary issuing the declaration and the release.

So no matter what you say or anyone else says, the release to publish is predicated on the question of whether or not the text EXPLICITLY and PURPOSEFULLY does harm to the faith: which are the formal elements of heresy by the way: and it is a release that only bears any real weight within that bishops sphere of influence which is his local see.

It was NEVER meant, and is not meant to be a blanket statement that everything in the text is formally true and formally the teaching of the Church.


Well, at least you do have accurate knowledge about this.  As you'll have seen a couple of our Catholic posters did not.
Yes...because getting the nihil obstat and imprimatur mixed up is totally shameful. Father, you still haven't answered my question. Why didn't you correct ialmisry when he was equating nihil obstats and imprimaturs with magisterial teaching? Such a beacon of truth as yourself would surely find such a gross misrepresentation appalling, no?
I never equated nihil obstat and imprimaturs with magisterial teachings, as I have repeatedly pointed out nailing down what is the Vatican's "magisterial teaching" is like nailing jello to the floor.
Nope. The reason you are so frustrated is that you are looking for a magesterial teaching when there is not one on the particular issue that spawned this discussion.

Are you certain?  Can one not find an infallible teaching in the Universal Ordinary Magisterium?  If not, then why not?
Logged
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,182


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #38 on: December 04, 2011, 09:36:58 PM »

Both the Imprimatur and Nihil Obstat, the first issued by the local ordinary and the latter issued by the diocesan censor who is delegated by the bishop and can be ANYONE of that bishop's choosing, carry no real weight beyond the see of the local ordinary issuing the declaration and the release.

So no matter what you say or anyone else says, the release to publish is predicated on the question of whether or not the text EXPLICITLY and PURPOSEFULLY does harm to the faith: which are the formal elements of heresy by the way: and it is a release that only bears any real weight within that bishops sphere of influence which is his local see.

It was NEVER meant, and is not meant to be a blanket statement that everything in the text is formally true and formally the teaching of the Church.


Well, at least you do have accurate knowledge about this.  As you'll have seen a couple of our Catholic posters did not.
Yes...because getting the nihil obstat and imprimatur mixed up is totally shameful. Father, you still haven't answered my question. Why didn't you correct ialmisry when he was equating nihil obstats and imprimaturs with magisterial teaching? Such a beacon of truth as yourself would surely find such a gross misrepresentation appalling, no?
I never equated nihil obstat and imprimaturs with magisterial teachings, as I have repeatedly pointed out nailing down what is the Vatican's "magisterial teaching" is like nailing jello to the floor.
Nope. The reason you are so frustrated is that you are looking for a magesterial teaching when there is not one on the particular issue that spawned this discussion.

Are you certain?  Can one not find an infallible teaching in the Universal Ordinary Magisterium?  If not, then why not?
Why is there not a magesterial teaching on whether Mary was impeccable? I dunno. Why is there not such a teaching on every single aspect of her life?
Logged

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

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #39 on: December 04, 2011, 09:41:48 PM »

Both the Imprimatur and Nihil Obstat, the first issued by the local ordinary and the latter issued by the diocesan censor who is delegated by the bishop and can be ANYONE of that bishop's choosing, carry no real weight beyond the see of the local ordinary issuing the declaration and the release.

So no matter what you say or anyone else says, the release to publish is predicated on the question of whether or not the text EXPLICITLY and PURPOSEFULLY does harm to the faith: which are the formal elements of heresy by the way: and it is a release that only bears any real weight within that bishops sphere of influence which is his local see.

It was NEVER meant, and is not meant to be a blanket statement that everything in the text is formally true and formally the teaching of the Church.


Well, at least you do have accurate knowledge about this.  As you'll have seen a couple of our Catholic posters did not.
Yes...because getting the nihil obstat and imprimatur mixed up is totally shameful. Father, you still haven't answered my question. Why didn't you correct ialmisry when he was equating nihil obstats and imprimaturs with magisterial teaching? Such a beacon of truth as yourself would surely find such a gross misrepresentation appalling, no?
I never equated nihil obstat and imprimaturs with magisterial teachings, as I have repeatedly pointed out nailing down what is the Vatican's "magisterial teaching" is like nailing jello to the floor.
Nope. The reason you are so frustrated is that you are looking for a magesterial teaching when there is not one on the particular issue that spawned this discussion.

Are you certain?  Can one not find an infallible teaching in the Universal Ordinary Magisterium?  If not, then why not?
Why is there not a magesterial teaching on whether Mary was impeccable? I dunno. Why is there not such a teaching on every single aspect of her life?

There is the formal teaching that she is immaculate for her entire life, by grace.  Which is de facto the teaching on impeccability.  There is also the formal teaching that her Magnificat was an act of her free will.

So you cannot take one part of that to the exclusion of the other. 
Logged

Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,182


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #40 on: December 04, 2011, 09:51:56 PM »

Both the Imprimatur and Nihil Obstat, the first issued by the local ordinary and the latter issued by the diocesan censor who is delegated by the bishop and can be ANYONE of that bishop's choosing, carry no real weight beyond the see of the local ordinary issuing the declaration and the release.

So no matter what you say or anyone else says, the release to publish is predicated on the question of whether or not the text EXPLICITLY and PURPOSEFULLY does harm to the faith: which are the formal elements of heresy by the way: and it is a release that only bears any real weight within that bishops sphere of influence which is his local see.

It was NEVER meant, and is not meant to be a blanket statement that everything in the text is formally true and formally the teaching of the Church.


Well, at least you do have accurate knowledge about this.  As you'll have seen a couple of our Catholic posters did not.
Yes...because getting the nihil obstat and imprimatur mixed up is totally shameful. Father, you still haven't answered my question. Why didn't you correct ialmisry when he was equating nihil obstats and imprimaturs with magisterial teaching? Such a beacon of truth as yourself would surely find such a gross misrepresentation appalling, no?
I never equated nihil obstat and imprimaturs with magisterial teachings, as I have repeatedly pointed out nailing down what is the Vatican's "magisterial teaching" is like nailing jello to the floor.
Nope. The reason you are so frustrated is that you are looking for a magesterial teaching when there is not one on the particular issue that spawned this discussion.

Are you certain?  Can one not find an infallible teaching in the Universal Ordinary Magisterium?  If not, then why not?
Why is there not a magesterial teaching on whether Mary was impeccable? I dunno. Why is there not such a teaching on every single aspect of her life?

There is the formal teaching that she is immaculate for her entire life, by grace.  Which is de facto the teaching on impeccability.  There is also the formal teaching that her Magnificat was an act of her free will.

So you cannot take one part of that to the exclusion of the other. 
Fair enough.
Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,444



« Reply #41 on: December 04, 2011, 10:05:42 PM »

Both the Imprimatur and Nihil Obstat, the first issued by the local ordinary and the latter issued by the diocesan censor who is delegated by the bishop and can be ANYONE of that bishop's choosing, carry no real weight beyond the see of the local ordinary issuing the declaration and the release.

So no matter what you say or anyone else says, the release to publish is predicated on the question of whether or not the text EXPLICITLY and PURPOSEFULLY does harm to the faith: which are the formal elements of heresy by the way: and it is a release that only bears any real weight within that bishops sphere of influence which is his local see.

It was NEVER meant, and is not meant to be a blanket statement that everything in the text is formally true and formally the teaching of the Church.


Well, at least you do have accurate knowledge about this.  As you'll have seen a couple of our Catholic posters did not.
Yes...because getting the nihil obstat and imprimatur mixed up is totally shameful. Father, you still haven't answered my question. Why didn't you correct ialmisry when he was equating nihil obstats and imprimaturs with magisterial teaching? Such a beacon of truth as yourself would surely find such a gross misrepresentation appalling, no?
I never equated nihil obstat and imprimaturs with magisterial teachings, as I have repeatedly pointed out nailing down what is the Vatican's "magisterial teaching" is like nailing jello to the floor.
Nope. The reason you are so frustrated is that you are looking for a magesterial teaching when there is not one on the particular issue that spawned this discussion.
Frustrated? LOL. If I took the Vatican's claims seriously, and had to harmonize them, and with reality, maybe I would be.  Not having that burden, I have no source of frustration in whatever it wants to put its seal of approval (or whatever you claim its stamp means to you:my point is that the magisterial teaching means nothing) on.
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 #42 on: December 04, 2011, 10:08:36 PM »

Both the Imprimatur and Nihil Obstat, the first issued by the local ordinary and the latter issued by the diocesan censor who is delegated by the bishop and can be ANYONE of that bishop's choosing, carry no real weight beyond the see of the local ordinary issuing the declaration and the release.

So no matter what you say or anyone else says, the release to publish is predicated on the question of whether or not the text EXPLICITLY and PURPOSEFULLY does harm to the faith: which are the formal elements of heresy by the way: and it is a release that only bears any real weight within that bishops sphere of influence which is his local see.

It was NEVER meant, and is not meant to be a blanket statement that everything in the text is formally true and formally the teaching of the Church.


Well, at least you do have accurate knowledge about this.  As you'll have seen a couple of our Catholic posters did not.
Yes...because getting the nihil obstat and imprimatur mixed up is totally shameful. Father, you still haven't answered my question. Why didn't you correct ialmisry when he was equating nihil obstats and imprimaturs with magisterial teaching? Such a beacon of truth as yourself would surely find such a gross misrepresentation appalling, no?
I never equated nihil obstat and imprimaturs with magisterial teachings, as I have repeatedly pointed out nailing down what is the Vatican's "magisterial teaching" is like nailing jello to the floor.
Nope. The reason you are so frustrated is that you are looking for a magesterial teaching when there is not one on the particular issue that spawned this discussion.
Frustrated? LOL. If I took the Vatican's claims seriously, and had to harmonize them, and with reality, maybe I would be.  Not having that burden, I have no source of frustration in whatever it wants to put its seal of approval (or whatever you claim its stamp means to you:my point is that the magisterial teaching means nothing) on.

I see this as being much the same thing as Orthodox weasel words failing to convince so many Protestants who challenge Orthodox teaching.  We don't need to convince you al Misry.  We are not trying to convert you, and we realize your disdain is permanent.
« Last Edit: December 04, 2011, 10:16:54 PM by elijahmaria » Logged

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

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,444



« Reply #43 on: December 04, 2011, 10:10:30 PM »

Both the Imprimatur and Nihil Obstat, the first issued by the local ordinary and the latter issued by the diocesan censor who is delegated by the bishop and can be ANYONE of that bishop's choosing, carry no real weight beyond the see of the local ordinary issuing the declaration and the release.

So no matter what you say or anyone else says, the release to publish is predicated on the question of whether or not the text EXPLICITLY and PURPOSEFULLY does harm to the faith: which are the formal elements of heresy by the way: and it is a release that only bears any real weight within that bishops sphere of influence which is his local see.

It was NEVER meant, and is not meant to be a blanket statement that everything in the text is formally true and formally the teaching of the Church.


Well, at least you do have accurate knowledge about this.  As you'll have seen a couple of our Catholic posters did not.
Yes...because getting the nihil obstat and imprimatur mixed up is totally shameful. Father, you still haven't answered my question. Why didn't you correct ialmisry when he was equating nihil obstats and imprimaturs with magisterial teaching? Such a beacon of truth as yourself would surely find such a gross misrepresentation appalling, no?
I never equated nihil obstat and imprimaturs with magisterial teachings, as I have repeatedly pointed out nailing down what is the Vatican's "magisterial teaching" is like nailing jello to the floor.
Nope. The reason you are so frustrated is that you are looking for a magesterial teaching when there is not one on the particular issue that spawned this discussion.

Are you certain?  Can one not find an infallible teaching in the Universal Ordinary Magisterium?  If not, then why not?
Why is there not a magesterial teaching on whether Mary was impeccable? I dunno. Why is there not such a teaching on every single aspect of her life?
Since the Vatican has seen fit to dogmatize "in the first instance of her conception" to her "having completed the course of her earthly life" and beyond, it would seem the Vatican is in a mad dash to dogmatize every single aspect of her life.
Logged

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

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,444



« Reply #44 on: December 04, 2011, 10:18:08 PM »

Both the Imprimatur and Nihil Obstat, the first issued by the local ordinary and the latter issued by the diocesan censor who is delegated by the bishop and can be ANYONE of that bishop's choosing, carry no real weight beyond the see of the local ordinary issuing the declaration and the release.

So no matter what you say or anyone else says, the release to publish is predicated on the question of whether or not the text EXPLICITLY and PURPOSEFULLY does harm to the faith: which are the formal elements of heresy by the way: and it is a release that only bears any real weight within that bishops sphere of influence which is his local see.

It was NEVER meant, and is not meant to be a blanket statement that everything in the text is formally true and formally the teaching of the Church.


Well, at least you do have accurate knowledge about this.  As you'll have seen a couple of our Catholic posters did not.
Yes...because getting the nihil obstat and imprimatur mixed up is totally shameful. Father, you still haven't answered my question. Why didn't you correct ialmisry when he was equating nihil obstats and imprimaturs with magisterial teaching? Such a beacon of truth as yourself would surely find such a gross misrepresentation appalling, no?
I never equated nihil obstat and imprimaturs with magisterial teachings, as I have repeatedly pointed out nailing down what is the Vatican's "magisterial teaching" is like nailing jello to the floor.
Nope. The reason you are so frustrated is that you are looking for a magesterial teaching when there is not one on the particular issue that spawned this discussion.
Frustrated? LOL. If I took the Vatican's claims seriously, and had to harmonize them, and with reality, maybe I would be.  Not having that burden, I have no source of frustration in whatever it wants to put its seal of approval (or whatever you claim its stamp means to you:my point is that the magisterial teaching means nothing) on.

I see this as being much the same thing as Orthodox weasel words failing to convince so many Protestants who challenge Orthodox teaching.  We don't need to convince you al Misry.  We are not trying to convert you, and we realize your disdain is a permanent.
yes, so many Protestants are blown away by the weasel words "imprimatur," "nihil obstat" and "ex cathedra." Roll Eyes

As for Protestants challenging Orthodox teaching, I've known too many who finally came around decades later to worry too much about that.
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 #45 on: December 04, 2011, 10:25:32 PM »

Both the Imprimatur and Nihil Obstat, the first issued by the local ordinary and the latter issued by the diocesan censor who is delegated by the bishop and can be ANYONE of that bishop's choosing, carry no real weight beyond the see of the local ordinary issuing the declaration and the release.

So no matter what you say or anyone else says, the release to publish is predicated on the question of whether or not the text EXPLICITLY and PURPOSEFULLY does harm to the faith: which are the formal elements of heresy by the way: and it is a release that only bears any real weight within that bishops sphere of influence which is his local see.

It was NEVER meant, and is not meant to be a blanket statement that everything in the text is formally true and formally the teaching of the Church.


Well, at least you do have accurate knowledge about this.  As you'll have seen a couple of our Catholic posters did not.
Yes...because getting the nihil obstat and imprimatur mixed up is totally shameful. Father, you still haven't answered my question. Why didn't you correct ialmisry when he was equating nihil obstats and imprimaturs with magisterial teaching? Such a beacon of truth as yourself would surely find such a gross misrepresentation appalling, no?
I never equated nihil obstat and imprimaturs with magisterial teachings, as I have repeatedly pointed out nailing down what is the Vatican's "magisterial teaching" is like nailing jello to the floor.
Nope. The reason you are so frustrated is that you are looking for a magesterial teaching when there is not one on the particular issue that spawned this discussion.
Frustrated? LOL. If I took the Vatican's claims seriously, and had to harmonize them, and with reality, maybe I would be.  Not having that burden, I have no source of frustration in whatever it wants to put its seal of approval (or whatever you claim its stamp means to you:my point is that the magisterial teaching means nothing) on.

I see this as being much the same thing as Orthodox weasel words failing to convince so many Protestants who challenge Orthodox teaching.  We don't need to convince you al Misry.  We are not trying to convert you, and we realize your disdain is a permanent.
yes, so many Protestants are blown away by the weasel words "imprimatur," "nihil obstat" and "ex cathedra." Roll Eyes

As for Protestants challenging Orthodox teaching, I've known too many who finally came around decades later to worry too much about that.

I know many who have not come around, as you say, many of them are in the Catholic Church now and some of them remain convinced that both Orthodox and Catholic teachings are evil. 

I also know many Catholics who succumbed to Orthodoxy only to return to the Church of their Baptism...unless of course they have spouses and families in Orthodoxy.  They tend to remain.

So it is a very fluid kind of world, this world of souls. 

Best, as you say, not to worry.
Logged

Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,182


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #46 on: December 04, 2011, 10:26:23 PM »

Both the Imprimatur and Nihil Obstat, the first issued by the local ordinary and the latter issued by the diocesan censor who is delegated by the bishop and can be ANYONE of that bishop's choosing, carry no real weight beyond the see of the local ordinary issuing the declaration and the release.

So no matter what you say or anyone else says, the release to publish is predicated on the question of whether or not the text EXPLICITLY and PURPOSEFULLY does harm to the faith: which are the formal elements of heresy by the way: and it is a release that only bears any real weight within that bishops sphere of influence which is his local see.

It was NEVER meant, and is not meant to be a blanket statement that everything in the text is formally true and formally the teaching of the Church.


Well, at least you do have accurate knowledge about this.  As you'll have seen a couple of our Catholic posters did not.
Yes...because getting the nihil obstat and imprimatur mixed up is totally shameful. Father, you still haven't answered my question. Why didn't you correct ialmisry when he was equating nihil obstats and imprimaturs with magisterial teaching? Such a beacon of truth as yourself would surely find such a gross misrepresentation appalling, no?
I never equated nihil obstat and imprimaturs with magisterial teachings, as I have repeatedly pointed out nailing down what is the Vatican's "magisterial teaching" is like nailing jello to the floor.
Nope. The reason you are so frustrated is that you are looking for a magesterial teaching when there is not one on the particular issue that spawned this discussion.
Frustrated? LOL. If I took the Vatican's claims seriously, and had to harmonize them, and with reality, maybe I would be.  Not having that burden, I have no source of frustration in whatever it wants to put its seal of approval (or whatever you claim its stamp means to you:my point is that the magisterial teaching means nothing) on.

I see this as being much the same thing as Orthodox weasel words failing to convince so many Protestants who challenge Orthodox teaching.  We don't need to convince you al Misry.  We are not trying to convert you, and we realize your disdain is a permanent.
yes, so many Protestants are blown away by the weasel words "imprimatur," "nihil obstat" and "ex cathedra." Roll Eyes

As for Protestants challenging Orthodox teaching, I've known too many who finally came around decades later to worry too much about that.
Its weasely to characterize some one else's church as "weasely" just to advance your agenda of scoring points.
Logged

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

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #47 on: December 04, 2011, 10:32:05 PM »

Both the Imprimatur and Nihil Obstat, the first issued by the local ordinary and the latter issued by the diocesan censor who is delegated by the bishop and can be ANYONE of that bishop's choosing, carry no real weight beyond the see of the local ordinary issuing the declaration and the release.

So no matter what you say or anyone else says, the release to publish is predicated on the question of whether or not the text EXPLICITLY and PURPOSEFULLY does harm to the faith: which are the formal elements of heresy by the way: and it is a release that only bears any real weight within that bishops sphere of influence which is his local see.

It was NEVER meant, and is not meant to be a blanket statement that everything in the text is formally true and formally the teaching of the Church.


Well, at least you do have accurate knowledge about this.  As you'll have seen a couple of our Catholic posters did not.
Yes...because getting the nihil obstat and imprimatur mixed up is totally shameful. Father, you still haven't answered my question. Why didn't you correct ialmisry when he was equating nihil obstats and imprimaturs with magisterial teaching? Such a beacon of truth as yourself would surely find such a gross misrepresentation appalling, no?
I never equated nihil obstat and imprimaturs with magisterial teachings, as I have repeatedly pointed out nailing down what is the Vatican's "magisterial teaching" is like nailing jello to the floor.
Nope. The reason you are so frustrated is that you are looking for a magesterial teaching when there is not one on the particular issue that spawned this discussion.
Frustrated? LOL. If I took the Vatican's claims seriously, and had to harmonize them, and with reality, maybe I would be.  Not having that burden, I have no source of frustration in whatever it wants to put its seal of approval (or whatever you claim its stamp means to you:my point is that the magisterial teaching means nothing) on.

I see this as being much the same thing as Orthodox weasel words failing to convince so many Protestants who challenge Orthodox teaching.  We don't need to convince you al Misry.  We are not trying to convert you, and we realize your disdain is a permanent.
yes, so many Protestants are blown away by the weasel words "imprimatur," "nihil obstat" and "ex cathedra." Roll Eyes

As for Protestants challenging Orthodox teaching, I've known too many who finally came around decades later to worry too much about that.
Its weasely to characterize some one else's church as "weasely" just to advance your agenda of scoring points.

He responded to my reference to Orthodox who habitually refer to Catholic explanations of some teaching or other as "weasel words", particularly when they do not agree with the teaching...whether or not they understand it is irrelevant for this point.  I find, with no little humor, the same kinds of so-called weasel words being used by Orthodox who try to explain the meaning of some contested teaching to Protestants.

Logged

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

Faith: Catholic
Posts: 2,395


« Reply #48 on: December 05, 2011, 02:20:25 AM »

Both the Imprimatur and Nihil Obstat, the first issued by the local ordinary and the latter issued by the diocesan censor who is delegated by the bishop and can be ANYONE of that bishop's choosing, carry no real weight beyond the see of the local ordinary issuing the declaration and the release.

So no matter what you say or anyone else says, the release to publish is predicated on the question of whether or not the text EXPLICITLY and PURPOSEFULLY does harm to the faith: which are the formal elements of heresy by the way: and it is a release that only bears any real weight within that bishops sphere of influence which is his local see.

It was NEVER meant, and is not meant to be a blanket statement that everything in the text is formally true and formally the teaching of the Church.


Well, at least you do have accurate knowledge about this.  As you'll have seen a couple of our Catholic posters did not.
Yes...because getting the nihil obstat and imprimatur mixed up is totally shameful. Father, you still haven't answered my question. Why didn't you correct ialmisry when he was equating nihil obstats and imprimaturs with magisterial teaching? Such a beacon of truth as yourself would surely find such a gross misrepresentation appalling, no?

I did not notice Isa's message - and I only made a comment on the Catholic confusion because the Orthodox have been sharply criticised of late.
Ah...so a knee-jerk reaction based on perceived bullying of your co-religionists completely divorced from logic and rationality. Got it! How convenient to notice the splinter in our eye......

Both the Imprimatur and Nihil Obstat, the first issued by the local ordinary and the latter issued by the diocesan censor who is delegated by the bishop and can be ANYONE of that bishop's choosing, carry no real weight beyond the see of the local ordinary issuing the declaration and the release.

So no matter what you say or anyone else says, the release to publish is predicated on the question of whether or not the text EXPLICITLY and PURPOSEFULLY does harm to the faith: which are the formal elements of heresy by the way: and it is a release that only bears any real weight within that bishops sphere of influence which is his local see.

It was NEVER meant, and is not meant to be a blanket statement that everything in the text is formally true and formally the teaching of the Church.


Well, at least you do have accurate knowledge about this.  As you'll have seen a couple of our Catholic posters did not.
Yes...because getting the nihil obstat and imprimatur mixed up is totally shameful. Father, you still haven't answered my question. Why didn't you correct ialmisry when he was equating nihil obstats and imprimaturs with magisterial teaching? Such a beacon of truth as yourself would surely find such a gross misrepresentation appalling, no?
I never equated nihil obstat and imprimaturs with magisterial teachings, as I have repeatedly pointed out nailing down what is the Vatican's "magisterial teaching" is like nailing jello to the floor.
Nope. The reason you are so frustrated is that you are looking for a magesterial teaching when there is not one on the particular issue that spawned this discussion.

Are you certain?  Can one not find an infallible teaching in the Universal Ordinary Magisterium?  If not, then why not?
Why is there not a magesterial teaching on whether Mary was impeccable? I dunno. Why is there not such a teaching on every single aspect of her life?
Since the Vatican has seen fit to dogmatize "in the first instance of her conception" to her "having completed the course of her earthly life" and beyond, it would seem the Vatican is in a mad dash to dogmatize every single aspect of her life.
Oh wow...how dare we Catholics glorify the Blessed Virgin Mary, mother of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, God the Son Incarnate by dogmatizing key parts of her life which only further give glory to God. What gall!
Logged
podkarpatska
Merarches
***********
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: ACROD
Posts: 8,214


SS Cyril and Methodius Church, Mercer, PA


WWW
« Reply #49 on: December 05, 2011, 12:24:23 PM »

In going through my dad's old papers from the days of the great divisions within the American Ruthenian Greek Catholic church during the 1920's through the 1940's, there were many polemical and/or apologetic publications issued by the Eparchy of Pittsburgh which contained both Imprimaturs and Nihil Obstats regarding the actions of the clergy and faithful who dared to challenge Bishop Takach and Rome.

Reading them today it is rather clear that neither the Imprimatur nor the Nihil Obstats gave any of them the power of the magisterium or the  current teachings or understandings of the Roman Church with respect to the Orthodox and the meanings of the Unions of Brest or Uzghorod.

Rather they represented at best prevailing 'theological opinion' and at worst, a blatant attempt to intimidate the laity by using the church's equivalent of the 'Goodhousekeeping Seal of Approval' through the use of exageration and hyperbole. Sort of like the internet today!  Wink Wink
Logged
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #50 on: December 05, 2011, 12:38:08 PM »

In going through my dad's old papers from the days of the great divisions within the American Ruthenian Greek Catholic church during the 1920's through the 1940's, there were many polemical and/or apologetic publications issued by the Eparchy of Pittsburgh which contained both Imprimaturs and Nihil Obstats regarding the actions of the clergy and faithful who dared to challenge Bishop Takach and Rome.

Reading them today it is rather clear that neither the Imprimatur nor the Nihil Obstats gave any of them the power of the magisterium or the  current teachings or understandings of the Roman Church with respect to the Orthodox and the meanings of the Unions of Brest or Uzghorod.

Rather they represented at best prevailing 'theological opinion' and at worst, a blatant attempt to intimidate the laity by using the church's equivalent of the 'Goodhousekeeping Seal of Approval' through the use of exageration and hyperbole. Sort of like the internet today!  Wink Wink

Just a gentle reminder that you are talking about the opinions of one bishop and his appointed censor. 
Logged

podkarpatska
Merarches
***********
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: ACROD
Posts: 8,214


SS Cyril and Methodius Church, Mercer, PA


WWW
« Reply #51 on: December 05, 2011, 01:10:33 PM »

In going through my dad's old papers from the days of the great divisions within the American Ruthenian Greek Catholic church during the 1920's through the 1940's, there were many polemical and/or apologetic publications issued by the Eparchy of Pittsburgh which contained both Imprimaturs and Nihil Obstats regarding the actions of the clergy and faithful who dared to challenge Bishop Takach and Rome.

Reading them today it is rather clear that neither the Imprimatur nor the Nihil Obstats gave any of them the power of the magisterium or the  current teachings or understandings of the Roman Church with respect to the Orthodox and the meanings of the Unions of Brest or Uzghorod.

Rather they represented at best prevailing 'theological opinion' and at worst, a blatant attempt to intimidate the laity by using the church's equivalent of the 'Goodhousekeeping Seal of Approval' through the use of exageration and hyperbole. Sort of like the internet today!  Wink Wink

Just a gentle reminder that you are talking about the opinions of one bishop and his appointed censor. 

That was my point however, it shows the  reality of what these things mean. I sense that individual Bishops united with Rome like to stress their view of centralized Roman eccesiology when it suits their purposes and to minimize the same when they take issue within the administration of their own Dioceses! (Imagine that, they like Federalism when it supports their agenda and they are states righters' depending on the issue! Just like American politicians!!!)

 One can certainly argue that neither east nor west are currently entirely faithful to the views of the early fathers regarding these issues!
Logged
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #52 on: December 05, 2011, 01:17:56 PM »

In going through my dad's old papers from the days of the great divisions within the American Ruthenian Greek Catholic church during the 1920's through the 1940's, there were many polemical and/or apologetic publications issued by the Eparchy of Pittsburgh which contained both Imprimaturs and Nihil Obstats regarding the actions of the clergy and faithful who dared to challenge Bishop Takach and Rome.

Reading them today it is rather clear that neither the Imprimatur nor the Nihil Obstats gave any of them the power of the magisterium or the  current teachings or understandings of the Roman Church with respect to the Orthodox and the meanings of the Unions of Brest or Uzghorod.

Rather they represented at best prevailing 'theological opinion' and at worst, a blatant attempt to intimidate the laity by using the church's equivalent of the 'Goodhousekeeping Seal of Approval' through the use of exageration and hyperbole. Sort of like the internet today!  Wink Wink

Just a gentle reminder that you are talking about the opinions of one bishop and his appointed censor. 

That was my point however, it shows the  reality of what these things mean. I sense that individual Bishops united with Rome like to stress their view of centralized Roman eccesiology when it suits their purposes and to minimize the same when they take issue within the administration of their own Dioceses! (Imagine that, they like Federalism when it supports their agenda and they are states righters' depending on the issue! Just like American politicians!!!)

 One can certainly argue that neither east nor west are currently entirely faithful to the views of the early fathers regarding these issues!

Yes! 

And with respect to the early fathers, why would be be entirely faithful to their way of being and doing?  They were not +entirely+ faithful [equivalent] in their own dealings with one another. 

We are a living Body.  Our members make mistakes, have terrible habits and sin without ceasing almost as much as other members pray without ceasing.  If there is a golden mean to be found in theological or moral terms then it will be found in our interactions, not in some static lawbook.  I think there's a gospel or two about that in fact.

M.
Logged

Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #53 on: December 05, 2011, 04:27:14 PM »

Quote from: irish hermit
I did not notice Isa's message - and I only made a comment on the Catholic confusion because the Orthodox have been sharply criticised of late.

Ah...so a knee-jerk reaction based on perceived bullying of your co-religionists completely divorced from logic and rationality. Got it! How convenient to notice the splinter in our eye......


A knee-jerk reaction?  Ha! ha! ha!  But do I detect a note of bile in your words? Wink
Logged
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #54 on: December 05, 2011, 04:34:09 PM »

Oh wow...how dare we Catholics glorify the Blessed Virgin Mary, mother of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, God the Son Incarnate by dogmatizing key parts of her life which only further give glory to God. What gall!

Here are the words of Saint Bernard of Clairvaux who was rather horrified by the emerging doctrine of the Immaculate Conception

“....the glorification given to the Queen of Heaven demands discernment.
This Royal Virgin does not have need of false glorifications...

For the full text see message 204
at
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,15456.msg382653.html#msg382653
Logged
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #55 on: December 05, 2011, 04:43:26 PM »

Oh wow...how dare we Catholics glorify the Blessed Virgin Mary, mother of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, God the Son Incarnate by dogmatizing key parts of her life which only further give glory to God. What gall!

Here are the words of Saint Bernard of Clairvaux who was rather horrified by the emerging doctrine of the Immaculate Conception

“....the glorification given to the Queen of Heaven demands discernment.
This Royal Virgin does not have need of false glorifications...

For the full text see message 204
at
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,15456.msg382653.html#msg382653

And we all know that St. Bernard does not reflect the teaching of the Church. 

And your point is?...............
Logged

Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #56 on: December 05, 2011, 04:56:53 PM »

Oh wow...how dare we Catholics glorify the Blessed Virgin Mary, mother of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, God the Son Incarnate by dogmatizing key parts of her life which only further give glory to God. What gall!

Here are the words of Saint Bernard of Clairvaux who was rather horrified by the emerging doctrine of the Immaculate Conception

“....the glorification given to the Queen of Heaven demands discernment.
This Royal Virgin does not have need of false glorifications...

For the full text see message 204
at
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,15456.msg382653.html#msg382653

And we all know that St. Bernard does not reflect the teaching of the Church. 

And your point is?...............


But Saint Bernard represents the age old tradition of the Church.  He knew that the emerging doctrine of immaculate conception was an aberration.

My point?  It was a response to Wyatt's comment.
Logged
J Michael
Older than dirt; dumber than a box of rocks; colossally ignorant; a little crazy ;-)
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine
Posts: 10,032


Lord, have mercy! I live under a rock. Alleluia!


« Reply #57 on: December 05, 2011, 05:07:37 PM »

Oh wow...how dare we Catholics glorify the Blessed Virgin Mary, mother of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, God the Son Incarnate by dogmatizing key parts of her life which only further give glory to God. What gall!

Here are the words of Saint Bernard of Clairvaux who was rather horrified by the emerging doctrine of the Immaculate Conception

“....the glorification given to the Queen of Heaven demands discernment.
This Royal Virgin does not have need of false glorifications...

For the full text see message 204
at
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,15456.msg382653.html#msg382653

And we all know that St. Bernard does not reflect the teaching of the Church. 

And your point is?...............


But Saint Bernard represents the age old tradition of the Church.  He knew that the emerging doctrine of immaculate conception was an aberration.

My point?  It was a response to Wyatt's comment.

I have enormous respect and reverence for St. Bernard.  He may represent the "age old tradition of the Church", as you say, but.....is everything that he said and/or wrote correct, completely in conformity with the teachings of the Church as a whole, or "infallible"?  A simple "yes" or "no" would be refreshing  Wink.  Then we could go from there, if necessary.
Logged

"May Thy Cross, O Lord, in which I seek refuge, be for me a bridge across the great river of fire.  May I pass along it to the habitation of life." ~St. Ephraim the Syrian
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #58 on: December 05, 2011, 05:48:05 PM »

Oh wow...how dare we Catholics glorify the Blessed Virgin Mary, mother of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, God the Son Incarnate by dogmatizing key parts of her life which only further give glory to God. What gall!

Here are the words of Saint Bernard of Clairvaux who was rather horrified by the emerging doctrine of the Immaculate Conception

“....the glorification given to the Queen of Heaven demands discernment.
This Royal Virgin does not have need of false glorifications...

For the full text see message 204
at
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,15456.msg382653.html#msg382653

And we all know that St. Bernard does not reflect the teaching of the Church.  

And your point is?...............


But Saint Bernard represents the age old tradition of the Church.  He knew that the emerging doctrine of immaculate conception was an aberration.

My point?  It was a response to Wyatt's comment.

I have enormous respect and reverence for St. Bernard.  He may represent the "age old tradition of the Church", as you say, but.....is everything that he said and/or wrote correct, completely in conformity with the teachings of the Church as a whole, or "infallible"?  A simple "yes" or "no" would be refreshing  Wink.  Then we could go from there, if necessary.

No.

His enthusiastic preaching and support of the Crusades is completely out of line with the Gospel of Christ, something quite extraordinary for a monk.  To his credit, he was horrified by the Catholic slaughter of the Jews in the Holy Land.

Apart from the Crusades, many Orthodox greatly respect him and consider him the last of the Westerners to stand in the patristic tradition before it was overlaid by the incoming schoolmen.

« Last Edit: December 05, 2011, 05:57:41 PM by Irish Hermit » Logged
J Michael
Older than dirt; dumber than a box of rocks; colossally ignorant; a little crazy ;-)
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine
Posts: 10,032


Lord, have mercy! I live under a rock. Alleluia!


« Reply #59 on: December 05, 2011, 05:56:58 PM »

Oh wow...how dare we Catholics glorify the Blessed Virgin Mary, mother of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, God the Son Incarnate by dogmatizing key parts of her life which only further give glory to God. What gall!

Here are the words of Saint Bernard of Clairvaux who was rather horrified by the emerging doctrine of the Immaculate Conception

“....the glorification given to the Queen of Heaven demands discernment.
This Royal Virgin does not have need of false glorifications...

For the full text see message 204
at
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,15456.msg382653.html#msg382653

And we all know that St. Bernard does not reflect the teaching of the Church.  

And your point is?...............


But Saint Bernard represents the age old tradition of the Church.  He knew that the emerging doctrine of immaculate conception was an aberration.

My point?  It was a response to Wyatt's comment.

I have enormous respect and reverence for St. Bernard.  He may represent the "age old tradition of the Church", as you say, but.....is everything that he said and/or wrote correct, completely in conformity with the teachings of the Church as a whole, or "infallible"?  A simple "yes" or "no" would be refreshing  Wink.  Then we could go from there, if necessary.

No.


Thank you, Father.

Given your answer, is there even a tiny, miniscule, sub-atomic, remote **possibility** that he could have been incorrect in his writings about "the emerging doctrine of the Immaculate Conception"?
Logged

"May Thy Cross, O Lord, in which I seek refuge, be for me a bridge across the great river of fire.  May I pass along it to the habitation of life." ~St. Ephraim the Syrian
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #60 on: December 05, 2011, 06:01:47 PM »

Oh wow...how dare we Catholics glorify the Blessed Virgin Mary, mother of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, God the Son Incarnate by dogmatizing key parts of her life which only further give glory to God. What gall!

Here are the words of Saint Bernard of Clairvaux who was rather horrified by the emerging doctrine of the Immaculate Conception

“....the glorification given to the Queen of Heaven demands discernment.
This Royal Virgin does not have need of false glorifications...

For the full text see message 204
at
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,15456.msg382653.html#msg382653

And we all know that St. Bernard does not reflect the teaching of the Church.  

And your point is?...............


But Saint Bernard represents the age old tradition of the Church.  He knew that the emerging doctrine of immaculate conception was an aberration.

My point?  It was a response to Wyatt's comment.

I have enormous respect and reverence for St. Bernard.  He may represent the "age old tradition of the Church", as you say, but.....is everything that he said and/or wrote correct, completely in conformity with the teachings of the Church as a whole, or "infallible"?  A simple "yes" or "no" would be refreshing  Wink.  Then we could go from there, if necessary.

No.


Thank you, Father.

Given your answer, is there even a tiny, miniscule, sub-atomic, remote **possibility** that he could have been incorrect in his writings about "the emerging doctrine of the Immaculate Conception"?

No.  Because he was being faithful to the tradition of the Church.   As were Thomas Aquinas, and Catherine of Siena who also opposed it.  The entire Dominican Order opposed it and fought pitched battles with the Franciscans across Europe in parishes and universities.

Bernard points out that this was novel doctrtine unkown in the tradition of the Church...

"I am frightened now, seeing that certain of you have desired to change the
condition of important matters, introducing a new festival unknown to the
Church, unapproved by reason, unjustified by ancient tradition. Are we
really more learned and more pious than our fathers?


For the full text see message 204
at
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,15456.msg382653.html#msg382653
« Last Edit: December 05, 2011, 06:05:19 PM by Irish Hermit » Logged
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #61 on: December 05, 2011, 06:13:29 PM »

Sorry. Wrong thread.
« Last Edit: December 05, 2011, 06:14:53 PM by Irish Hermit » Logged
J Michael
Older than dirt; dumber than a box of rocks; colossally ignorant; a little crazy ;-)
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine
Posts: 10,032


Lord, have mercy! I live under a rock. Alleluia!


« Reply #62 on: December 05, 2011, 06:23:32 PM »

Oh wow...how dare we Catholics glorify the Blessed Virgin Mary, mother of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, God the Son Incarnate by dogmatizing key parts of her life which only further give glory to God. What gall!

Here are the words of Saint Bernard of Clairvaux who was rather horrified by the emerging doctrine of the Immaculate Conception

“....the glorification given to the Queen of Heaven demands discernment.
This Royal Virgin does not have need of false glorifications...

For the full text see message 204
at
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,15456.msg382653.html#msg382653

And we all know that St. Bernard does not reflect the teaching of the Church.  

And your point is?...............


But Saint Bernard represents the age old tradition of the Church.  He knew that the emerging doctrine of immaculate conception was an aberration.

My point?  It was a response to Wyatt's comment.

I have enormous respect and reverence for St. Bernard.  He may represent the "age old tradition of the Church", as you say, but.....is everything that he said and/or wrote correct, completely in conformity with the teachings of the Church as a whole, or "infallible"?  A simple "yes" or "no" would be refreshing  Wink.  Then we could go from there, if necessary.

No.


Thank you, Father.

Given your answer, is there even a tiny, miniscule, sub-atomic, remote **possibility** that he could have been incorrect in his writings about "the emerging doctrine of the Immaculate Conception"?

No.  Because he was being faithful to the tradition of the Church.   As were Thomas Aquinas, and Catherine of Siena who also opposed it.  The entire Dominican Order opposed it and fought pitched battles with the Franciscans across Europe in parishes and universities.

Bernard points out that this was novel doctrtine unkown in the tradition of the Church...

"I am frightened now, seeing that certain of you have desired to change the
condition of important matters, introducing a new festival unknown to the
Church, unapproved by reason, unjustified by ancient tradition. Are we
really more learned and more pious than our fathers?


For the full text see message 204
at
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,15456.msg382653.html#msg382653

Thanks, again, Father.

Interesting.  But there have been innumerable threads and posts about the IC, so I don't think I need to take this any further, except to ask you if the opposition you mention might not possibly have been based on some kind of misunderstanding of what was, at the time, being presented?  Perhaps I'm asking the wrong person, though, because, being Orthodox you will almost certainly be opposed to the IC and will see things and understand them through that particular lens, if you know what I mean.  Yes, yes, I know, a Catholic will see it through a different lens  Wink.

I clearly remember one Orthodox priest I knew saying quite unreservedly during a discussion about the IC, that the Orthodox have basically the same understanding of the IC that Catholics do, but just object to it being a formalized, infallible dogma.  Was he wrong?
Logged

"May Thy Cross, O Lord, in which I seek refuge, be for me a bridge across the great river of fire.  May I pass along it to the habitation of life." ~St. Ephraim the Syrian
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #63 on: December 05, 2011, 06:31:57 PM »

Oh wow...how dare we Catholics glorify the Blessed Virgin Mary, mother of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, God the Son Incarnate by dogmatizing key parts of her life which only further give glory to God. What gall!

Here are the words of Saint Bernard of Clairvaux who was rather horrified by the emerging doctrine of the Immaculate Conception

“....the glorification given to the Queen of Heaven demands discernment.
This Royal Virgin does not have need of false glorifications...

For the full text see message 204
at
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,15456.msg382653.html#msg382653

And we all know that St. Bernard does not reflect the teaching of the Church.  

And your point is?...............


But Saint Bernard represents the age old tradition of the Church.  He knew that the emerging doctrine of immaculate conception was an aberration.

My point?  It was a response to Wyatt's comment.

I have enormous respect and reverence for St. Bernard.  He may represent the "age old tradition of the Church", as you say, but.....is everything that he said and/or wrote correct, completely in conformity with the teachings of the Church as a whole, or "infallible"?  A simple "yes" or "no" would be refreshing  Wink.  Then we could go from there, if necessary.

No.


Thank you, Father.

Given your answer, is there even a tiny, miniscule, sub-atomic, remote **possibility** that he could have been incorrect in his writings about "the emerging doctrine of the Immaculate Conception"?

No.  Because he was being faithful to the tradition of the Church.   As were Thomas Aquinas, and Catherine of Siena who also opposed it.  The entire Dominican Order opposed it and fought pitched battles with the Franciscans across Europe in parishes and universities.

Bernard points out that this was novel doctrtine unkown in the tradition of the Church...

"I am frightened now, seeing that certain of you have desired to change the
condition of important matters, introducing a new festival unknown to the
Church, unapproved by reason, unjustified by ancient tradition. Are we
really more learned and more pious than our fathers?


For the full text see message 204
at
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,15456.msg382653.html#msg382653

Thanks, again, Father.

Interesting.  But there have been innumerable threads and posts about the IC, so I don't think I need to take this any further, except to ask you if the opposition you mention might not possibly have been based on some kind of misunderstanding of what was, at the time, being presented?  Perhaps I'm asking the wrong person, though, because, being Orthodox you will almost certainly be opposed to the IC and will see things and understand them through that particular lens, if you know what I mean.  Yes, yes, I know, a Catholic will see it through a different lens  Wink.

I clearly remember one Orthodox priest I knew saying quite unreservedly during a discussion about the IC, that the Orthodox have basically the same understanding of the IC that Catholics do, but just object to it being a formalized, infallible dogma.  Was he wrong?


Absolutely.  It's a superficial answer.  The Orthodox teaching on the immaculate conception is that every human being is conceived in the same spiritual state as the Mother of God.  Pope Benedict, the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, Mrs McGillicuddy, you and me -  all conceived in the identical spiritual state as the Mother of God.

There's the Orthodox teaching.  Ask that Orthodox priest if he denies it? Wink
« Last Edit: December 05, 2011, 06:34:03 PM by Irish Hermit » Logged
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #64 on: December 05, 2011, 07:43:08 PM »

Oh wow...how dare we Catholics glorify the Blessed Virgin Mary, mother of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, God the Son Incarnate by dogmatizing key parts of her life which only further give glory to God. What gall!

Here are the words of Saint Bernard of Clairvaux who was rather horrified by the emerging doctrine of the Immaculate Conception

“....the glorification given to the Queen of Heaven demands discernment.
This Royal Virgin does not have need of false glorifications...

For the full text see message 204
at
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,15456.msg382653.html#msg382653

And we all know that St. Bernard does not reflect the teaching of the Church.  

And your point is?...............


But Saint Bernard represents the age old tradition of the Church.  He knew that the emerging doctrine of immaculate conception was an aberration.

My point?  It was a response to Wyatt's comment.

I have enormous respect and reverence for St. Bernard.  He may represent the "age old tradition of the Church", as you say, but.....is everything that he said and/or wrote correct, completely in conformity with the teachings of the Church as a whole, or "infallible"?  A simple "yes" or "no" would be refreshing  Wink.  Then we could go from there, if necessary.

No.


Thank you, Father.

Given your answer, is there even a tiny, miniscule, sub-atomic, remote **possibility** that he could have been incorrect in his writings about "the emerging doctrine of the Immaculate Conception"?

No.  Because he was being faithful to the tradition of the Church.   As were Thomas Aquinas, and Catherine of Siena who also opposed it.  The entire Dominican Order opposed it and fought pitched battles with the Franciscans across Europe in parishes and universities.

Bernard points out that this was novel doctrtine unkown in the tradition of the Church...

"I am frightened now, seeing that certain of you have desired to change the
condition of important matters, introducing a new festival unknown to the
Church, unapproved by reason, unjustified by ancient tradition. Are we
really more learned and more pious than our fathers?


For the full text see message 204
at
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,15456.msg382653.html#msg382653

Thanks, again, Father.

Interesting.  But there have been innumerable threads and posts about the IC, so I don't think I need to take this any further, except to ask you if the opposition you mention might not possibly have been based on some kind of misunderstanding of what was, at the time, being presented?  Perhaps I'm asking the wrong person, though, because, being Orthodox you will almost certainly be opposed to the IC and will see things and understand them through that particular lens, if you know what I mean.  Yes, yes, I know, a Catholic will see it through a different lens  Wink.

I clearly remember one Orthodox priest I knew saying quite unreservedly during a discussion about the IC, that the Orthodox have basically the same understanding of the IC that Catholics do, but just object to it being a formalized, infallible dogma.  Was he wrong?


Absolutely.  It's a superficial answer.  The Orthodox teaching on the immaculate conception is that every human being is conceived in the same spiritual state as the Mother of God.  Pope Benedict, the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, Mrs McGillicuddy, you and me -  all conceived in the identical spiritual state as the Mother of God.

There's the Orthodox teaching.  Ask that Orthodox priest if he denies it? Wink

I've heard more than one say that there is no problem with Orthodox believers accepting the Immaculate Conception as a pious belief.

Nobody but you invokes the McGillicuddies... angel
Logged

Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #65 on: December 05, 2011, 08:11:20 PM »

Oh wow...how dare we Catholics glorify the Blessed Virgin Mary, mother of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, God the Son Incarnate by dogmatizing key parts of her life which only further give glory to God. What gall!

Here are the words of Saint Bernard of Clairvaux who was rather horrified by the emerging doctrine of the Immaculate Conception

“....the glorification given to the Queen of Heaven demands discernment.
This Royal Virgin does not have need of false glorifications...

For the full text see message 204
at
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,15456.msg382653.html#msg382653

And we all know that St. Bernard does not reflect the teaching of the Church.  

And your point is?...............


But Saint Bernard represents the age old tradition of the Church.  He knew that the emerging doctrine of immaculate conception was an aberration.

My point?  It was a response to Wyatt's comment.

I have enormous respect and reverence for St. Bernard.  He may represent the "age old tradition of the Church", as you say, but.....is everything that he said and/or wrote correct, completely in conformity with the teachings of the Church as a whole, or "infallible"?  A simple "yes" or "no" would be refreshing  Wink.  Then we could go from there, if necessary.

No.


Thank you, Father.

Given your answer, is there even a tiny, miniscule, sub-atomic, remote **possibility** that he could have been incorrect in his writings about "the emerging doctrine of the Immaculate Conception"?

No.  Because he was being faithful to the tradition of the Church.   As were Thomas Aquinas, and Catherine of Siena who also opposed it.  The entire Dominican Order opposed it and fought pitched battles with the Franciscans across Europe in parishes and universities.

Bernard points out that this was novel doctrtine unkown in the tradition of the Church...

"I am frightened now, seeing that certain of you have desired to change the
condition of important matters, introducing a new festival unknown to the
Church, unapproved by reason, unjustified by ancient tradition. Are we
really more learned and more pious than our fathers?


For the full text see message 204
at
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,15456.msg382653.html#msg382653

Thanks, again, Father.

Interesting.  But there have been innumerable threads and posts about the IC, so I don't think I need to take this any further, except to ask you if the opposition you mention might not possibly have been based on some kind of misunderstanding of what was, at the time, being presented?  Perhaps I'm asking the wrong person, though, because, being Orthodox you will almost certainly be opposed to the IC and will see things and understand them through that particular lens, if you know what I mean.  Yes, yes, I know, a Catholic will see it through a different lens  Wink.

I clearly remember one Orthodox priest I knew saying quite unreservedly during a discussion about the IC, that the Orthodox have basically the same understanding of the IC that Catholics do, but just object to it being a formalized, infallible dogma.  Was he wrong?


Absolutely.  It's a superficial answer.  The Orthodox teaching on the immaculate conception is that every human being is conceived in the same spiritual state as the Mother of God.  Pope Benedict, the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, Mrs McGillicuddy, you and me -  all conceived in the identical spiritual state as the Mother of God.

There's the Orthodox teaching.  Ask that Orthodox priest if he denies it? Wink

I've heard more than one say that there is no problem with Orthodox believers accepting the Immaculate Conception as a pious belief.

Provided that the pious belief states that She and all humans are conceived in the same spiritual state, there is no problem.  Provided that pious belief states that there was no exception made for Her. 

Logged
Aindriú
Faster! Funnier!
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

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



WWW
« Reply #66 on: December 05, 2011, 08:16:21 PM »

Oh wow...how dare we Catholics glorify the Blessed Virgin Mary, mother of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, God the Son Incarnate by dogmatizing key parts of her life which only further give glory to God. What gall!

Here are the words of Saint Bernard of Clairvaux who was rather horrified by the emerging doctrine of the Immaculate Conception

“....the glorification given to the Queen of Heaven demands discernment.
This Royal Virgin does not have need of false glorifications...

For the full text see message 204
at
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,15456.msg382653.html#msg382653

And we all know that St. Bernard does not reflect the teaching of the Church.  

And your point is?...............


But Saint Bernard represents the age old tradition of the Church.  He knew that the emerging doctrine of immaculate conception was an aberration.

My point?  It was a response to Wyatt's comment.

I have enormous respect and reverence for St. Bernard.  He may represent the "age old tradition of the Church", as you say, but.....is everything that he said and/or wrote correct, completely in conformity with the teachings of the Church as a whole, or "infallible"?  A simple "yes" or "no" would be refreshing  Wink.  Then we could go from there, if necessary.

No.


Thank you, Father.

Given your answer, is there even a tiny, miniscule, sub-atomic, remote **possibility** that he could have been incorrect in his writings about "the emerging doctrine of the Immaculate Conception"?

No.  Because he was being faithful to the tradition of the Church.   As were Thomas Aquinas, and Catherine of Siena who also opposed it.  The entire Dominican Order opposed it and fought pitched battles with the Franciscans across Europe in parishes and universities.

Bernard points out that this was novel doctrtine unkown in the tradition of the Church...

"I am frightened now, seeing that certain of you have desired to change the
condition of important matters, introducing a new festival unknown to the
Church, unapproved by reason, unjustified by ancient tradition. Are we
really more learned and more pious than our fathers?


For the full text see message 204
at
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,15456.msg382653.html#msg382653

Thanks, again, Father.

Interesting.  But there have been innumerable threads and posts about the IC, so I don't think I need to take this any further, except to ask you if the opposition you mention might not possibly have been based on some kind of misunderstanding of what was, at the time, being presented?  Perhaps I'm asking the wrong person, though, because, being Orthodox you will almost certainly be opposed to the IC and will see things and understand them through that particular lens, if you know what I mean.  Yes, yes, I know, a Catholic will see it through a different lens  Wink.

I clearly remember one Orthodox priest I knew saying quite unreservedly during a discussion about the IC, that the Orthodox have basically the same understanding of the IC that Catholics do, but just object to it being a formalized, infallible dogma.  Was he wrong?


Absolutely.  It's a superficial answer.  The Orthodox teaching on the immaculate conception is that every human being is conceived in the same spiritual state as the Mother of God.  Pope Benedict, the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, Mrs McGillicuddy, you and me -  all conceived in the identical spiritual state as the Mother of God.

There's the Orthodox teaching.  Ask that Orthodox priest if he denies it? Wink

I've heard more than one say that there is no problem with Orthodox believers accepting the Immaculate Conception as a pious belief.

Provided that the pious belief states that She and all humans are conceived in the same spiritual state, there is no problem.  Provided that pious belief states that there was no exception made for Her. 



I have trouble believing that.

"It's ok to believe in the IC.... as long as you don't ACTUALLY believe it."
Logged


I'm going to need this.
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #67 on: December 05, 2011, 08:31:48 PM »

Oh wow...how dare we Catholics glorify the Blessed Virgin Mary, mother of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, God the Son Incarnate by dogmatizing key parts of her life which only further give glory to God. What gall!

Here are the words of Saint Bernard of Clairvaux who was rather horrified by the emerging doctrine of the Immaculate Conception

“....the glorification given to the Queen of Heaven demands discernment.
This Royal Virgin does not have need of false glorifications...

For the full text see message 204
at
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,15456.msg382653.html#msg382653

And we all know that St. Bernard does not reflect the teaching of the Church.  

And your point is?...............


But Saint Bernard represents the age old tradition of the Church.  He knew that the emerging doctrine of immaculate conception was an aberration.

My point?  It was a response to Wyatt's comment.

I have enormous respect and reverence for St. Bernard.  He may represent the "age old tradition of the Church", as you say, but.....is everything that he said and/or wrote correct, completely in conformity with the teachings of the Church as a whole, or "infallible"?  A simple "yes" or "no" would be refreshing  Wink.  Then we could go from there, if necessary.

No.


Thank you, Father.

Given your answer, is there even a tiny, miniscule, sub-atomic, remote **possibility** that he could have been incorrect in his writings about "the emerging doctrine of the Immaculate Conception"?

No.  Because he was being faithful to the tradition of the Church.   As were Thomas Aquinas, and Catherine of Siena who also opposed it.  The entire Dominican Order opposed it and fought pitched battles with the Franciscans across Europe in parishes and universities.

Bernard points out that this was novel doctrtine unkown in the tradition of the Church...

"I am frightened now, seeing that certain of you have desired to change the
condition of important matters, introducing a new festival unknown to the
Church, unapproved by reason, unjustified by ancient tradition. Are we
really more learned and more pious than our fathers?


For the full text see message 204
at
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,15456.msg382653.html#msg382653

Thanks, again, Father.

Interesting.  But there have been innumerable threads and posts about the IC, so I don't think I need to take this any further, except to ask you if the opposition you mention might not possibly have been based on some kind of misunderstanding of what was, at the time, being presented?  Perhaps I'm asking the wrong person, though, because, being Orthodox you will almost certainly be opposed to the IC and will see things and understand them through that particular lens, if you know what I mean.  Yes, yes, I know, a Catholic will see it through a different lens  Wink.

I clearly remember one Orthodox priest I knew saying quite unreservedly during a discussion about the IC, that the Orthodox have basically the same understanding of the IC that Catholics do, but just object to it being a formalized, infallible dogma.  Was he wrong?


Absolutely.  It's a superficial answer.  The Orthodox teaching on the immaculate conception is that every human being is conceived in the same spiritual state as the Mother of God.  Pope Benedict, the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, Mrs McGillicuddy, you and me -  all conceived in the identical spiritual state as the Mother of God.

There's the Orthodox teaching.  Ask that Orthodox priest if he denies it? Wink

I've heard more than one say that there is no problem with Orthodox believers accepting the Immaculate Conception as a pious belief.

Provided that the pious belief states that She and all humans are conceived in the same spiritual state, there is no problem.  Provided that pious belief states that there was no exception made for Her. 



I have trouble believing that.

"It's ok to believe in the IC.... as long as you don't ACTUALLY believe it."

 Smiley Cheesy Grin Kiss laugh
Logged
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #68 on: December 05, 2011, 09:20:02 PM »

Nobody but you invokes the McGillicuddies... angel

You have your coterie of Orthodox bishops and theologians.  I have the McGillicuddies.

Meet the McGillicuddies....  laugh

Logged
LBK
Moderated
Merarches
***********
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 10,505


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us!


« Reply #69 on: December 06, 2011, 01:19:06 AM »

Nobody but you invokes the McGillicuddies... angel

You have your coterie of Orthodox bishops and theologians.  I have the McGillicuddies.

Meet the McGillicuddies....  laugh



Oooooh, I'll have three of each, thanks!  Kiss laugh
Logged
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 31,892


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #70 on: December 06, 2011, 01:46:52 AM »

What does the dogma of the Immaculate Conception have to do with a nihil obstat or imprimatur? Huh
Logged
Wyatt
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Posts: 2,395


« Reply #71 on: December 06, 2011, 01:51:26 AM »

Oh wow...how dare we Catholics glorify the Blessed Virgin Mary, mother of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, God the Son Incarnate by dogmatizing key parts of her life which only further give glory to God. What gall!

Here are the words of Saint Bernard of Clairvaux who was rather horrified by the emerging doctrine of the Immaculate Conception

“....the glorification given to the Queen of Heaven demands discernment.
This Royal Virgin does not have need of false glorifications...

For the full text see message 204
at
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,15456.msg382653.html#msg382653

And we all know that St. Bernard does not reflect the teaching of the Church. 

And your point is?...............


But Saint Bernard represents the age old tradition of the Church.  He knew that the emerging doctrine of immaculate conception was an aberration.

My point?  It was a response to Wyatt's comment.
You have no point. Saints can be wrong. You of all people should know that...I mean just ask any Eastern Orthodox about St. Augustine.
Logged
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #72 on: December 06, 2011, 03:05:40 AM »

Oh wow...how dare we Catholics glorify the Blessed Virgin Mary, mother of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, God the Son Incarnate by dogmatizing key parts of her life which only further give glory to God. What gall!

Here are the words of Saint Bernard of Clairvaux who was rather horrified by the emerging doctrine of the Immaculate Conception

“....the glorification given to the Queen of Heaven demands discernment.
This Royal Virgin does not have need of false glorifications...

For the full text see message 204
at
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,15456.msg382653.html#msg382653

And we all know that St. Bernard does not reflect the teaching of the Church.  

And your point is?...............


But Saint Bernard represents the age old tradition of the Church.  He knew that the emerging doctrine of immaculate conception was an aberration.

My point?  It was a response to Wyatt's comment.
You have no point. Saints can be wrong. You of all people should know that...I mean just ask any Eastern Orthodox about St. Augustine.

What a pity that his writings were not examined for a Nihil Obstat.  His errors may never have seen the light of day.
« Last Edit: December 06, 2011, 03:06:22 AM by Irish Hermit » Logged
Wyatt
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Posts: 2,395


« Reply #73 on: December 06, 2011, 02:39:38 PM »

Oh wow...how dare we Catholics glorify the Blessed Virgin Mary, mother of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, God the Son Incarnate by dogmatizing key parts of her life which only further give glory to God. What gall!

Here are the words of Saint Bernard of Clairvaux who was rather horrified by the emerging doctrine of the Immaculate Conception

“....the glorification given to the Queen of Heaven demands discernment.
This Royal Virgin does not have need of false glorifications...

For the full text see message 204
at
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,15456.msg382653.html#msg382653

And we all know that St. Bernard does not reflect the teaching of the Church.  

And your point is?...............


But Saint Bernard represents the age old tradition of the Church.  He knew that the emerging doctrine of immaculate conception was an aberration.

My point?  It was a response to Wyatt's comment.
You have no point. Saints can be wrong. You of all people should know that...I mean just ask any Eastern Orthodox about St. Augustine.

What a pity that his writings were not examined for a Nihil Obstat.  His errors may never have seen the light of day.

Oh if only you learned and intelligent Greeks could have taken him by the hand and guided him to truth.  Roll Eyes
Logged
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #74 on: December 20, 2011, 06:20:49 PM »


My I clearly remember one Orthodox priest I knew saying quite unreservedly during a discussion about the IC, that the Orthodox have basically the same understanding of the IC that Catholics do, but just object to it being a formalized, infallible dogma.  Was he wrong?


Absolutely.  It's a superficial answer.  The Orthodox teaching on the immaculate conception is that every human being is conceived in the same spiritual state as the Mother of God.  Pope Benedict, the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, Mrs McGillicuddy, you and me -  all conceived in the identical spiritual state as the Mother of God.

There's the Orthodox teaching.  Ask that Orthodox priest if he denies it? Wink

Were you able to ask the Orthodox priest?
Logged
J Michael
Older than dirt; dumber than a box of rocks; colossally ignorant; a little crazy ;-)
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine
Posts: 10,032


Lord, have mercy! I live under a rock. Alleluia!


« Reply #75 on: December 20, 2011, 06:28:21 PM »


My I clearly remember one Orthodox priest I knew saying quite unreservedly during a discussion about the IC, that the Orthodox have basically the same understanding of the IC that Catholics do, but just object to it being a formalized, infallible dogma.  Was he wrong?


Absolutely.  It's a superficial answer.  The Orthodox teaching on the immaculate conception is that every human being is conceived in the same spiritual state as the Mother of God.  Pope Benedict, the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, Mrs McGillicuddy, you and me -  all conceived in the identical spiritual state as the Mother of God.

There's the Orthodox teaching.  Ask that Orthodox priest if he denies it? Wink

Were you able to ask the Orthodox priest?

'Fraid not.
Logged

"May Thy Cross, O Lord, in which I seek refuge, be for me a bridge across the great river of fire.  May I pass along it to the habitation of life." ~St. Ephraim the Syrian
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 0.369 seconds with 103 queries.